THE STATE OF SCIENCE: Why do politicians and scientists disagree on so many issues? Are they really as different as we might think? Will J Grant and Rod Lamberts weigh up the evidence.
Opinion pieces these days seem rife with lamentations about the divide between our scientists and politicians.
We hear, in various forms, how scientists don’t work in the real world, how politicians care for naught but votes and money. We hear how neither properly understands the other; and how there’s a lack of respect across the divide.
But, as Peter Shergold recently noted on The Conversation, complaints without solutions aren’t particularly useful.
Focusing solely on what divides our scientists and politicians does little to rectify the difficulties these divides appear to create, and does little to tell us what their roles and relationship ought to be.
It’s important we have both scientists and politicians equipped to do their jobs, particularly when issues of public health, safety and indeed our long term survival are at stake.
So we’d like to contribute to this discussion in a different way. We’d like to spend a bit of time focusing on what’s right – as well as what can be improved – about the relationship between our scientists and our politicians.
Peas in a pod?
A few years ago, a well-established politician – who shall remain nameless, because the name doesn’t matter – made a bold assertion to a room full of scientists. This politician asserted that, like scientists, politicians require specific skills, experience and expertise to do their job well, and that these things are not necessarily shared by non-politicians.
As with scientists, some will be more skilled, or naturally gifted, than others. Also like scientists, some will use these skills and gifts for public good, and others, less so …
So, if we can lay our cynicism aside for just a few minutes, it’s possible to argue that scientists and politicians both possess expertise lay people do not – expertise that’s essential to the functioning of our society.
The basis and form of that expertise, naturally, differs.
If we look at scientists and politicians on a continuum, it becomes a little easier to consider the similarities and differences between these experts.
Context: lots and little
Scientists aim, in essence, to remove context from their work. Their results should be as independent of social nuance, and as broadly generalisable, as possible.
Politicians, by contrast, must treat context as king: without context, policy-making doesn’t actually make much sense. Politicians must be responsive to the world around them. The creation of policy is by definition a response to a problem or issue in the world as it is.
This separation between scientists and politicians is right and sensible.
If all scientists sought to be as responsive as politicians, we would likely have little more than a string of short-term research endeavours unlikely to address any of the universe’s big questions. If our politicians sought policy solutions devoid of contextual mooring or too generalisable across all situations, we would likely see foolish remakings of the world to fit ideological lenses.
But critically, this doesn’t mean policy-makers should reject long-term thinking, or that scientists should ignore the context or problems of today.
What we are seeking to do here is show that these two radically different yet inextricably linked realms of human endeavour lurk at opposing ends of this continuum. Opposing ends, but still part of the same continuum.
Best of both worlds
So, what do we want our politicians and scientists to be? What would an ideal world look like?
It’s clear that, in an ideal world, we would not have our scientists and politicians utterly divorced from each other, working to address only the grand questions of the universe or the minutia of the moment. To do their jobs well, scientists and politicians must operate in very different settings, but it is also important they act together to understand, manage and improve our lives.
And there’s the rub. We need them to work together, but the myriad differences in worldview between these two critical social actors mean that not only do they not always get their communication right, they sometimes act against each other.
This isn’t always a problem. Tensions generate energy and ideas. Disagreements are not always destructive.
Yet if we do not trust those on the other side – if we see this tension as failure alone – then we have an entirely different kind of problem.
Most of us are neither scientist nor politician. Even if we were, we would necessarily specialise in sub-areas of one or the other. This means we’d have to trust others to do the rest of the work.
Trust between scientists and politicians should not be freely given; it is critical that we all scrutinise legitimately and constantly. But if trust is never given, then where are we left?
When politicians or scientists wield their skills, experience and power well, and in ways that align with our values, they should earn our trust. Once they have done so, perhaps we should cut them a little slack. Give them some leeway to act in our interests. And also give them suitable reward.
If they abuse that trust, that trust should be withdrawn.
And throughout this, we must not confuse legitimate scepticism with destructive cynicism.
Cynicism rarely does more than point out what’s wrong. And there it stops.
Scepticism however is healthy. It not only points out problems, it actively enhances the creation of solutions, be they political or scientific – or both.
This is the eleventh part of The State of Science. To read the other instalments, follow the links below.
- Part One: Does Australia care about science?
- Part Two: What’s a scientist – a poker or a puffin?
- Part Three: Science can seem like madness, but there’s always a method
- Part Four: Express yourself, scientists – speaking plainly isn’t beneath you
- Part Five: Science is imperfect – you can be certain of that
- Part Six: Why do people reject science? Here’s why …
- Part Seven: When things don’t add up: statistics, maths and scientific fraud
- Part Eight: Get real: taking science to the next generation of Einsteins
- Part Nine: Critically important: the need for self-criticism in science
- Part Ten: Please, sirs, can we have some more? Aussie scientists need fuel, not gruel
- Part Twelve: Tweed or speed … a day in the life of a modern scientist
- Part Thirteen: Selling science: the lure of the dark side
- Part Fourteen: Way off balance: science and the mainstream media
Join the conversation
Comments (30)
Tim Scanlon
(Climate and Agronomic Extension at Department of Agriculture and Food - Western Australia)
My concern for politics is that it tends to take a position on a topic, rather than an informed position. Science informs the position, but instead we have people/politicians searching for information to back up their position.
You only have to look as far as the statements by Newt Gingrich in the Republican debates to see that science is often ignored in favour of religion, ideology, or polling. See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2Xke_AYffY
Alex A. Sanchez
Doctoral Candidate in Clinical Psychology (logged in via email @alumni.brown.edu)
I am surprised that you are only one of two people in this entire response feed to mention this biggest oversight in this article: the motives of politicians. The Grant and Lambert write with the assumption that politicians are noble, but ask any typical civilian in the U.S. (I can't speak for countries outside of the States) and they will question the morality of their politicians. "Crooked" and "corrupt" are two words commonly associated with people in this profession.
I am not saying that stereotypes are basis enough for an argument, but attitudes as prevalent as the ones towards politicians need to be explored in the discussion or audiences will roll their eyes over the arguments (as I did).
Tim Scanlon
(Climate and Agronomic Extension at Department of Agriculture and Food - Western Australia)
Thanks Alex. Australia is headed down the same path as the US, with lobbyists holding far too much sway over decision making.
As to why I'm the only one to raise the issue, you only have to see the first response to my comment by PropheticKleenex(troll) to answer that.
Rod Lamberts
(Deputy Director, Australian National Centre for Public Awareness of Science at Australian National University)
Fair call, Alex.
We absolutely don't mean to suggest that politicians are noble or trustworthy as a rule. What we are mooting first and foremost is that trust has to start somewhere, but that it has to be earned, *and* have systemic checks and balances in place to see that this trust is not abused.
Our point here is more that continuing to say politicians are bad, wrong, corrupt, bastards, etc etc is not getting anywhere towards solving that problem. Perhaps looking towards creating a culture where there is a little bit of trust (not that this would be straightforward, of course) is worth having a bigger conversation about.
Cheers,
Rod
The PropheticKleenex
(logged in via Twitter)
http://twitter.com/tabbydevils/status/138414378268639232/photo/1/large
Joseph Callingham
(Student of Astrophysics at University of Sydney)
I have a question PropheticKleenex. Why do you not use your real name for your account? If your views are as equally valid as everyone's, why hide behind an alias?
The PropheticKleenex
(logged in via Twitter)
i logged in via twitter. I have no credentials, so my name is immaterial
The PropheticKleenex
(logged in via Twitter)
Yes another article about having blind faith.
Create a false premise- that science and government serve different masters, then by arguing that false premise create theunderlying illusion that there is autonomy in both.
Perhaps the first class scientists should be taught is Casuistry 101.
Isn't the Conversation aimed at intelligent people?
If a simple man like me can see this continuous stream of articles about science is propaganda:devised to make people blindly trust whatever garbage science…
show full comment
Grendels
(logged in via Twitter)
What you are exhibiting here is call "confirmation bias". You don't care for or trust science and so read mostly the articles on The Conversation that feed your need to fight science wherever you see it.
Perhaps you should wander back up to the top of the page and click on Politics and Society or even Business and Economy since it appears that under anything labelled science that you would rather troll than contribute.
You are of course entitled to your opinions, however I fell that expressing them here is unlikely to accomplish anything.
Perhaps you need to change brands to Sorbent since I feel that the prophetic qualities of Kleenex are failing you.
The PropheticKleenex
(logged in via Twitter)
You're right , I do keep seeing the same agenda in most of these science articles.
Perhaps , its a flaw in my thought processes, or perhaps there genuinely is a common theme.
"the centre for public awareness for science" sounds a little spooky to me, so I do read it with an acutely critical preconception.
And I found your citicism of me healthy and amusing, I don't think you're a "troll" because we have different points of view however.
Grendels
(logged in via Twitter)
I don't consider you a troll for having a different point of view - but for not addressing the substance of the article.
There was a phrase in your comment "society did just fine until science started intruding in our lives" that was interesting however.
Really? you think society has hada point of time when science has not played a part? I think perhaps there have been times when we did not have a name for the process of observation and testing of ideas, but I think these things have always happened…
show full comment
The PropheticKleenex
(logged in via Twitter)
I could argue my noble art of plumbing has contributed more to society than science in the past 500 years, but as I am a humble fellow won't go into that.
Its an historical fiction to assume science was given to us from protestants. Yes it was the result of the protestant revolution,yes there are many great protestant innovators, but who gave it to us and why?
And when did alchemy become science? When were concrete pjhilosophies such as engineering bundled with theoretical ones under this umbrella…
show full comment
Grendels
(logged in via Twitter)
I agree that plumbing is indeed a great contribution to society - for far longer than 500 years however.
Did I suggest that science came from protestants? I think you misread my comment entirely.
A man learned in engineering has a title - that title is "Engineer" If you think that is somehow less noble than "Doctor of Philosophy" then I suggest that is a failing that you must own for yourself. (There are in fact a range of engineering qualifications awarded around the world some of which do include…
show full comment
The PropheticKleenex
(logged in via Twitter)
Well firstly Latin wasn't or isnt the best language. Ancient greek would be, if it was chosen for your above reasons.
It is far more precise and suited to science than latin is.
Latin was used simply because Jesuits created education post- protestant revolution.
The Jesuits own charter is to be the militia of the pope to end the protestant revolution.
As I am a protestant ,as you should be - yes I do have a problem with the Jesuits.
I'm suggesting science is a trojan horse gift to protestants.I do believe you inferred science was a result of the protestant revolution,and as a protestant I should therefore embrace it. This is why I mentioned the Jesuit origins of the protestant enlightenment.
It need not be that trojan horse, but we must recognise it's history in order to avoid that occuring.
Grendels
(logged in via Twitter)
Your assumption regarding what you think I inferred is incorrect since in my view science did not start with the reformation.
Why would ancient greek be a better language? It may be that is true but I would have your rationale for this. I think it was likely that it was less commonly spoken than latin however.
You have previously stated that you do not care for science - why then do you maintain such a constant fascination with it?
The PropheticKleenex
(logged in via Twitter)
I gave my reasons for Greek, it is a more precise language and had a greater historical use than Latin in "science" at that time.
I believe we are currently at the end of the protestant revolution, particularly in Australia, and science is the tool being used to undermine our protection in Law,
I persist because i have a vain hope some boffins are men of goodwill and wake up to the repurcussions of their actions, and find the courage to make a stand.
Now let me give an example of learning against…
show full comment
Mike Cowley
(logged in via Facebook)
Yes, and all the other Catholics are behind the whole abortion thing too....
Seriously, science does not claim "that it was not a human being in the womb until a certain stage of pregnancy". Science tells us what is happening in the womb at the various states of development. Scientists, along with everyone else, can have an opinion at to what that means in terms of when a potential "human being" becomes an actual "human being". Politics then takes those opinions, runs it through the filter of money…
show full comment
The PropheticKleenex
(logged in via Twitter)
Also when I say you should be a Protestant too, you could be a Protestant Atheist for all i care. Your soul is your business, your treason is mine.
Rod Lamberts
(Deputy Director, Australian National Centre for Public Awareness of Science at Australian National University)
"It is called critical thinking - it is not a skill confined to any elite group."
Banging my hands together with agreement!
The PropheticKleenex
(logged in via Twitter)
I shall play devil's advocate and help the vested interest of the Conversation
All you unconnected scientists out there _ for God's sake trust the data. Do whatever you like after that, just trust the data you're given. And we can rush this global warming agenda through before people wise up.
Rob Crowther
Architectural Draftsman (logged in via email @westnet.com.au)
I am not a scientist. Not even close.
I note the author speaks of trust in an article about working with politicians. You only need to be shafted by the scoundrels once to know what they are about.
I personally would not like to see our scientists get too close to the ‘honourable’ people. It will only taint your profession.
The PropheticKleenex
(logged in via Twitter)
Mr Cowley,please don't trivialise my point by suggesting I think all Catholics are JEsuits. The vast majority are decent people. And have absolutely no say whatsoever over what the powers -that-be in Roman Catholicism do.
If science claims that upon conception all we have is a mass of organic material, then if that definition is trusted by government, then killing that organic material is no longer murder.
Both Tony Abbot and turkeyneck Gillard have said publicly that they aren't qualified to dispute the findings of science in regards to climate change. And that they must accept the position offered them by the CSIRO.
To suggest science can then wash its hands of responsibility for the Laws created from their official stance is absurd.
Also ,by pointing out that people will commit murder whether you have a law against it or not, is not a justification for making murder legal.
Mike Cowley
(logged in via Facebook)
Actually, I was trying to trivialise your point by suggesting that you are blaming a process (science) when the actual problem (not that I think it's a problem, but I am a godless heathen/ex-catholic) is one of people.
Once again, "science" does not claim "that upon conception all we have is a mass of organic material", except in the sense that science can only ever talk about the organic material that indisputably make up our bodies.
The PropheticKleenex
(logged in via Twitter)
You might change your mind about what science said, if you read the enlightened words written by the good Father Robert Drinan SJ back when he was bringing this in.
The PropheticKleenex
(logged in via Twitter)
Actually Mr Crowley , you may be right that I'm mistaken about an official view on science regarding an embryo versus a foetus being human. I had only read the catholic priests' arguments and assumed it was in scientific literature aswell.
I've been searching for it on the internet without luck
Mike Cowley
(logged in via Facebook)
I think you will struggle to find an official view from science regarding when a human becomes a human for the purposes of when it's ok to destroy them. Mostly because it's not a scientific question, it's a values question.
Science can tell us when the heart starts beating, when the brain is capable or processing various bits of sensory input, when the foetus is capable of independant existence. But none of these things can tell you when it is "right" to terminate a pregnancy and when it becomes murder - these are value judgements that science can inform but not determine.
Mike Cowley
(logged in via Facebook)
d'oh.... capable "of" processing...
The PropheticKleenex
(logged in via Twitter)
Yes I've also been looking into legal definitions, and the connection I'd made has fallen apart. If anyone could help, i'm trying to find the connection between scientific definition of life at conception and legalised abortion.
Rachel Wilson
(University of Sydney)
This article seems to be an exercise in the authors "remov[ing] context from [academic] their work". Yet we cannot consider the position of scientists without examining their working conditions. As academics most are participant in politics. Woodrow Wilson drew on this experience and it served him well in a career change from professor to president.
"As compared with the college politician, the real article seems like an amateur." (Woodrow Wilson)
In Australia's current higher education context scientists and academics in general have to be slaves to many aims. To earn themselves a position from which they can comment on the virtues of science many necessarily compromise that virtue.
Surely, a more productive appraoch would be to acknowledge and provide disucssion of how internal and external potitical pressures bear on academic work and how they might be addressed?
James Jenkin
EFL Teacher Trainer (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Where's the evidence that politicians and scientists disagree?
Politicians often use science to justify decisions - plain cigarette packaging, fat tax, alcopop tax, carbon tax etc. They rarely say 'I believe this is the right thing to do' - they say 'you can't argue with the science'.