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.
Many people’s opinions are influenced by political leaders and their beliefs, which can have a negative effect on science’s efforts. Mere word changes have shown to make a difference in people’s willingness to pay for taxes that they don’t necessarily support or are even aware of. The use of storytelling has shown to be a powerful means in communicating science to the public as well. Although education and science understanding are not directly correlated with the acceptance of climate science, there is evidence that shows that a brief explanation of greenhouse effects “enhance acceptance across the political spectrum”. Researching source credibility has also boosted the political acceptance of certain scientific information.
This can take a turn for the worse: if scientists have to have their work follow what politics, religions, and people believe, we might limit what science stands for. Religion and politics should never have control over science, instead they should use science to help explain their own goals. Science should be used as a way to challenge old beliefs and help clear out fact from fiction. At the same time though, science should challenge itself so it can stay true to its main point of challenging old dogmas, as Carl Sagan said in his article.
Global warming has been an issue for quite some time now and only recently has it been adopted by a mass amount of people in their efforts to fight against it. However, there are people and organizations who claim that global warming does not exist or is not caused by human activities. After reading my text, Taking Sides, on the debate between members of UCS and members of the CEI, I wanted to do a little research of my own to see if the claims they were making were accurate. Even though members of the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Competitive Enterprise Institution argue two opposite sides of the global warming issue, they have much in common within their tactics to win the debate. Both organizations have credible and discreditable backgrounds and pay enormous amounts of money to those in administration to gain their support as well as donating money to other organizations for their support. The UCS and CEI also use scientists to prove their positions to be correct, and they both provide scientific evidence on both sides.
This video successfully uses the rhetorical appeals of ethos, pathos and logos to support its claims on climate change. The way National Geographic uses ethos, or credibility, for this video is strong and thought out. The main speaker is none other than Bill Nye, who most students grew up watching in elementary school; to learn different aspects of science; and is a very respectable and credible speaker for this topic, of climate change. Nye graduated from Cornell University with a degree in mechanical engineering, then moved to Seattle, Washington to work as an engineer for Boeing and ultimately became a science educator, winning educational awards for his famous program, “Bill Nye the Science Guy”(Biography.com). Nye has extremely credible credentials to be able to speak about this topic of science, who speaks in a serious, concerned and informative manner to grab the attention of the viewer and explain that climate change is a serious affair that needs to be acted upon.
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, a scientist who believes that the government is in “gross violations of the autonomous nature of science”. Begelman believes, however, that there is a system of checks and balances in the government regulation system, and that this system is in place to protect citizens.... ...
...or Powertech and its Colorado land and project manager, urges that its company’s proposal be judged on facts; however, does Douglas have a bias towards Powertech, Would her statement be different if she wasn’t working for them, and is she being neutral. Douglas implies the words “good science”, the word “good” is subjective, and it means different things to different people. “Good” science cannot be pure good; it always has its “bad” aspects linked to it. As a result, “good” science alone can never provide the answers wanted.
Climatologists are scientist who study climate. The global warming debate has created tension between climate scientist and meteorologists especially weather forecasters on television. Climatolo...
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,
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.
The mass media plays an enormous role in influencing the public. In the age of globalization many technologies like Internet, television, newspapers, magazines, radio and so on, make news available and accessible for everyone around the world. The media can easily get any information out there to the public regarding any subject such as political views, health issues, entertainment, education, human tragedies…and those information do have an impact on our everyday life decisions, opinions and raise our awareness on a subject. The media is most of the time the only way people can get information on subject that they cannot fully understand such as science. Because “science is an encoded form of knowledge that requires translation in order to be understood” (Ungar 2000), many studies have shown that the media plays a very crucial role in raising people understanding of the scientific world and the environmental issues, especially the climate change and global warming. Climate change has become an important issue today and people need to understand how serious it is in order to take actions to prevent it from getting worse; and the only way the information can get to the public is via the mass media. Today global warming is raising many concerns and the media coverage is increasing but yet many scientists complain about the limited coverage of the subject because it seems that it is not enough compared to the gravity of the situation. Because of the lack of information, many people are still very skeptical and some are just very confused about the global warming and how it affect our atmosphere.
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.
"We often think of science as something inescapably linked to progress, and of progress as continually marching forward. We assume that there is something inevitable about the increase of knowledge and the benefits this knowledge brings" (Irvine & Russell). Provide humanity with wisdom and speculative enjoyment. This enjoyment of the public is through reading, learning and thinking. But scientists are met with the real research work.
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.
Each of us lives with a modern paradox; how can we continue to enjoy the benefits of science and avoid the threat of its misuse or abuse to endanger life and nature? Responses to this paradox have been many, but seldom anything but emotional and impotent in making any useful changes. Among the strongest feelings brought forth by our increasing awareness of the negative side effects of technology has been the feeling of alienation that we in society have little or no control over the impacts of science and technology on those of us who are supposed to be their beneficiaries. We owe much to science. In fact, modern life would be unthinkable without it.