Role of scientists in society

Pielke spells out the choices scientists must make if they wish “to play a positive role in policy and politics and contribute to the sustainability of the scientific process.” He lists four “idealized roles” scientists can adopt, each of which reflects assumptions about the nature of science and democratic policymaking.

1. The pure scientist, is concerned with science for its own sake and seeks only to uncover scientific truths, regardless of their policy implications. Such a scientist has no direct connection with the policymaking process; he is content to remain cloistered in his lab while others hash out policy.

2. The second idealized role for scientists in policymaking is less detached: the science arbiter is a bit more engaged with the practical world, providing answers to policymakers’ scientific questions. He wants to ensure that science is relevant to policymaking, but in a disinterested way. He does not wish to influence the direction of policy; it is enough to know that policymakers will make decisions informed by accurate scientific assessments.

3. The third role in Pielke’s typology is the issue advocate, who pays more direct attention to policy, using science as a tool to move it in the direction he prefers. He may work for an overt advocacy organization, such as a think tank, trade association, or environmental activist group, or his advocacy may be more covert. In either case, he seeks to marshal scientific evidence and arguments in support of a specific cause.

4. Finally, the honest broker is attentive to policy alternatives but seeks to inform policy, not direct it. “The defining characteristic of the honest broker of policy alternatives,” Pielke explains, “is an effort to expand (or at least clarify) the scope of choice for decision-making in a way that allows for the decision-maker to reduce choice based on his or her own preferences and values.” The honest broker’s aim is not to dictate policy outcomes but to ensure that policy choices are made with an understanding of the likely consequences and relevant tradeoffs. Like the issue advocate, the honest broker explicitly engages in the decision-making process, but unlike the issue advocate, the honest broker has no stake or stated interest in the outcome.

This is based on the book:
The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science and Policy in Politics

Roger A. Pielke, Jr.
Cambridge 2007


More review and comments on this book here: [The Link]

Resistance and Acceptance of Scientific Ideas

The bad news for science supporters boils down to a single sentence from a recent report by Yale Psychology professor Paul Bloom: "Some resistance to scientific ideas is a human universal." This resistance, Bloom reports in the May issue of Science, comes from the tendency for the young human mind to see the world as "designed" and to see the brain as separate from the physical body, both of which are traditional tenets of religion. Science has tried to refute both ideas with the concept of evolution and the argument that the "mind" is a chemical process in the brain.

....

Meanwhile, most adults accept scientific beliefs more because of authority figures than understanding. Take electricity. Most people don't know how electrons, circuits, and alternating currents work, but they "believe" in electricity nevertheless. Electricity turns on the lights. "You can't know everything, life's too short," Bloom said. "There's nothing wrong with an educated deference [to authority]."

More about this here: [The Link]

Importance of Team work in Research

Given the centrality of work teams, it is more than a bit remarkable how much our society's perspective is focused on the individual. We school our children as individuals. We hire, train and reward employees as individuals. Yet we have great faith that individuals thrown into a team that has been put together with little thought devoted to its composition, training, development and leadership will be effective and successful. Science strongly suggests otherwise.


More of this from the Scientific American Article from June 2007 issue

Values a researcher or a scientist strive for

Normative principles of science: A principle is normative if people publicly endorse it and there is a system of rewards and punishments for enforcing it .

As described in David Resnik in his book, Price of Truth

These principles are guidelines rather than absolute rules.
These are the principles that a scientist should value and strive for.

Eithcal Principles/normls/guidelines
Honesty: Be honest in all scientific communications. Do not fabricate, falsify or misrepresent data or results, do not plagiarize.

Carefulness: Avoid careless erros, sloppiness and negligence. carefully and critically scrutinize your own work. Keep good records of all your research activities. Use research methods and analytical tools appropriate to the topic under investigation.

Objectivity: Eliminate personal, social, economical and political biases from experimental design, testing, data analysis and interpretation, peer review and publication. Seek to develop unbiased data, methods and results.

Openness: Share ideas, data, theories, tools, methods, and results. Be open to criticism, advise and new ideas.

Freedom: Do not interfere with scientists liberty to pursue new avenues of research or challenge existing ideas, theories and assumptions. Support freedom of thought and discussion in the research environment.

Credit: Give credit where credit is due.

Respect for Intellectual property: Honor patents, copyrights, collaboration agreements, and other forms of intellectual property. Do not use ubpublished data, results, or ideas without permission.

Respect for colleagues and students: Treat your colleagues and students fairly. Respect their rights and dignity. Do not discriminate against colleagues or students or exploit them

Respect for research subjects: Treat human and animal subjects with respect. Protect and promote human welfare and do not violate the dignity or rights of human subjects.

Competence: Maintain and enhance your competence and expertise through lifelong education. Promote competence in your profession and report incompetence.

Confidentiality: Protect confidential communications in reserach.

Legality: Obey relevant laws and regulations

Social responsibility: Stive to benefit society and to prevent or avoid harm to society through research, public education, civic engagement, and advocacy.

Stewardship of resources: Make fair and effective use of scientific resources. Do not destroy, abuse, or waste scientifc resources.

Epistemological principles/norms/guidelines
Testability: Propose theories and hypothesis that are testable

Consistency: Propose theories and hypothesis that are internally consistent

Coherence (conservation): propose and accept theories or hypothesis that are consistent with other well-established sci theories, laws or facts.

Empirical support: Propose and accept theories or hypothesis that are supported by evidence (data)

Precision: Propose theories and hypothesis that are precise and well defined

Parsimony: Propose and accept theories or hypothesis that are simple, economical or elegant.

Generality: Propose, infer and accept theories and hypothesis that are general in scope.

Novelty: Propose, infer and accept new theories and hypothesis; use new methods and techniques

Science, Scientism, and Anti-Science in the Age of Preposterism

We are in danger of losing our grip on the concepts of truth, evidence, objectivity, disinterested inquiry. The preposterous environment in which academic work is presently conducted is inhospitable to genuine inquiry, hospitable to the sham and the fake. Encouraging both envy and resentment of the sciences, it has fed an increasingly widespread and articulate irrationalism.

More about this here