Bishop Hill Science and power
Apr 13, 2015 Academia Climate: Parliament Ethics A fascinating speech by New Zealand chemist Nicola Gaston on the subject of scientists relationship to the public reveals someone who is thinking deeply about the trials and tribulations of publically funded scientists and the role that power plays. I don't think she is quite there, but this certainly represents a step forward.
Gaston notes firstly that politicians have power over scientists in a way that often prevents the latter from speaking freely, but then moves on to consider the power that scientists have over the public:
[T]he use of expertise — or rather, the misuse of academic status as a proxy for expertise on a particular question of public interest, is an exercise of power. The exercise of such power is at its most blatant when it happens along the lines of ‘trust me, I’m a scientist’ and at its most useful when the scientist involved is willing to explain the science. But there is always a power dynamic in any form of science communication, and understanding that has to be a prerequisite to doing it well.
Of course this is precisely the dynamic that the Manns and the Maslins and their "supporters in higher places" have been seeking to exploit since the very beginning.
The use of science as a battering ram to achieve political ends is a worrying development, but not really one than Gaston's talk touches on. This is a pity because she expresses concern about scientists receiving unwelcome attention from politicians:
Climate scientists have previously been subject to interference from the right of the political spectrum (e.g. the Attorney General of Virginia’s 2010 investigation of the research behind the Hockey Stick, under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act); it is a relatively recent development that now sees democratic senators digging into the funding of scientists who have published work critical of some work on climate change, among them, Roger Pielke himself.
Such tactics, she says, "hollow out the reasonable middle ground". But the problem is that if political action is going to be demanded on the basis of scientific findings then the standards of openness that science has previously accepted are no longer going to be adequate. If public policy measures are going to be demanded then the public have a right to have these demands examined in forensic detail. The argument that FOI should not apply to scientists' data and correspondence in the way it applies to other civil servants is, to put it bluntly, risible. Does anyone seriously expect Republican and Conservative politicians to roll over and accept that science demands the widespread adoption of socialism without being able to examine or question the alleged evidence? Are we really arguing that science should become a way of sidestepping the democratic process and that scientists should not be accountable to the public that pays their salaries?
Make no mistake, that is what the scientivists want.
Reader Comments (26)
"Climate scientists have previously been subject to interference from the right of the political spectrum"?
Surely not.
Must have been a false flag operation, right?
I wonder if the wrong end of the telescope is being applied here? Probably no-one will disagree that over the last 50 or so years in the west has emerged a professional political class. These are people on short-term employment contracts who are usually pretty desperate to have their contracts renewed (via a device called an 'election'). Part of that desperation involves risk-minimisation, avoiding responsibility for anything going wrong: ideally, blaming someone else. So we have moved from 'advisors advise, ministers decide', to 'the experts told me to do it, so its not my fault so carry on voting for me'. In short, politicians absolutely need the scientific class to be onside, providing cover for decisions which might turn out badly.
Academic freedom was introduced to protect academics who exercise power.
In 1940, the American Association of University Professors argued that academics should only comment in public on areas of their expertise.
[T]he use of expertise — or rather, the misuse of academic status as a proxy for expertise on a particular question of public interest, is an exercise of power.
As part of the drive to Obamacare ...
U.S. President Barack Obama speaks from the Rose Garden during an event with medical doctors at the White House on October 5, 2009 in Washington, DC. Obama met with [sic] doctors from all over the country who are joining him in pushing for health insurance reform.
http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/TIsMQcDki7k/Obama+Meet+Doctors+Across+Health+Care+Reform/nccTi-e-75V
The picture is worth several thousand words.
Medical Professionals do not have broad knowledge about politics or the economics of healthcare -- they are experts in diagnosing and treating the sick. And they don't normally wear their white coats outside the office.
If public policy measures are going to be demanded then the public have a right to have these demands examined in forensic detail. The argument that FOI should not apply to scientists' data and correspondence in the way it applies to other civil servants is, to put it bluntly, risible.
I think that a failure to appreciate this has been the cause of a lot of aggravation in the Climate Science Community. The public doesn't give a toss about probably 90% (or should that be 97%) of academic science because it has almost no immediate consequence on their lives. Fundamental work on particle physics may have lead to the MRI scanner and the mobile phone but no one cared at the time. It wasn't until useful products appeared that anyone was interested. So if Professor A was metaphorically kicking the crap out of Professor B or stabbing Professor C in the back nobody (other than professors B & C) cared.
BUT climate science is very, very different since it is demanding fundamental changes to our way of life and digging great holes in our bank balances. This means that the public expect much higher standards from the scientists and much greater transparency. "I won't tell you because you might find fault with it" or "the work you paid for is mine and I won't share it" won't cut it anymore.
Climate scientists need to grow up or in the words of our North American friends they need to put on some big boy pants
Arthur, I agree that the public couldn't care less about most academic disputes because the results are rarely obviously and directly effecting them.
Apart from the climate though I would make another big exception for medicine, where wrong, and viciously defended, orthodoxies can have disastrous effects on both the health and finances of the public.
On occasion, people have asked Steve McIntyre, the Bishop etc what they would do with themselves if CAGW collapsed. I have always suggested that they could find more than enough to do in the medical field if they were so inclined.
Over 20 years, untold tax billions having been funnelled into featherng the state's nest by fomenting alarmism, and Gubulgaria worries about the occasional comment from politicians who don't buy into the official climate religion.
@Tuppence
I'm not in the least worried about right-wing politicians outing themselves as science deniers.
What I'm worried about is Harper's government stopping scientists from talking to the press, Bush's government 'amending' studies to remove climate change, the governor of Florida banning all mention of climate change, North Carolina legislating to ignore sea-level rise, that sort of thing.
Public climate scepticism is just a useful 'teaching moment', it's the science denial behind the scenes which worries me.
@Gubulgaria can you give us a link/s to a site substantiating your 3 claims. Ta
@stewgreen
Four claims.
Harper, Bush jnr, Florida and N. Carolina.
And no, I don't have time to get you links, but if you let me know which one of the four you find least plausible, I'll get you a link for that one.
artwest
And Andrew didn't start this as a climate blog in the first place.
I'm sure he would just love the opportunity to spend more time with his family and McIntyre would doubtless be equally delighted not to be fisking some of the more inane and occasionally downright dishonest reports or comments that emanate from the underbelly of the climate science community.
I would also spend more time in my garden and likewise Phillip Bratby for one would almost certainly be rather doing anything other than spending time arguing the toss about wind power at public enquiries and David Holland wouldn't need to spend his time in the depths of Northampton trying to persuade civil servants that there is no good reason why the deliberations of pseudo-scientific hacks should be kept secret ...
Oh yes! We could all find a lot to occupy ourselves if only, if only ...
Integrity is the key word for me, it is the "duty" (according to the Law of Integrity) for scientists not to portray a false impression of their subject, i.e. indicate areas of uncertainty and don't pontificate about aspects you know little about.
There should be a fear in scientists of being thought of as having an integrity deficit, it should be the seniors who police this and call out those who break the Law of Integrity.
What to do when this breaks down, e.g. with seniors like Bengtsson and Dyson being ignored/vilified? The paymasters (i.e. us) must do the policing.
I would start with the obvious consequence of a scientist declaring "consensus", he/she should be sacked, we expect scientists to continually question any consensus, that is what proper scientists do.
She complains about this part of the UK Civil Service Code:
"...“All contacts with the media should be authorised in advance by the relevant Minister unless a specific delegation or dispensation has been agreed which may be for blocks of posts or areas of activities. The Civil Service Code applies to all such contacts. Civil Servants must at all times observe discretion and express comment with moderation, avoiding personal attacks.“..."
saying that it stops scientists from issuing timely warnings.
That staggers me. It is quite normal for Civil Servants not to speak to the media on any topic unless directly authorised. indeed, it is standard practice for ANY employee to be forbidden from speaking to the media except through authorised channels. Why does she think that government-employed scientists should be treated any differently?
DG
I think the answer to your question lies in the concept of "government-employed scientist".
Most scientists (and I suspect the public at large would agree with them) would argue that they are not "employed" by the government just as most medical practitioners would deny that they are "employed" by the government even though they work for and are paid by the government/taxpayer.
It's a fine line.
MJ, the "depths of Northampton" aren't quite that bad. When there was free parking for Christmas shoppers the (now weekly) local paper ran with the headline "Take That, Milton Keynes".
:)
I lived in Northampton for the first six months after I got married. Lovely place. I wouldn't dream of knocking it though I suspect it's not quite the same as it was in the 1960s!
This post reminds me of Eisenhower's warning:
“The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.” –Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
Liberals are quick to point to his warning about the "Military-Industrial Complex," but have totally forgotten this part of his speech.
I have been reading a bit about the discovery of dinosaurs and geological timings in the nineteenth century.
In the 1820s the members of The Royal Society reaffirmed the old rule that The Society would NOT take a position on any matter. Yet in 1860 the President (Thompson, later Lord Kelvin) used his position to enter debate about the age of the Earth, and claimed it could not be more that 100 million years old. The geologists were outright sceptical, and rejected his call. Lord Kelvin was a giant of science but he was very wrong, and lived to see the geologists right.
The problem is the out dated view of a scientist as some superior intelligence who is always right on any question. Politicians who have no knowledge of scientists treat them as oracles and expect definite answers. The first answer the politician likes is treated as "settled science" and becomes policy.
Gubulgaria is worried about scientists being restricted in speaking to the Media, but he doesn't realise that these days the media have their own political aims and will use any gullible third raters with wild predictions to make a story. He sees a 'right wing attack on freedom' because of his political views. Others might see it as an attempt to rein in wild, unsupported claims aimed at alarming the public.
Gubulgaria, A "science denier"?? - All science??
(Excuse me for feeding the troll).
saying that it stops scientists from issuing timely warnings.
That staggers me. It is quite normal for Civil Servants not to speak to the media on any topic unless directly authorised. indeed, it is standard practice for ANY employee to be forbidden from speaking to the media except through authorised channels. Why does she think that government-employed scientists should be treated any differently?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on, Dodgy One.
It is not up to Government scientists to issue "timely warnings." They are not oracles, just ordinary people who have an aptitude (hopefully) for science.
It is up to them to convince their elected masters that "warnings" should be issued, and to show their work to anyone who asks for it.
The IPCC process has been political from the beginning. The goal was to get politicians to speak as if they understood science, and scientists to speak as though they have considered policy alternatives (such as sources of energy or food), with major pros and cons, costs and benefits, etc. Evidence that would justify drastic action is painfully thin--yet it is good enough for the politicians. The policy analysis is infantile at best (we like what we like), but it is exciting for scientists to be in the media, and well funded. Now we are told that the biggest problem in the politics-science interface arises when "right-wingers" interfere with science itself, or with scientific communication with the public. That shows a focus on minor skirmishes rather than the big picture.
Apr 13, 2015 at 11:03 AM Richard Tol
Who defines what “expertise” is?
The best xenobiologist still knows nothing as we haven't found life on Mars. Considering the failings of the climate model projections the analogy is obvious.
Who defines what the scope of the expertise is?
Even if a scientist could predict the weather in a hundred years’ time (on average - winning bets) are they qualified to discuss the costs of mitigation?
Can we rely on a cross-functional group of economists, climatologists, ethicists and lawyers (they get everywhere - let's just admit it) to cover all the required knowledge? Who determines the boundaries and selects the experts.
We're back with politicians again. In the end, they hold the purse-strings. They have the power.
Expertise is subject to funding - a crackpot in a patent office would not get taken seriously in any field that is not purely theoretical. And such fields are hardly funded anyway.
Apr 13, 2015 at 11:03 AM | Speed
==============================
Yeah - but they (the medical professionals) know when somebody is proposing to shovel money into their pockets...
Mike Jackson:
I'm not suggesting for a second that anyone involved in combating CAGW ought to do be doing anything. Any rest would be extremely well-deserved. I was merely pointing out that the world of science is not short of other battles worth fighting if anyone felt like it.
Which is why I deliberately said "if they were so inclined" in my original comment.
Gubulgaria
I'm with North Carolina, just taking Wilmington North Carolina the NOAA data says that the sea level rise is
Looking at the NOAA graph the rate seems to have been pretty steady since the 1930s..
Similarly Charleston North Carolina,
As measurements show no increase in rate of rise (acceleration), and other data suggests this is a continuing rise since the end of the LIA. I'd be interested in a link and your reasons why this is a bad thing.
Post on discussion rather than hijacking this thread, thank you.
Oh stop pretending Gulbulgaria.
Hundreds of billions of tax dollars over 20+ years poured into one-sided climate 'science' propaganda (Climategate revealed exactly how this 'science' is conducted) doesn't bother you, but a handful of comments and doubtless ineffective directives from some non-credulous politicians, and you feign 'worry'. Paleez.