by Judith Curry
In late February, Sir Paul Nurse, president of the Royal Society, gave the Dimbleby Lecture for the BBC. There are some good statements in his address, but here I focus on his statements about the relationship between science and society.
Some excerpts:
Implicit in this approach is that scientific knowledge evolves. Early on in a scientific study knowledge is often tentative, and it is only after repeated testing that it becomes increasingly secure. It is this process that makes science reliable, but it takes time. This can lead to problems when scientists are called upon to give advice on issues when the science is not yet complete. We see this every day in the newspapers – whether breast implants are safe or what foods are good or bad. The public want clear and simple answers but sometimes that is not possible.
JC comment: in such instances (which are almost certainly to be more likely than not for policy relevant issues), the most important thing that scientists can do is clearly explain the levels and types of uncertainty and areas of ignorance. The answers to such questions, even if knowledge is relatively complete, are rarely black or white, good or bad. E.g. flip flopping on which foods are good vs bad (e.g. margarine) results in people generally ignoring such ‘answers.’
It is impossible to achieve complete certainty on many complex scientific problems, yet sometimes we still need to take action. The sensible course is to turn to the expert scientists for their consensus view. When doctors found I had blockages in the arteries around my heart I asked them for their expert view as to what I should do. They recommended a bypass, I took their consensus advice, and here I am. That is how science works.
JC comment: The heart specialist analogy seems to be a popular one lately for climate scientists in defending the consensus, which was discussed previously in the context of the dueling WSJ editorials. Arguments against this analogy for climate science are that it is the patient’s right to seek a second opinion and to refuse the recommended treatment. A comment from Geronimo on BishopHill is insightful:
Doctors are not expert scientists, they are practitioners and the reason they recommended a bypass was because they’d seen it succeed many times before. It wasn’t a consensus view, the doctors didn’t vote on it, it was a view taken from experience. If Sir Paul had asked the same doctors a hundred years ago they’d have suggested something completely different and he’d have probably died.
Back to Nurse’s lecture:
These are issues of crucial significance, but can only be properly addressed if we enjoy a healthy relationship between science and society. Scientists need to identify issues early, and to encourage open debate about the implications and consequences of scientific and technological advances. Such debates will sometimes be difficult, but they must take place. This is essential if we are to have a society that is comfortable with science and that can reap the benefits it can bring.
JC comment: I certainly agree with this paragraph, but this is very difficult to reconcile this with the arguments for needing a consensus.
Today the world faces major problems. Some uppermost in my mind are food security, climate change, global health and making economies sustainable, all of which need science. It is critical for our democracy to have mature discussions about these issues. But these debates are sometimes threatened by a misinformed sense of balance and inappropriate headlines in the media, which can give credence to views not supported by the science, and by those who distort the science with ideology, politics, and religion.
JC comment: the perceived need for a scientific consensus leads to the situation whereby any disagreement with the consensus is mistakenly viewed as arising from ideology, politics and consensus. In reality, politics comes in when solutions are discussed, and a scientific consensus that is married to a specific policy option precludes having a mature discussion about these issues.
Another great challenge for the world is climate change. Discussions in this area impinge on politics, commercial interests and strongly held opinions, and these influences have distorted the scientific debate. Solutions needed to counter global warming are likely to require more concerted world action, regulating the activities of the individual, of industry, and of the nation state, and such restrictions are an anathema to some with particular political and economic viewpoints. Equally those of an opposite viewpoint may exaggerate the extent of future global warming because of their affinities towards greater regulation and world government.
JC comment: relating such solutions to a scientific consensus is the source of the political dispute.
Many features important for good science are well embedded in the UK. We have a tradition of respect for empiricism, emphasising reliable observation and experiment. Most importantly, science in the UK is carried out in a culture of openness and freedom. This should never be underestimated. The scientific endeavour is at its most successful when there is freedom of thought. Scientists need to be able to freely express doubts . . .
The new enlightenment to be sceptical about established orthodoxy, and must not be too strongly directed from the top, which stifles creativity.
JC comment: these are strong and important statements. But again, they are difficult to reconcile with his previous statements regarding consensus when the science is not yet complete, and then his concern with a misinformed sense of balance that distorts the science with ideology, politics, and religion.
Science will also be required to develop new ways of producing energy that are environmentally less damaging. Renewables like wind, wave, tidal and solar should be evaluated, putting vested interests aside, to determine what is effective. The same applies to nuclear power where science is needed to properly assess the risks and benefits. It is not sensible to respond in a knee-jerk way without evaluation of data concerning real environmental damage and health risks, as against perceived damage and risks.
JC comment: a good statement, that gets neglected in the “urgency” of adressing the climate problem.
Nature editorial
An editorial in Nature responded to Nurse’s lecture, particularly this last point, entitled Political Science, with the subtitle The practice of science cannot be, nor should it be, apolitical.
Paul Nurse, president of Britain’s Royal Society, does not think he is sitting in an ivory tower, and he has made it clear that he considers that scientists have duties to fulfil and battles to fight beyond the strictly scientific — for example to “expose the bunkum” of politicians who abuse and distort science. This was evident again last week, when Nurse delivered the prestigious Dimbleby Lecture in London, instituted in memory of the British broadcaster Richard Dimbleby.
“The practice of science is inherently political.”
. . . although political (and religious) ideology has no place in deciding scientific questions, the practice of science is inherently political. In that sense, science can never come before politics. Scientists everywhere enter into a social contract, not least because they are not their own paymasters. Much, if not most, scientific research has social and political implications, often broadly visible from the outset. In times of crisis (like the present), scientists must respond intellectually and professionally to the challenges facing society, and not think that safeguarding their funding is enough.
But we must take care to distinguish the political immunity of scientific reasoning from the political dimensions and obligations of doing science.
JC comments: It seems that scientists, even those in the uppermost that are engaged in the policy process, can have an understanding of the relationship between science and politics and the science-policy interface that is contradictory and perhaps at odds with the expectations/needs of policy makers and the public. Paul Nurse gets credit for grappling with this important and difficult issue, but his talk exposes many issues that have contributed to the growing dysfunction at the climate science-policy interface.
Scientists taking government funding to support their research do enter a social contract with the government, whether individual scientists are aware of this or not. The key challenge IMO is articulated in this statement in Nature op-ed:
But we must take care to distinguish the political immunity of scientific reasoning from the political dimensions and obligations of doing science.