American Scientist

To the Editors:

In "Liberating Science from Politics" (Macroscope, March-April), Daniel Sarewitz superbly shows why science has a hard time in the public process. Oftentimes science does more to endarken than to enlighten. As Mark Twain famously put it, "The researches of many commentators have already thrown much darkness on this subject, and it is probable that if they continue we shall soon know nothing at all about it." The underlying cause is that the science that shows up in the public process almost invariably is in areas where the results aren't in, or where new areas are just opening up.

As a result, science brings new issues to the policy table. For a while there's no science consensus, and other decision processes are needed. That's the stage Dr. Sarewitz explores. As consensus emerges, science carries the day. This is frustrating for scientists working in the public process. But policy scientists do help decision makers to learn earlier that a consensus has developed. That's an important role. Scientists in the policy world speed social response. They may—and I expect they will—be a big part of an eventual U.S. response to climate change.

Paul Craig
University of California, Davis

To the Editors:

I enjoyed Dr. Sarewitz's essay, and I agree with much of it, but I also found it incomplete and somewhat troubling. I certainly agree that once a public policy controversy has erupted (think global warming), it is probably pointless to ask science to adjudicate the solution. I also agree that science performs best in the framework of policy agreement, probably the best example of this being the Apollo space program.

But Dr. Sarewitz seems to ignore the times that science has set the public policy debate. I believe that Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring exerted enormous impact on the subsequent three decades of public policy decisions. In this case and many others, science was not the passive player in the background waiting for values clarification.

Nor should it be. In my field, right now, there is an ongoing debate between (mostly) geologists arguing we are approaching the global peak for petroleum production and (mostly) economists on the other hand arguing market forces will solve our future energy problems. Should geologists push (and push hard, I would argue) their data and evidence to force the policy debate, or should we wait for political consensus to emerge? And what if that is when the last drop of oil is gone? Wouldn't that be personally irresponsible? How is that "good science"?

James E. Evans
Bowling Green State University
Bowling Green, OH

To the Editors:

I find the opinions set forth in Dr. Sarewitz's essay to be both wrong-headed and dangerous. Indeed, I at first wondered if it wasn't a piece of satire more appropriately entitled "ignorance leads to more efficient decision making." While ignorant decision making may be more efficient, this can hardly be a goal to which it is worth aspiring. To the extent that Dr. Sarewitz is correct that science can rarely completely reconcile political disputes, making policy decisions while ignorant of the likely consequences should not be a goal of either science or politics.

In the end, it does not matter what the political opinions of scientists are. Considering all available evidence, no matter how complex, is the only route to reaching valid and rational decisions. To suggest that politicians should be forced to make laws ignorant of the relevant scientific information is akin to suggesting that scientists must choose between competing theories while they are ignorant of critical data.

In science, when there are two strong and competing theories, we collect many facts and engage in long and sometimes arduous debates at conferences and in the literature to determine which is more correct. We consider this a proper method of understanding the world. To the extent that scientists help politicians to emulate this process, they should be encouraged, not dissuaded.

Michael A. Burman
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN

To the Editors:

I found Dr. Sarewitz's essay alarming, coming from a professional in a Consortium for Science Policy and Outcomes at Arizona State University. His opinion is that science information and scientists should be kept out of policy issues. Those darned scientists just stir up unnecessary complexities with all their findings. So after the politicians have made the policy, then scientists can study the issue.

It may be puzzling that a professional Science Policy Analyst should be against the admission of scientific findings in making policy decisions. But just think how much easier it would be to establish a policy on climate change, for example, without all those scientific findings.

In the 18th century, with the beginning of the Era of the Enlightenment, policies became increasingly based on science rather than on faith. Surely this use of science has been a powerful force in the advancement of knowledge. Donald Kennedy (Science 308:165, 2006) expressed alarm that the U. S. society may be increasingly turning its back on science. In Sarewitz's statements we see evidence of the advancing twilight of the  Enlightenment. We see that some people in high posts of policy formation reject the consideration of scientific findings in making policy decisions.

A. Carl Leopold
Boyce Thompson Institute of Plant Research
Ithaca, NY

To the Editors:

The essay by Dr. Sarewitz is provocative but unconvincing. If the public and its elected representatives debated values before considering science, we might end up with legislation that would broadly undermine the scientific process.

Dr. Sarewitz suggests that scientists state their partisan preferences before discussing the science that relates to a political position. I'd like to know his partisan preferences, because this essay serves the anti-science agenda of the current administration and leaders of Congress. There is nothing they like better than for a scientist to say that something like global warming is very complex and controversial—it justifies continuing to take no action while we hurtle toward a tipping point in the global climate system.

Stephen H. Jenkins
University of Nevada, Reno

Dr. Sarewitz responds:

As Herbert Simon pointed out 60 years ago in Administrative Behavior, every decision involves two components: a subjective preference about what we want the decision to accomplish, and an assessment of how reality works so that we can make an informed decision. If we do not agree on our preferences—our goals and values—then we cannot possibly agree on what knowledge to call upon to help us make effective decisions. Simon's insight lies at the heart of my brief essay, and it explains why, to expand on Dr. Craig's point, relevant scientific consensus often emerges after political debate is resolved and then helps to "speed social response."

I agree with my old friend Jim Evans's observation that science brings key issues to the public agenda, as I stated in the last paragraph of the essay, but Silent Spring marked the beginning, not the end, of the political and scientific controversies surrounding environmental protection. As for geologists versus economists, Dr. Evans amplifies my point: More geological information about oil supplies will not dissuade economists from their belief that markets and innovation are the cure for finite resources.

Mr. Burman simply restates the misunderstanding that motivated my essay in the first place. "Considering all the available evidence" is a meaningless exhortation. We must make choices about what evidence is relevant to the pursuit of our goals. This means we must establish our goals. And that is the job of politics. Dr. Leopold, in turn, confuses politics (the subject of my essay) with policy (an outcome of politics). Of course science should inform policy. But deciding what policy to pursue first requires clarity about what we want to achieve.

Finally, I must disappoint Dr. Jenkins. I am no supporter of the main priorities and policies of the current administration and Congress. (Yes, I'm a Democrat, but a bit embarrassed by that, as well.) But it is precisely the incoherent insistence that we must understand the science before we can resolve the politics that condemns science to politicization and delegitimates the scientific enterprise.