I was reading a paper about scientists engaging in advocacy and thought I would briefly comment on it here. The paper is called Advocacy – defending science or destroying it? Interviews with 47 climate scientists about their fundamental concerns by Lydia Messling, Yuyao Lu and Christel van Eck. Some may recall that Christel van Eck carried out a survey of blog audiences which some may have responded to and the results of which appeared in a paper in 2021.
I thought that the paper on advocacy mostly illustrated how complex this issue is and how there aren’t any easy answers, which it does acknowledge. In my view, it’s virtually impossible for science to be truly value free; what we choose to fund, what we choose to focus on, how we choose to present the results, what we choose to highlight when engaging with the public or policymakers, are all value judgements. The doesn’t mean that I think that the actual scientific analyses are strongly influenced by societal values, just that we should acknowledge, and be aware, that there are aspects of the scientific process that involve value judgements.
When it comes to scientists getting involved in advocacy, I think they’re as entitled to do so as anyone else. Just like everyone else, they should consider the consequences of what they say and/or do. There will be situations when they would be expected to try and be objective and unbiased, and other situations where they can freely express their own views. I think it’s worth being aware of how what you say/do might be interpreted by your peers/colleagues, what impact it might have on public trust in science/scientists, and how your perceived status might influence how people interpret what you’re saying.
None of this means scientists shouldn’t advocate, but it does mean that it’s worth considering these things before, or while, doing so. At the end of the day, I don’t think there’s a simple way to generate some rules and each person should consider what’s best for them and what they think is the right thing to do. They should also be aware that just because they’re scientists doesn’t mean that should be free from criticism. They’re as entitled to engage in advocacy as everyone else and others are entitled to judge them for the manner in which they choose to do so.
Links:
Advocacy – defending science or destroying it? Interviews with 47 climate scientists about their fundamental concerns, by Lydia Messling, Yuyao Lu and Christel van Eck