Speech On The Proper Role Of Science

[Tim Smith]

I have cited Bob Lackey's work and I have to say I agree with much of what is said here.

The proper role of science is to tell society what's true, not to set policy.

From the AFS newsfeed:

What should scientists do? They should do their scientific work and tell us

what they find. But they should not try to tell us what to do.

That, in a nutshell, is the message of one of the preeminent scientists in

the mid-valley, Bob Lackey (AFS member, '64) of the Department of Fisheries

and Wildlife at Oregon State. At least that's the message I took from an

address Professor Lackey delivered before the 141st meeting of the American

Fisheries Society in Seattle on Sept. 5. Copies were distributed online, and

I was lucky to get one.

Lackey has been mentioned in these pages before. A few years ago, he brought

together prominent people in many different pursuits, not all of them

scientists, in the "Salmon 2100" project to see what if anything could be

done to save those wild fish.

In 2005 the people assembled by Lackey concluded that present efforts to

save various threatened or diminished runs of wild salmon are bound to fail

in the face of prevailing trends or factors that are not likely to change.

They recommended some ways that might have a chance of success, such as

setting aside selected river systems as sanctuaries, but as far as I know

these ideas have not been followed up.

In 2008 Lackey retired from the Environmental Protection Agency's research

lab in Corvallis. His career started nearly 50 years ago when he remembers

"mucking out raceways in a trout hatchery."

He remains a professor of fisheries science and an adjunct professor of

political science at OSU. From that combination alone, you realize that he

favors scientists being in the public arena with information on important

questions of the day, but - and that I took to be the message of his Seattle

talk - as scientists and not as advocates.

For instance, he cited the "negative effect" that dams have on wild salmon.

"Hardly a week passes," he said, "that I don't receive an online petition

from an advocacy group asking me, and other scientists, to sign as a show of

support to remove a particular salmon-killing dam for reasons that sound

like science, read like science, are presented by people who cloak

themselves in the accoutrements of science, but who actually are offering

nothing but policy advocacy masquerading as science."

And then this: "Scientists, acting in their role as policy neutral providers

of information, should not decide whether it is more important to use water

to sustain wild salmon, or use the same water to generate electricity to run

air conditioners, or the same water to irrigate alfalfa fields, or the very

same water to make artificial snow at your favorite ski resort."

"There is no scientific imperative to remove, or build, dams," he said.

"Policy imperatives come from people's values and priorities, not from

science."

This advice might usefully be remembered when the subject is to what extent

mankind has influenced climate change.

The science on that point is beyond the detailed understanding of most of

us. What some of us don't like, and resist, is the policy choices that

supposedly are not to be questioned because they are made in the name of

science.

No, they're not. They are political choices, and in a free country they are

open to legitimate debate.

[Al Agnew]

I agree...scientists should give us the science. That would include, perhaps, the potential results of different policy options. For instance, on the dams on salmon rivers, the scientific "facts" would include what was likely to happen to the salmon if a particular dam was removed, as opposed to what would happen to them if it was not. Give out those kinds of facts and let the public and policy makers weigh the options in light of those facts.

The only problem with that is, people have an infinite capacity to ignore or vilify "facts" that don't fit with their preconceived notions or conflict with their own interests. And in a world where there is no longer a news medium that can cover scientific issues in depth or that has much credibility among huge segments of the public, at the same time that one can find a myriad of "news" sources that DO fit their own notions or interests, it means that a lot of the public and the policy makers won't get or accept the science itself. I don't blame sincere, competent scientists who feel they have to be advocates when they see the public either ignoring the science or not believing it. But it probably is counterproductive for the scientist to be an advocate.

[Tim Smith]

And in a world where there is no longer a news medium that can cover scientific issues in depth or that has much credibility among huge segments of the public, at the same time that one can find a myriad of "news" sources that DO fit their own notions or interests, it means that a lot of the public and the policy makers won't get or accept the science itself. I don't blame sincere, competent scientists who feel they have to be advocates when they see the public either ignoring the science or not believing it. But it probably is counterproductive for the scientist to be an advocate.

A lot of this boils down to being honest about what you're doing.

If your job (like Bob Lackey's) pays you specifically for objective information, he and others like him shouldn't step out of that role.

I would say though, that now that he's retired....why not?

[exiledguide]

A lot of this boils down to being honest about what you're doing.

If your job (like Bob Lackey's) pays you specifically for objective information, he and others like him shouldn't step out of that role.

I would say though, that now that he's retired....why not?

So then guys like Galileo, Pastuer, Fleming, Salk, etc should have just issued their papers and shut up! But don't walk too far are you will fall off the edge of the earth and the universe revolves around the earth, and washing hands between surgeries was an insult to surgeons because everyone new that illness was punishment for sin and polio vacine was a communist plot to take over the minds of our childen. Everyone of those scientist had to fight the estalished government church approved science.

[Tim Smith]

So then guys like Galileo, Pastuer, Fleming, Salk, etc should have just issued their papers and shut up! But don't walk too far are you will fall off the edge of the earth and the universe revolves around the earth, and washing hands between surgeries was an insult to surgeons because everyone new that illness was punishment for sin and polio vacine was a communist plot to take over the minds of our childen. Everyone of those scientist had to fight the estalished government church approved science.

You have some valid points, and those are good examples of scientists with important discoveries, but there are some big differences between fisheries policy and astronomy in the Galileo's time and 19th and 20th century medicine.

Galileo was fighting for the truth of his science, not policy. Heliocentrism never had any policy to influence. He doesn't help your example much.

Pasteur and Fleming also lived during a time when science was still a fledgling pursuit and the mechanisms available to take new knowledge and turn it into laws were quite a bit different than they are not. If they didn't do advocacy, who would (although I'm not sure exactly what advocacy they actually did, perhaps you can enlighten us there)?

Salk won his battle against the crazies in the first half of the 20th century, although later became a bit of a crazy himself when he side-stepped peer review and decided that megadoses of vitamin C could cure just about everything that ails you. I'm not sure his full career is a positive example about how to apply science.

Modern environmental policy is a well developed field with a large number of practicioners. Bob Lackey doesn't have to build the bridge from facts to policy because there are people out there to do that already. His role is to be absolutely certain and honest and careful about the salmon and defend THAT. Similarly, you can squish the more ridiculous denial claims on "the subject which must not be mentioned" without being a champion of carbon credits (for instance). Those are 2 different things entirely.