SCIENTISTS AS ADVOCATES
1) As environmental groups and activists work to promote action on climate change and other environmental problems, scientists are increasingly asked to play more prominent roles in public life, as communicators, policy advisors and/or as advocates. Drawing on readings and discussion in class, discuss the different roles that scientists and their organizations can play relative to engaging the public and policymakers, providing specific examples. Discuss the advantages, trade-offs or risks to each role and how the role chosen by a scientist often relates to both their personal values and outlook but also their institutional or organizational affiliation.
The knowledge gap between the scientific community and the general public has always existed. Public opinion holds scientists in very high regard and overall scientists are one of the most trusted professions in America. Most citizens and policy makers say they support making decisions based on science. However, although much of our culture embraces scientific advances in consumer electronics, we have a difficult time identifying how science should and can inform public policy.
Science is frequently viewed as a relatively static and straightforward process when in fact science can be complicated, messy and constantly unfolding. Scientists have traditionally been thought of as non-partial, objective researchers. However, scientists are also citizens and as experts in a subject may feel compelled to advocate for a particular course of action given their specialized knowledge as a scientist or their personal values as an individual. This paper will explore what roles and responsibilities scientists have in steering policy makers and communicatin...
... middle of paper ...
... who should have authority in the political debate. The debate over the science thus politicizes the science and distracts from policy.” For complicated contexts expecting science to help reach consensus may compromise the chance of reaching consensus and the role that science could play in providing policy suggestions. He recommends that scientists don’t expect different policy viewpoints to be resolved by science.
Climate change is an issue that highlights the difficulties scientists have in identifying their role in public debate and the resolution of public problems. Scientists need to be aware of their role in such debates, in order to maintain their credibility and help policy makers and help the public determine the best course of action. Scientists can choose individually to be a pure scientist, a science arbiter, an advocate or an honest broker.
A nobel prize winning, architect of the atomic bomb, and well-known theoretical physicist, Professor Richard P. Feynman, at the 1955 autumn meeting of the National Academy of science, addresses the importance of science and its impact on society. Feynman contends, although some people may think that scientists don't take social problems into their consideration, every now and then they think about them. However he concedes that, because social problems are more difficult than the scientific ones, scientist don’t spend too much time resolving them (1). Furthermore he states that scientist must be held responsible for the decisions they make today to protect the future generation; also they have to do their best, to learn as much as possible,
Tompkins displays, in her essay’s conclusion, the necessity to “piece together the story… as best I can,” because diverging perspectives inhibit a person’s ability to find, with confidence, a purely unbiased fact about any situation (9). These kinds of quandaries exist in many modern social spheres. Although much more objective, an issue, such as climate change, relies on an individual researching and uncovering facts from various sources, just as Tompkins did. Similarly, the individual must then “[believe] this version up to a point, that version not at all, another almost entirely,” so they may move forward toward a conclusion. If they fail to move toward a conclusion, they will tarry too long at the epistemological gateway and fail to effectively address the issue, by voting in misinformed politicians or not recycling. While the environment relies on more objective and easily accessible information, it exists in clear relation to Tompkins’ dilemma. Academic uncertainty halting the important flow of social progress. However, while academic uncertainty appears to be at fault, without academic uncertainty, science and fact would not achieve the proper rigor for it to call itself fact. And, without social progress,
Often, scientists are tasked with the role of providing evidence to support theories or to predict future outcomes based on scientific research. This methods or research are usually accepted in natural sciences like chemistry and physics. This is because unlike social science, they usually use formulas, well laid out structures and methods (Guttin, 2012). However, when it comes to social science, researchers usually work using theories by formulating hypothesis, and researching to prove or disapprove the theories. When doing this, social science researchers usually become advocates in certain circumstances. This paper highlights some of the pros and cons of scientists becoming advocates, and gives examples of when social scientists become advocates and situations where they observe objectivity.
Reading Imagining the Future: Science and American Democracy, by Yuval Levin, is an educational experience because the book challenges liberal values effectively and offers a unique historical analysis of American political values. Unfortunately, Levin’s errors of omission lead to logical errors throughout Imagining the Future.
Most scientists want to be able to share their data. Scientists are autonomous by nature. Begelman (1968) refutes an argument made by I. L. Horowitz who is a scientist that believes that the government is in “gross violations of the autonomous nature of science”. B...
Ever since the advent of weather observation and prediction technology in the past 150 years, science has created a consensus that the earth is getting warmer, and that human influence is to blame. Some even blame this change, known as global warming, for bouts of extreme weather including cyclonic storms, droughts, wildfires, and heat waves. These scientists (and much of the public) believe that our influence is the problem, as our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses, the product of the usage of our fuels, are polluting the atmosphere and trapping energy from the sun within. However, a minority group, scientists and public skeptics alike, believe this warming trend is merely a coincidence with the earth’s naturally cyclical climate, and that the activists are overstating something they know little about. Many even agree that if the prospect of our influence were to be true, the effects are not at all that bad, unlike what it is hyped to be. Thus, global warming has become a debatable theory. Much like legislation that prevents schools from teaching evolution as anything more than a theory, now there are also laws that mandate that global warming be considered debatable, and to argue both sides of it (Jonas).
Climate change is considered a controversial topic. Although scientists have been studying the issue, there are many citizens that are still not fully educated about it. Therefore, there are people who support scientists in their results, and there are people who deny the scientists’ findings as propaganda or exaggerations. This is the same issue even in politics, where the two main parties, Democrats and Republicans, have opposing perspectives on climate change. One can really tell just by looking at their approach to the issue, especially their tone and diction. The republican candidates doubts climate change, and when the topic is brought up during an interview, the republicans flatly deny it with no further discussion. They do give some
The ethos of science was always been about seeking for the truth. Ptolemy wanted to know what was in the heavens. Newton wanted to know about motion and force. Einstein wanted to know about protons and relativity. These scientists and many others have always had that pure desire of wanting to learn the truth about what they were interested. However, if we were to examine the present, scientists today are struggling not because of their truth-seeking journeys but because of the need to produce results so that they can still have the opportunity of keeping their jobs researching the subjects that they have researching for the past few years. In today’s lab, we see researchers scrounging around for grant money and yelling on the phone with the editors for journal space. Professors are stressed wanting to take control of the department’s curricula as they will be the scientific building blocks for students. Are the social organizations, the University and other scientific communities, affecting science to the point that the reality of what is science has been changed? I believe that the skeptical sociologists of science are erroneous to insist that the Scientific Reality is nothing more than a monopoly controlling every aspect of science. In this paper, I will carefully explain what sociology of science is and its effects on scientists and science, clarify how the struggle above is truly influencing scientists and science, and bring about a conclusion that will wrap up my thoughts on the issue.
Climate Change is unique among international issues because of its global scale and impact, and the cooperative nature of the plausible solutions. If we are to build a sustainable environment for our species we must act as one world, as opposed to a loose collection of nation-states acting for our own self interest. Our political systems are not designed to meet such ends, so climate change holds an interesting position on the stage of international diplomacy.
...tributions to the situation are still a very confusing topic to most people around the world. The media has kept the climate change discussions alive through the decades and many international organizations have tried to find solutions to climate change adaptation. But many have criticized the media coverage, especially the U.S media, because they did not emphasize on the solutions, the revolutionary changes that the developed countries and oil companies must do to preserve our atmosphere. Plus they did not emphasize on the help the poor nations need in order to face the mitigation and adaption for the climate change. Also because in most developing countries the climate change and the global warming is still an abstract subject, governments must work with journalists and scientists to improve the media in order to increase people understanding of the situation.
Although it is often a topic for contention in politics, global warming over the span of several decades, has led to climate change, which has had an alarming impact globally. Climate change needs to ...
“An introduction to climate change.” Natural Resource Defense Council. Natural Resources Defense Council 8 November 2015 n. pag. Web. 28 November 2015.
The Earth is currently locked in perpetuating spiral of climate change. While the global climate has unarguably been changing since the dawn of it's manifestation, the once steadied ebb and flow of climate change has become increasingly more unpredictable.The risk of rising sea levels, and drought plaguing the fresh water supply, during the time that flooding and sporadic storm conditions turn once fully inhabited regions into uninhabitable death traps. Climate change catalyzed by human's increased production of carbon dioxide, is more noticeable than ever in our recorded history (United States, 2014 National Climate Assessment). Thankfully however, with the changing weather conditions due to carbon related emissions, the change in public opinion about their personalized influence on climate change is also increasing. Kevin Liptak Jethro Mullen, and Tom Cohen note that In reaction to the most recent governmental report on climate change, even the U.S. government believes that a stronger approach needs to be taken to correct our self-generated cataclysm.
Climate change has been an extremely controversial topic in recent history and continues to create much debate today. Many questions concerning climate change’s origins and its potential affect on the globe are not fully understood and remain unanswered. What is climate change? Is climate change happening? Is it a natural cycle of the world or are there other catalysts involved such as human activity? What proof is there? What data correlations show climate change is accelerated by humans? How serious is climate change and how will it affect the future of our globe? What are we doing to address climate change? Should we really be concerned about climate change? Questions such as these have made climate change a very serious issue in today’s world and created the ideology of climatism. The issue of climate change has affected many different aspects of our lives and the world we live in. Policymaking, human activism, technologies, emission control, global warming, alternative energy sources and many other things have been greatly affected by the mania of climate change. This research report will present climate change in a light of common sense and rationality that will take a grounded discussion of the science behind climate change, global warming, human activity, and how the ideology of climatism has corrupted and driven the actions to combat climate change.
Our basic objective is to examine the scientific developments through history and how they affect human life and society. To meet that objective we will first develop tools to analyze the relationship between science and the increasingly complex decisions we have to make regarding the way we apply science for human welfare.