By Kate Tillotson, Upper Elkhorn Natural Resources District
As much as I, as a trained
scientist, would like to imagine that good science leads directly to sound
policy I am aware that this isn’t the case. We can’t just pump science coins
into the policy machine and get out policies that reflect what the science
tells us; policy making is simply not that straightforward. Economics, law, and
public opinion also play their parts in the development of policy and, as is
often the case, rank higher than the physical sciences as fields sought for
advice during policy development. However, the need to account for things like
economics doesn’t wholly account for the existing or perceived tension between
policy makers and scientists, and that tension is worth exploring.
This tension comes in several forms
but I’m going to focus on mistrust or wholesale dismissal of science and
scientists. Further, there are a laundry list of things that undermine trust in
science that include but certainly aren’t limited to 1) industries promoting
distrust through the use of skeptics (such as with climate change science), 2)
media framing (such that skeptics or non-experts are given equal weight as
experts even though that is not representative of the scientific community),
and 3) confirmation-bias or information filtering (either in general but
specifically on the internet where it is so easy to keep away from information
that does not agree with your own world view). Confirmation bias and
information filtering are some of the strongest influences on whether or not we
trust any new information that comes to us, whether scientific or not. This is
especially prevalent given how easy it is to tailor our information sources
online: you can pick where you get your news so that it supports your world
view, you can unfollow friends on Facebook if they say things you don’t agree
with. We filter information actively and passively all the time. I’ll talk
about this a little bit more below, but first let’s talk about trust a little
more.
What is “trust” in the context of
science and scientifically derived information? Trust is roughly equated with
“belief” and implies faith without need to further investigate. This is
problematic to me because within the scientific community a critical eye is
important, that’s why we have a peer review process before results are
published. Despite scientific results being inherently provisional, that is up
for being overturned or having caveats added by future work, at some point study
becomes redundant because results are conclusive or are, rather, within
acceptable limits of uncertainty. This applies all across natural resource
management, whether it is monitoring water quality issues or tracking the loss
of an endangered species: at some point cause and effect are known, the end
point is clear, and action is the next step.
But action requires trust in the science.
I think Marcia McNutt (current
president of the National Academy of Sciences, former editor-in-chief of Science, and 15th director of
USGS) said it best when she said, “Science is not a body of facts, science is a
method for deciding whether what we choose to believe has a basis in the laws
of nature or not.” This is absolutely true for many people. However, I
recognize that people tend to rely on personal experience or anecdotes more
than on science and statistics and while anecdotes are grounded in the real
world they are interpreted by humans who occasionally make exciting and wildly
incorrect assumptions about how the world works. This is especially true when
the science and statistics are counter-intuitive, counters our personal
experience, or is not something we have experienced: if the information doesn’t
confirm our understanding of the situation it is really easy to ignore. In
managing freshwater for a quality issue that you can’t see or smell it is
difficult to convince anyone that it is an issue until they experience the
repercussions of that issue first hand.
When science is conclusive but
policy makers or lay people want to continue to study it or simply don’t
believe the results, it is worth asking why this is the case. Is it because the
science doesn’t agree with what they think it should say? Is it telling us
something we don’t want to hear? Is it because the information is unfamiliar,
the methods used to get the information or why the information should be
relevant in unclear? Ultimately, it’s important to look at why we don’t agree
with the results.
Trust and Advocacy
When the scientific community sees something
as clearly factual, when do we get involved and advocate? This is a question we
tangle with as a group and as individuals. There is a lot to be said for
remaining impartial and hoping that sound science and good science
communication will lead to sound decisions, but communicating results and
interpreting data for public consumption by translating from jargon to be
understandable to someone outside of the field of study pushes scientists into
the public realm. Often, as scientists, we take our training for granted when
discussing scientific matters with the public, which includes individuals who
may not have the same level of training. It is arguably our obligation to not
only make the process transparent but to demystify the results. It is easier to
trust something you understand than to place trust in unknown jargon. Further,
trust in science is increased when it is heard from a source that is
trustworthy. When a third party is not available to communicate science to
policy makers or lay people it often falls to scientists to advocate for their
findings. This is often the case when scientists work for policy makers and
especially the case when they also take part in carrying out policies that are
developed, to whatever degree, from their research. This is the case in
Nebraska for many of the Natural Resources Districts, one of which I work for.
Blurring the line between scientist
and policy maker in circumstances where scientists also take part in policy
development and enforcement is worthy of acknowledgement. Just as it is
important for policy makers to recognize and acknowledge when they fulfilling
their role as decision-maker and when they are advocating for their
constituents or for themselves, it is important for scientists to recognize and
acknowledge when they are fulfilling their role as scientist and when they are
advocating. It is also worthy of note that policy makers and scientists can
both make bad decisions or act in their own best interest, the hope is that
there are regulations on each of them such as professional guidelines or checks
and balances.
______________________
Kate Tillotson earned her PhD in Environmental Science &
Natural Resources Management with a focused on environmental communication and
water management from Washington State University in 2015. She is currently the
water resources manager for Upper Elkhorn NRD. The views expressed here do not
necessarily reflect the views of Upper Elkhorn NRD’s management or board.
The views expressed in this blog are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the view of The Groundwater Foundation, its board of directors, or individual members.
The views expressed in this blog are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the view of The Groundwater Foundation, its board of directors, or individual members.
