LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  August 2010

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE August 2010

Subject:

Re: The Moral Obligations of Scientists

From:

Charles Schwartz <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 4 Aug 2010 16:08:17 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (153 lines)

How sweet!

I remember in the late 1960's, trying to raise this very issue within 
the American Physical Society, there was a published letter of 
opposition from Edward Teller. He said that physicists' moral obligation 
was to do good physics and leave advocacy to others. EDWARD TELLER, the 
most politically influential scientist of the 20th century.

Charlie

Phil Gasper wrote:
> Totally banal, but this now seems to be the mainstream debate and at 
> least these guys are on the right side. --PG
>
> http://chronicle.com/article/The-Moral-Obligations-of/123725/
>
> August 1, 2010
>
>
>   The Moral Obligations of Scientists
>
> By John A. Vucetich and Michael P. Nelson
>
> To advocate, or not to advocate? That question is one of the most 
> basic ethical dilemmas facing environmental scientists today, and the 
> answer can embody a scientist's relationship with society and nature.
>
> After nearly a century of consideration, the issue of whether 
> scientists should disseminate and explain their research, and aim to 
> influence public policy, still fuels heated dispute. The debate in 
> general seems at a permanent impasse. The various arguments for and 
> against advocacy span dozens of scholarly papers. Many of those 
> involved speak past one another, portraying recycled assertions as 
> novel logic, often without acknowledging equally familiar 
> counterarguments. In May 2009, the journal /Conservation Biology/ 
> published our extended treatment of the topic, "On Advocacy by 
> Environmental Scientists: What, Whether, Why, and How." For the better 
> part of a year, we studied dozens of papers and critiqued the 
> strengths and weaknesses of each stance for or against advocacy. 
> Defining advocacy as "promoting, developing, or assessing policy 
> positions beyond merely conducting research and communicating results 
> through primarily scientific venues," we found that most positions 
> about advocacy boil down to just a few classes of formal arguments.
>
> We also discovered that every argument against advocacy was found 
> wanting. Specifically:
>
> *Advocacy could hurt the credibility of science or scientists.* Long 
> before she knew the legacy of her work, even the pioneering 
> environmentalist and biologist Rachel Carson endured organized 
> attempts by the chemical industry to harm her credibility. But 
> significant and unjustified damage to one's scientific credibility 
> appears exceptional. The risk, however, is real enough that a 
> scientist would be wise to advocate strategically, but rare enough 
> that a scientist is not justified in refraining from advocacy for fear 
> of damaging his or her credibility.
>
> *Time spent on advocacy takes away from time spent on productive 
> research.* We never found a published paper expressing such a banal 
> sentiment, but we suspect that all too often, this suspicion lurks 
> just beneath the surface. Although it can be challenging, we know how 
> to handle conflicting moral commitments, such as being a productive 
> scientist and an engaged spouse—we just sometimes choose to do 
> otherwise. The challenge of time management is not an adequate excuse.
>
> *Science and advocacy are philosophically incompatible.* That premise 
> appears in various forms. For example: "The purpose of science is to 
> assess fundamentally objective phenomena, and because advocacy is 
> about the assessment of normative phenomena, scientists should not be 
> advocates." Other versions assert that advocacy differs from science 
> because science's purpose is to remain neutral and impartial—to 
> provide facts or information, not policy advice, and to only draw 
> conclusions with a relatively high degree of certainty. Several dozens 
> of papers have been written along those lines in the past two decades, 
> and all of them mischaracterize science and fail to distinguish 
> science from scientists. The fact that science is primarily about 
> assessing empirical propositions does not preclude a scientist, who is 
> also an intelligent human, from assessing normative propositions.
>
> But the failure of these three main arguments against advocacy does 
> not create a successful one in favor of it. That is a separate task.
>
> A few general schools of thought support advocacy:
>
> *Science and advocacy are fundamentally similar.* A popular premise is 
> that advocacy by scientists is acceptable, even inevitable, because 
> science itself is inherently value-laden. In choosing which project to 
> pursue, which methods to employ, and how to interpret the results of 
> research, scientists regularly make­—indeed, they cannot avoid—value 
> judgments. Although we are wise to acknowledge the value of science, 
> we commit the fallacy of composition if we assume that policy advocacy 
> by scientists is justified merely on that basis alone. Moreover, while 
> advocating for the objective analysis of empirical phenomena (i.e., 
> for science) or for clear and rational thought (i.e., for reason) is 
> uncontroversial in all but the most extreme arenas, it is also 
> distinct from advocating for a given policy.
>
> *Scientists are obligated to speak out against major dangers to 
> society, like climate change.* Under certain extreme circumstances, 
> this argument goes, it is reasonable to expect scientists to be 
> advocates. While a legitimate stance, such a justification arbitrarily 
> limits the role of science advocacy to extreme situations. If such 
> advocacy were justified on the basis of averting societal harms, then 
> less pressing but still important societal concerns would also allow 
> for advocacy by scientists.
>
> Scientists have a moral obligation first to be good citizens, second 
> to be good scholars, and third to be good scientists. The most 
> powerful argument we could find in favor of advocacy holds that good 
> citizens in democracies have a moral obligation to advocate to the 
> best of their ability in the interest of helping society.
>
> It is true that some tension exists between advocacy and certain 
> aspects of science. Narrowly construed, science focuses on the 
> assessment of empirical claims, while advocacy focuses on the 
> assessment of policy positions that transcend only-empirical claims. 
> And yes, being an effective advocate probably will take away from time 
> that you might otherwise spend working in the lab, writing papers, or 
> mentoring graduate students.
>
> Still, the commitments to society override one's commitments to 
> science. When scientists reject advocacy as a principle, they reject a 
> fundamental aspect of their citizenship. Because of the nature and 
> depth of their knowledge, they have a special responsibility. It is a 
> perversion of democracy to muffle the voice of the most knowledgeable 
> among us and consequently amplify the voice of those with the greatest 
> ignorance. Silencing scientists who wish to be honest and open 
> advocates promotes mob rule by special interests. Although some might 
> think that scientists have inadequate breadth of knowledge to 
> appropriately engage in advocacy—that only policy makers and managers 
> should enjoy such a privilege—that logic would exclude virtually every 
> citizen from advocacy, a prospect as absurd as it is dangerous.
>
> Surviving in today's research-industrial complex makes it easy to 
> forget that we are scholars first and scientists second. While 
> scientists are committed to objective empiricism, scholars are 
> committed to the rational assessment of ideas. That commitment to 
> rationality implies—indeed, demands—a commitment to advocacy. Broad 
> participation by scientists in advocacy will very likely make for a 
> messy, complicated world. That complexity is justified if the goal is 
> the betterment of society. It is time to stop discussing whether 
> scientists should be advocates and move on to the difficult business 
> of learning how to do so wisely.
>
> /John A. Vucetich is an assistant professor of population ecology at 
> the School of Forest Resources and Environmental Sciences at Michigan 
> Technological University. Michael P. Nelson holds a joint appointment 
> as an associate professor in the departments of fisheries and wildlife 
> and of philosophy at Michigan State University, and in environmental 
> ethics at its Lyman Briggs College./
>
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager