A recent toast to James Watson highlights a tolerance for bigotry many want excised from the scientific community.
How to successfully inform policy when scientific evidence is not plainly evident.
April 14, 2014|
Science + certainty = paradox
In a way, we all construct our own certainties out of uncertainty. From irrational options we make pseudo-rational choices. For example, politics and religion involve a lot of uncertainty, yet nevertheless, we choose a camp, and can feel certain about it. Certainty makes life easier—or it at least reduces anxiety. Even scientific textbooks seem all about certainties and the media also convey messages that science is certain.
But science, of course, is about being uncertain, and exploring uncertainty.
Policy + uncertainty = dilemma
Sound policymaking must be based on scientific evidence. But where does this evidence come from? Here, textbook “certainty” is of no help; by the time a chapter is written, the evidence is already outdated. On the other hand, though, using the very latest data means dealing with more uncertainty. Typically, policymakers cope with uncertainty with the help of scientific experts. But even then, the spectrum of expertise needed is usually wide and it certainly does not help reduce uncertainty. The dilemma is to gather up-to-date information and to look for certainty, or at least consensus.
Unfortunately, the higher the policy stakes, the stronger the scientific “consensus” must be.
The danger of uncertainty
That uncertainty is the alpha and the omega of Homo scientificus has some drawbacks. Scientific debates can easily be misused by special interest groups. The greater the uncertainty, the easier it is for stakeholders to select evidence to support predefined positions. And consensus rarely sells, so the media are naturally looking for such controversy.
Take, for example, that stakeholders have recently debated the “degree” to which climate change could affect the environment. Even if a very small minority of scientific publications discuss the possible non-anthropogenic origin of current climate change, it is this very narrow data that receives disproportionate attention. It becomes even worse when scientists mix discussions on uncertainty with policy judgments, as was recently the case with conflicting scientific editorials on endocrine-disrupting substances.
The power of consensus
Scientists must realize that not communicating consensus—about what they do agree on—can also impose collateral damage, from the misuse of the precautionary principle up to calling their own credibility into question. Arguing too much about uncertainty without stating the obvious can easily be detrimental to science as well as to policymaking. Uncertainty needs to be explained; uncertainty is different from unknown. For example, it is certain that smoking tobacco can cause cancer. What is not so clear is who out of every seven smokers will get cancer, and of those unlucky ones, who can or cannot be cured.
For the purpose of policymaking, however, it is enough to state that smoking is harmful—this is the consensus.
Communicating scientific consensus despite uncertainty
No single truth exists, in science or in policy. So there can also be consensus on the uncertainty. Above all, the scientific method must be made known. For this to happen, scientists and policymakers alike must acknowledge uncertainty. Even when no consensus can be reached, evidence-informed policies trumps evidence-based approaches.
With the rise of fields like nanotechnology and synthetic biology, researchers today have ample opportunities to convey uncertainties and consensus. But they must be crystal clear: science is about discovery and (decreasing) uncertainty, policymaking is about achieving consensus (if not certainty). Together, scientists and policymakers alike must strive to make responsible decisions for the benefit of society.
April 15, 2014
"The politics and religion involve a lot of uncertainty", because the science man does not want to discus openly about the PARADOX of mitochondrial couple of Adam mtDNA and Eve mtDNA, existed only in xiphoid process, "to where soul and spirit meet, to where joints and marrow come together." (Paul, Hebrew 4.12)
"Uncertainty needs to be explained; uncertainty is different from unknown."
Yes, The Science, "formed long ages ago, at the very beginning, when the world came to be" (Proverbs 8.23), is "the Spirit of truth" (John 16.13), the seventh and the last divine candle, "the ruler of God’s creation", even now is "wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked". (Revelation 3.14-21)
To realise "the power of consensus" see also:
April 15, 2014
Reading this article is like riding a sinusoid. At one point, there is much good to say about science and uncertainty, but then the author seems lost on how to implement that.
Concerning the comment, "no single truth exists". What does that even mean? Why was this article even written? Of course there is truth. Does a "single" one mean some abstract, over-arching whole-one-for-the-entire-World? We're dealing with science here. There's correctness and falsehood. Uncertainty is oftentimes based on very old terminology, and here, scientists need to discard once and for all the ancient Greek philosophic terms of "hypothesis" and "theory". The former is meaningless to policy makers, while the latter is disparaged. Whoever the first person was who said, "It's only the theory.", killed the usefulness of that word forever. If scientists really want to make a difference in how science moves policy, replace those words immediately.
Here's another one that made me turn my head like a puppy, "evidence-informed policies trumps evidence-based approaches". In medicine, because science has a long, long way to catch up with discoveries of mechanism of action, evidence-based approaches are the only dirction to take.