When science gives way to politics
From the LA Times:
|
. . . both [Democrats and Republicans] have agreed, although tacitly, on one thing: Science is the appropriate arbiter of the political debate, and policy decisions should be determined by objective scientific assessments of future risks. This seductive idea gives politicians something to hide behind when faced with divisive decisions. . .
The real scandal illustrated by the [East Anglia] e-mails is not that scientists tried to undermine peer review, fudge and conceal data, and torpedo competitors, but that scientists and advocates on both sides of the climate debate continue to claim political authority derived from a false ideal of pure science. This charade is a disservice to both science and democracy. To science, because the reality cannot live up to the myth; to democracy, because the difficult political choices created by the genuine but also uncertain threat of climate change are concealed by the scientific debate. What is the solution? Let politics do its job; indeed, demand it. . . [AO: Science does not always provide the answers politicians need. In deed, at times the science necessary to address a particular issue is not at the stage where decisions can be reliably premised on scientific conclusions. The writers make the argument that, at times, politicians must rely on other non-scientific means of making decisions in issues that are inherently scientific. This, the writers suggest, is necessary where the politics are divisive and the science is sufficiently complex. But what do the authors mean by “sufficiently complex?” Surely, they don’t mean that even given conclusive scientific evidence regarding a complex scientific issue, politicians should discard the conclusive scientific evidence simply because the issue is divisive. For example, creationism/evolution is a divisive issue. Yet, the scientific evidence is fairly conclusive. Are the writers suggesting that politicians disregard scientific evidence in that debate? What will politicians rely on there? In regards to climate change, the writers recommend that politicians be “clear about the values, interests and beliefs that underpin their preferences and choices about science and policy.” They say that it is “Better to recognize that decision-makers, depending on their political beliefs, will weigh the evidence and risks of climate change differently when evaluating policy options.” But this is something that politicians do whether or not the issue is divisive. Politicians must always weigh competing goals. What science does is provide a basis for weighing the scientifically-supported decision more favorably. Ultimately, climate change, divisive or not, complex or simple, must be treated like any other science issue. The scientific evidence must be allowed to speak for itself and politicians must seriously consider that evidence when making decisions.] |
[But] . . . problems such as climate change are much more scientifically complex than determining the charge on an electron or even the structure of DNA. . . Such science is often not subject to replicable experiments or verification. . . Read the full opinion HERE.
