By Eric Haaland LAI 531 Spring 2010

1. THE ROLE OF PROOF
IN POLICY
Eric Haaland
LAI 531
Dr. Xiufeng Liu

2. Outline
Relationships between scientists, policy groups, and
politicians
Role of science in policy making
knowledge claims vs. truth
Goals for future

3. Recent Analysis...
94% of professional scientists believe the earth is
warming; 85% of public believes as well
Difference comes in as 84% of scientists attribute
human influence to exacerbations, while only 49% of
public agrees.
30% Republicans, 64% Dems - ideological influences?
Data !om Pew 2009

4. Science Influence
Matters of policy are becoming increasingly influenced
by science
climate change, pandemics, warfare tech., etc.
Scientists heavily funded by government, industry, non-
profits
over $50 billion by gov’t in 2011 budget
(http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/02/science-triumph.html)

5. Politicians Interest
Many politicians (like scientists) have own agendas
riding on decisions - primarily faith, industry
Most politicians don’t have background in science
practice; many misunderstand what science is capable
of (Mooney, 2005; Oreskes, 2004; Oreskes, 2007)
The sheer number of science articles that are published
annually are more than any one could read, let alone
comprehend without a specialization in science

6. Policy Groups
Intermediate role - provide discussion arenas about
policy issues for politicians, many while providing free
lunch - incentive to listen
Many are funded by corporations and industry
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries

7. Science Organizations
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Publishes the journal Science, founded in 1848
National Academy of Sciences
Thousands of peer-reviewed journals

8. Ongoing Situation
97% of scientists think that they play a role in policy
debates; 79% of public agrees
Scientists, in general, are terrible communicators
Speak “journalese,” many think it’s the public’s responsibility to learn the
subjects, not theirs to teach it.
Result is that many topics remain misunderstood by
general population

9. Ongoing Situation cont.
Politicians are professional decision makers, like it or
not.
Have to make decisions based on limited information
Science’s job to inform
Many politicians have personal agendas which
influence decisions

10. Ongoing Situation cont.
Policy groups can be bought and built with no
regulation.
Policy groups may be based on agendas that relate to those held by politicians
Common human theme that we listen to those who say what we want to hear
Many organizations have been successful in creating
false dichotomies between sides of science debate
Promoting existence of debate of whether evolution has occurred, when debate
is about how not if
Popularizing dissent in global climate change

11. Role of Science
Throughout development of humanity, many
explanations of our position have arisen.
Cultural construction of knowledge (von Storch, 2009)
Scientific outlook is relatively new - less than 500 years
Many views based on tradition, culture. Science based
on interrogative relationship with nature.
Scientific explanations still relative to time, space, culture

12. Role of Science cont.
Scientists are experts at information gathering and
reporting; this is their job.
Politicians are decision makers - ideally, science is
provided and decisions are made
Pielke suggests scientists stop trying to influence
decisions; rather they should give information and
provide possible options (Pielke, 2007)
Economists, medical specialists, geologists, climatologists, etc.

13. Problems
Situations arise when scientists produce undesirable
results
May lead to increased regulations - lower profits (e.g. banning DDT increased
costs for chemical companies)
Climate change threatens energy industry
Many believe evolution to be threat to faith
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/272

14. Policy Groups Revisited
When threats to business arise, those businesses
become part of debate
chart gathered from http://www.greenpeace.org/
usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/
polluterwatch/koch-industries

15. Policy Groups cont.
Policy groups tend to claim they are pro-science and
pro-information
Marshall Institute seeks to “[provide] policymakers with rigorous, clearly
written and unbiased technical analyses on a range of public policy issues”
http://www.marshall.org/category.php?id=6
The Mercatus center claims to “[bridge] the gap between academic ideas and
real world problems.” - http://mercatus.org/about
Rarely though do they reach the level of unbiased, pro-
science information (Mooney, 2005)

16. Policy Groups cont.
Americans for Prosperity
Received >$5 Million from Koch Industries since 2005
Hot Air Tour - “ClimateGate is the biggest hoax our world has ever seen.”
Cato Institute
ClimateGate is “akin to filtering what goes in the Bible”

17. Science Solutions
Does climate science tell us what policy to pursue?
Definitely not, but it does identify the problem,
explain why it matters, and give society insights that
can help to frame an efficacious policy response
(Oreskes, 2007)
When opponents of action raise scientific uncertainty as a
reason for delay or inaction, advocates of action spend
considerable time and effort trying to disprove allegations
of uncertainty as the centerpiece of their efforts...
(Pielke, 2007)
If [scientists] do not recognize [the distinction between
cultural knowledge and scientific knowledge], they often
attempt to “optimize” the dissemination of their “message”
by means of propagandistic tricks... the public will be
disenfranchised; and [science]... will be damaged.
(von Storch, 2009)

18. Science Solutions
Values and predispositions drive every human decision.
Difficult to convince someone that their gut is wrong
Scientists need to realize when shouting back doesn’t
work
Scientists can lobby for themselves and what science is
capable of

19. Fringe Science
Error: Relying on the Outliers (Mooney 2005)
Dissent is important in science, but it belongs in the annals of science literature
Burden of proof is placed on those making claims against the consensus
(Oreskes, 2004)

20. Heightened Uncertainty
There will always be a degree of uncertainty in science;
the “truth” can be proven wrong tomorrow.
Magnifying uncertainty is “misrepresenting the
situation” because demanding more evidence when not
providing your own is a worthless criticism (Oreskes,
2004; Mooney, 2005)

21. Science’s Capacity
Science will never prove anything; someone will always
be there to demand more evidence.
If there were 20 gaps in the fossil record, and those were filled, someone would
demand that you fill all the new gaps that you created
Scientists don’t need proof; they need overwhelmingly
sufficient evidence
“Scientific knowledge is the intellectual and social consensus of affiliated
experts based on the weight of available empirical evidence, and evaluated
according to accepted Methodologies” (Oreskes, 2004)
There will always be those on the fringe outside of the
consensus

22. Policy Inaction
While policy groups insist upon further action, the
clock is ticking, money is wasting, and scientists are
wasting their time
Policy groups are doing the equivalent of filibustering

23. What Science Can Do
Instead of bickering with people who refuse to listen,
we can become arbiters for the scientific process.
Educate children about how science is done (not just the scientific method)
Be honest about the nature of science
Trial and error; Might be wrong currently; Challenge them to find out
Inform public about limitations of science in policy
making

24. What Science Can Do cont.
Mingle with the social sciences and find those in
journalism who can get the word out about how the
game is being played (e.g. Mooney)
Once again, maybe most importantly: BE HONEST

25. REFERENCES
Kohut, A. (2009). Scientific Achievements Less Prominent Than a
Decade Ago. Washington, D. C., Pew Research Center for the
People & the Press: 5.
Mooney, C. (2005). The Replublican War On Science. New York, New
York, Basic Books.
Oreskes, N. (2004). "Science and Public Policy: What's Proof got to do
with it?" Environmental Science and Policy 7: 369-383.
Oreskes, N. (2007). The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How
Do We Know We're Not Wrong? Climate Change: What It Means
for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren. J. F. DiMento,
Doughman, P. Cambridge, Massachusetts, The MIT Press: 65-100.
Pielke, R. A., Jr. (2007). The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science
in Policy and Politics. New York, New York, Cambridge University
Press.
von Storch, H. (2009). "Climate research and policy advice: scientific
and cultural constructions of knowledge." Environmental Science
and Policy 12: 741-747.