By Katie Greene Stanford University
 Climate
policy is a product of unlikely bedfellows. On one hand are scientists,
who speak of probabilities and trends and whose world view shifts
with peer discussion and new data. On the other hand are politicians,
who speak in bottom lines, budgets and sound bites. Both cultures
regard with some suspicion scientists who take positions on policy.
"Is the
'scientific advocate' an oxymoron?" asked climate scientist
Stephen Schneider at a May 4 "Ethics at Noon" seminar.
"Twenty years ago, the answer would have been a resounding
'yes.' " Now, he says, there is more tolerance but
only up to a point.
Schneider,
a professor in the Department of Biological Sciences and at the
Institute for International Studies and, by courtesy, in the Department
of Civil and Environmental Engineering, has written popular magazine
articles, op-ed pieces and books about climate change. He has
appeared hundreds of times on television and dozens of times before
Congress to discuss its implications and advocate solutions.
"Being
an advocate is not cost free," Schneider said. "Many
members of the political world assume that you are doing what
they do: deliberately suppressing countervailing evidence. The
world will assume that what you say colors the fact side of the
argument: the very scientific work you do."
Politicians
depend on scientific advocates to translate complex, technical
information into the layperson's language so they can get their
points across in debates, presentations, briefs and other fast-paced
communications. Politicians have to hope that the scientists'
figures are stable enough to bear the weight of decisive action.
Advocates
also make the scientific community uneasy. Scientists strive to
be objective. Value judgments make them uncomfortable, Schneider
said. "Ideally, we want an infinite set of replicable experiments.
But what if the 'experiment' is the atmospheric composition in
2100?" he asked. "There can be no objective data on
2100 for 99 years."
Because climate
policy relies on predictions, deciding what action to take will
require subjective judgments. How much damage are we willing to
risk? What are we willing to pay to lower the risk? Who should
pay? How should the money be spent?
"You
have to address the money question, because the money could be
used in other ways: to advance housing, education, infrastructure
and so on," Schneider said. "Resources are limited."
Knowledge
from climate experts can help point out which pieces of science
are relevant to these value judgments. But if scientists refuse
to make judgment calls, the decisions are left to people less
familiar with the science, Schneider said. "I trust the value
system of most people," Schneider said. "But I'm afraid
of their ignorance and fears."
Joining the
climate debate requires adopting some aspects of political culture.
"What happens when you only get five minutes to give an opening
statement before Congress where members typically want a
sound bite?" Schneider asked. "If you don't talk in
sound bites, you don't get heard."
Climate debates
often are polarized. Positions are painted in black and white,
and people are loath to acknowledge weaknesses in their views.
Schneider labels this as "courtroom epistemology: It is not
my job to make my opponent's case."
Although this
attitude permeates politics, it is unacceptable in science, Schneider
said. In fact, it is the reason many scientists refuse to participate
in the public process. "What such 'purist' scientists forget,
is that if we don't try to explain what is going on in our fields
in the necessary brevity to be heard, someone else often
less qualified will just do it for us," Schneider said.
Schneider
acknowledged that being an advocate might bias the way a scientist
presents information. To prevent this, Schneider proposed three
rules for the "responsible scientific advocate."
First, the
researcher must become conscious of his or her value positions.
"You haven't a prayer of fixing some bias you can't see,"
Schneider said. "You become conscious from the community,
by continuously interacting with colleagues and getting their
criticism and support. When you're in a bad relationship, and
you can't see it, who is it that tells you?" Schneider asked.
"Your friends."
Second, the
researcher must present information explicitly, with concrete
numbers, relative probabilities and speculations labeled as such.
People need to be told what might happen, what is the probability
of it happening and how the researcher made the prediction.
Finally, the
researcher should not hype the information. People may be more
likely to act if they are scared, but fear shouldn't be a part
of the researcher's toolbox, Schneider said.
"Ethics
at Noon" is a weekly seminar series sponsored by the Ethics
in Society program in the Department of Philosophy. The next seminar
will take place on Friday, May 18, from noon to 1 p.m. in Building
100, Room 101K. Associate Professor of Medicine David Relman of
the Department of Infectious Diseases and Geographic Medicine
will speak on "A Brave New World: Bioterrorism, Biotechnology
and Ethics Considerations." For details about future seminars,
see http://www.stanford.edu/dept/EIS/noon.htm
|
