... A bygone age. (Hat tip, Maxine Clarke.)
Maxine cites this paragraph:
So, what to conclude from all this? One thing that strikes me is that people back then seemed much more willing to debate issues in the open — the arguments about rust had been rumbling on for weeks, with many disagreements and new revelations appearing all the time. Somehow, that doesn’t seem to happen so much now. Have scientists become more secretive, or polite? Or is research nowadays more competitive, so that people are less inclined to disclose their results freely?
I think the problem is that many scientists nowadays are not disinterested enough. Like journalists, they want to shape policy. But science isn't about shaping policy - and journalism shouldn't be. Underlying this is a lack of faith in the good judgment of the citizenry: We should only let them know what we think they should know. Don't want to muddle their poor brains with too much information, especially if that only highlights how complex problems can be.
Scientists are scientists by profession but they are also people. Their science is published in the peer reviewed literature, and as you say this does not concern policy issues.
ReplyDeleteHowever, scientists as "people" are of course interested in the world, and want to comment on it, as we all do. Being scientists gives them insight on issues relating to science, be it the environment, health or education. I think such comments are just as valid as anyone else's (editorial writers in newspapers for example).
I think organisations like the IPCC, various ethical committees and so on are a good way to address these issue -- these bodies tend to contain some scientists and some people from other walks of life - religious, "lay", politics etc. Their job is to look at the peer-reviewed literature and other concerns, and to try to reach some reasonable consensus or advice on matters such as what is happening to our climate, what we should do about reproductive technology (where the line should be drawn) and so on.
This seems to me a useful way to harness the specialist knowledge of scientists, while keeping the actual results of science (peer reviewed articles) "ring fenced" from concerns about what we do about it.
I would hate to live in a world where scientists have no voice in shaping our society, and I had to rely on the likes of leader-writers or politicians eager for votes and hence liable to all kinds of influences (eg lobbying by multinationals and other industries), neither of these groups being breeds that I respect as much as many scientists and doctors.
You'll hear no defense from me, Maxine, of editorial writers. And of course scientists have as much right as anyone else to policy opinions. I too would hate to live in a world where scientists had no voice in shaping society. But I worry about those who, knowing one thing well, assume that they know other things just as well. And I am, of course, constitutionally suspicious of bureaucratic committees and panels.
ReplyDeleteI suppose most of the scientists I know and have met in my life (many) are basically only interested in one thing in life to the exclusion of most other things-- that is, the scientific problem that their curiosity is driving them to solve.
ReplyDeleteI hate bureacracy too, Frank, but in an era of complexity and technology, I guess you need to have some kind of check/balance system.