JLVernonPhD presents "American SciCo"

Occasionally, an exchange with a commenter leads to a conversation that I feel is worth sharing.  This conversation emerged from my recent post on “Hausergate.”  I decided to express some of my deepest beliefs (especially in my final comment), so I thought I would share it with you (with few changes from the original).  I don’t know if this is poor blogging etiquette, but here goes. Thanks for the conversation, Adrian. 

Commenter:
I wonder, do you think it would be possible to establish career scientists with professional accreditations maintained by specific regulatory agencies? If doctors can be sued for malpractice, it makes sense to me that a scientist who communicates a false claim that many of his/her most concurrent peers would disagree with, should he/she not be punished formally?
 
Right now our methods of punishment consist primarily of self-policing, but I feel like scientists are the only ones truly grasping the issue and the media has no interest in communicating the story beyond the initial, “OMG FAIL SCIENTIST” moment.
 
The biggest obstacle I see: when the data is insufficient to give a clear answer, then we can’t fault scientists for having different opinions on contentious issues. Having said that, if issues are contentious, shouldn’t scientists be working at the bench rather than spreading fears they can’t confirm or deny?
 
JLVernon:
Thanks for your comment. Your suggestion to create a regulatory agency to manage the integrity of science is intriguing, however it is unsustainable. Here’s why. No governing body could possibly be sufficiently informed about every scientific discipline that exists. The body of knowledge is simply too large to be managed by a single agency. Ultimately, you would have to create thousands of small committees to oversee the researchers in all the different disciplines. In the end you will find that the current system actually accomplishes this at the peer review level of publication and in the funding agencies. What you propose is the antithesis of science. Science expands so rapidly that, in my opinion, only the experts in a given field can regulate others within the same field. Thus, we are left with this phenomenon of self-policing. Fortunately, it works (as I have presented in this post).
Now if you are concerned about the punishment for bogus science, no worries there either. Dr. Hauser will be more than sufficiently punished for his violations. He will be stripped of his funding and he will surely lose much of his personal credibility with the scientific community. However, even a corrupted scientist can produce good research, because the data never lie. That, as I said in my post, is the beauty of science. If his results cannot be reproduced or if they are contradicted, they will not remain as part of the scientific consensus.
 
Your second point about contentious issues is also insightful, however I presume you are referring to the climate issue. The problem here is that the issue is not contentious among the experts. The scientific consensus is based on years and years of data that supports the conclusions regarding anthropogenic global warming. It is when a small few, choose to challenge the consensus that we must ask the question, “What is your expertise and where is your data to contradict the consensus?” In the case of AGW, the denialists do not have sufficient data to override the consensus. This same argument can be applied to evolution, autism and many other “contentious” issues.
 
Now if you are referring to less established scientific issues, I completely agree that scientists should be at the bench trying to answer the questions within the debate. For AGW, though, the data is already there, it’s just a matter of choosing the appropriate policy response to prevent a disaster. That’s not “spreading fears.” That’s simply responding to overwhelming data.
Thanks again for your comment.
Cheers,
JV
 
Commenter:
Oh and I found your response about a potential governing body in science helpful; I agree that ultimately policing science from a “big brother” level is untenable. So do you think we could exert a tighter control on *how* scientists communicate with the public? It seems that when scientists speak out of peer review, or take their opinions to the public scale without a host of their most immediate peers to support them, they might be abusing the power accorded to them by their profession. Do you think that’s a fair statement to make?
 
Thanks again, very insightful stuff for a young grad student to take in!
 
JLVernon:
Currently, we have a great need for scientists to engage the public. I wouldn’t want to suppress that by initiating a regulatory body for this either. I believe scientists are largely aware of the potential damage they can do to their professional careers if they “communicate” false information. Presumably, if a scientist is officially communicating with the public, it should not be an issue of opinion. It is surely some message that derives from conclusions drawn from their research or the larger “body of knowledge” on which they are considered an expert. I think the conflict to which you are referring relates to the role scientists play in discussing policy. In most cases, scientists will leave policy decisions to the policy analysts/makers. However, in certain circumstances, the scientist may have knowledge of evidence-based policies that might have an impact on the particular scientific problem. For example, an environmental scientist may have done research on the impact of oil on an ecosystem. This scientist may also have done research on best practices for removing the oil from the ecosystem. In these cases, the scientist can speak to the impact and the ultimate solution in the event of an oil spill. In many cases, there may be only 1 or 2 scientists in the world who have the necessary knowledge and experience in dealing with these situations so there is no peer set to support them. We have to trust the science and the scientists. The meritocracy that creates scientific leaders should give us confidence in those who are chosen to communicate with the public. Trust is of utmost importance to scientific authority, which is why the current theme of my blog is to preserve the “Science” brand that gives us the authority to comment on evidence-based topics.
 
Commenter:
Actually, I was listening to a radio show on New York Public Radio, and the example I had in mind was the two scientists who proposed that failures in initial hadron collider set-up tests indicated we might be sabotaging ourselves from the future. Found here.
 
The article outlines that this has notion has been aggressively debunked by a number of science bloggers and physicists, but ultimately, the effect these two scientists may have had on the public’s perception of the hadron collider could be substantial. Just looking up “Sabotage Hadron Collider From Future” gives me 12,900 results in Google.
 
Although theorizing is a very important aspect of physics, this just seems like damaging conjecture to me, as an outside observer of the field.
 
Since the public’s perception of these projects is important to guaranteeing their political support (and therefore, longterm success), small blips on the radar like this are damaging to the reputation of the, “Science Brand”, as you’ve aptly dubbed it. Even if we push these people out of academia by stripping their funding, we still can’t erase the damage done by their temporarily damaging outburst.
 
This extends to scientists who, even when stripped of their academic status, continue to broadcast unproven claims for profit, or personal gain. Once people are outside academia, the power of science policing is degraded since it can be very confusing for the non-scientist (and I’m sure, some scientists too) to discern between intelligent marketing and good science. That’s what I’m worried about.
 
JLVernon:
This is an ongoing problem with science communication. In your example, I largely fault the radio show for not properly vetting the scientists. If these scientists were accredited, I would ask whether they are challenging the scientific consensus. If so, then the reporter/interviewer should consider the ulterior motives that may be behind the “scientists” comments. Usually, opposition to the scientific consensus serves some special interest such as oil companies, religious groups, insurance companies, etc. I don’t know why there are people who oppose the hadron collider other than they actually believe scientists will destroy the world by running it. Nor does the University of Oxford.

This debate over how to improve science representation in the media is currently being waged in the science communication world and there is no clear solution. I hold the media largely responsible for using a “balanced” approach to scientific controversies, including the hadron collider, climate change, evolution, etc. Clearly, the opinion of a single dissenter is not equal to that of 1000 scientists who have data to support their arguments. The current media methodology is incapable of dealing with the nuances of scientifically complex issues. Until the media get serious about reporting science appropriately, scientists will have to work hard to ensure evidence-based arguments drown out opinion-based arguments.
Of course, there is also the general issue of scientific illiteracy among the public. Currently, science communicators are trying to find ways to improve this as well. Most of the methods try to avoid requiring the public to be “trained up” and focus instead on what scientists can do to more effectively communicate science to the public. What we have learned is that in many cases it is not an issue of understanding as much as it is an issue of the public trying to reconcile the scientific facts with their personal beliefs and values. When science conflicts with an individuals values and beliefs, the individual has to choose which of the two he/she trusts more. In many cases, [especially those that impact religion] they choose the side that contradicts science. Then we have a more complex problem.
 
If the facts say one thing, but your beliefs tell you another then which policies do you support? Do you support policies that are based on the facts? Or do you support policies that agree with your beliefs? This is a difficult problem. Obviously, it would be easy to say leave it to the experts. But, in some cases, like Yucca mountain, the expert opinions might put nuclear waste in your backyard. And, even though the scientists have evidence to suggest that you will be safe, it just doesn’t feel good. At this point, we have to ask what are limits of democracy? At what point should the government supersede your right to “feel” good about their decisions?  I would argue that if the science is based on evidence, the government must follow the science in nearly all cases.
 
Of course, there are issues where this becomes very difficult and people would disagree with me. I’m comfortable with that. In those cases, it becomes a decision that is made at the ballot box, because ultimately it is a political decision. However, this adds another dimension to the problem for scientists. For those of us who rely on science to solve problems that affect society, we must find a way to connect science to the values of the public. I don’t think this is a difficult concept. I just think scientists aren’t very good at it, yet. This is where I find that certain bloggers and “scientists” hurt the science brand. Rather than working with us to connect with the public by demonstrating that scientists share the same values with the public, these people drive a wedge between scientists and the public. They do this by using antagonistic debate tactics and by hurling insults. I believe this is an ineffective way to form a cooperative relationship with the public and contribute to the implementation of evidence-based policies. That’s why I started my blog. I felt someone needed to address these issues.
 
There are many blogs like mine that speak to these issues. Some of which use distasteful tactics to attack denialists and some that are more tactful. I encourage you to seek out “evidence-based” policy solutions, etc. Also, since you are a grad student, I recommend that you check out the Scientists and Engineers for America website.