Robert T. Lackey opines that he is concerned that concerned that policy-biased science is increasingly common in the scientific enterprise, as it undermines the credibility of science and scientists in public policy debates. This situation is especially unfortunate because scientific information is essential in many policy debates; such as, conflicts over scarce water resources; approaches to addressing wild fires; adapting to changing climate; policies toward native versus non-native species; and, balancing risks and benefits of genetically modified organisms.
Science is not value-free, but it should be objective and policy should be based on the best science available. Too often, however, scientific information presented to the public and decision-makers is infused with hidden policy preferences. Such science is termed normative and it is a corruption of the practice of good science. Normative science is defined as "information that is developed, presented, or interpreted based on an assumed, usually unstated, preference for a particular policy choice."
Using normative science in policy deliberations is not merely a form of policy advocacy, but it is stealth advocacy. I use the word stealth because the average person reading or listening to such "scientific" statements is likely unaware of the hidden advocacy. Normative science is a corruption of science and should not be tolerated in the scientific community-without exception. Scientists are certainly able to assess the likely effects of removing (or maintaining) a particular dam, but scientific information alone is an insufficient justification for removing (or maintaining) a dam. There are biological consequences of dam removal (or maintenance) and those consequences may be substantial from a salmon perspective; however, ecological consequences are just one of many elements that the public and policy-makers must assess when making a policy choice.
The public and policy-makers, not scientists, decide whether preserving salmon runs should trump flood protection, irrigated agriculture, or electricity generation. As the public and policy-makers balance these competing priorities, what they need from scientists are facts and probabilities. What they do not need from scientists are their-or their employer's-values and policy preferences masked within scientific information disguised as being policy neutral. There are other common examples in scientific literature and discourse. In working with scientists, I often encounter value -laden terms like degradation, improvement, good, poor, impact, alien, or invasive. Scientists should avoid these normative words in conveying scientific information. Such words imply a preferred ecological state, a desired condition, an accepted benchmark, or a favored class of policy options.
This is not science, it is a form of policy advocacy. It may be subtle, perhaps unintentional, but it is patently stealth policy advocacy. More specifically, consider the widespread use of concepts such as ecosystem health. It is normative science! Ecosystem health is a value-driven policy construct, but it is often passed off as science to unsuspecting policy-makers and the public. In practice, notions of healthy or damaged ecosystems are subtly calibrated by societal values and preferences.
Managed & Built by I2M Consulting, LLC | © 2010-
