The Intersection of Science and Politics - Michelle Sumovich

This week’s readings focus on how to address the relationship that exists among science, society, policy, and politics. As Nisbet and Mooney (2007) note, a lack of understanding about the technical complexities of science often impedes public interpretation. Laypeople without a strong scientific foundation to support the accumulation of new data typically seek out media sources that, in turn, support their established personal values and beliefs. To put it plainly, Nisbet and Scheufele (2007) state that “ignorance is at the root of conflict over science,” and that scientific messages should be framed in various ways to engage diverse audiences. My feeling is that, while framing undoubtedly piques the interests of a larger segment of the population, it clearly presents a risk of perpetuating debate and confusion, and rallying for the sake of winning support. While the act of framing is intended to maintain the content of the original scientific study while applying the findings to different social concerns, the ability to adversely manipulate the context of the study is varied and great.

However, I do agree with Nisbet and Scheufele’s argument that the facts cannot speak for themselves, and that communicating scientific messages to the public is urgent, lest other, non-qualified special interest groups interpret the data first. If framing is, in fact, the most effective means of engaging a larger public, I believe that conflict and debate should take a backseat to factuality and limitations. This is not a statement of skepticism about the ability of the sciences, but one that hopes to address Collins’ (2009) call to unite the first and second waves of science studies. I feel that there is truth to both convictions; that although science should be conducted and communicated without bias, “science cannot avoid human influence.” Collins suggests that while “first wave science” may be the ideal, the skepticism of the second wave cannot be forgotten. I feel that in part this is due to the underlying realization that if one fails to express his biases or ethical convictions, the result will be an inflated representation of his opposition. In this sense, political controversy has science-based policy at a stand-still.

An emphasis on policy perspective over political perspective, as noted by Pielke, could allow for a public shift in focus from discourse and debate to constructive scientific guidance. To me, policy perspective represents an ethical means of engaging the public without steering nor enforcing personal or political biases. If the goal to “enhance freedom of choice” is met, while presenting facts relevant to science and the social sciences, the public may walk away having learned something, whereas limiting the scope of the study too narrowly only reinforces what the reader already knows (or wants to know). I believe that achieving this requires honesty on behalf of the scientific community about what is known and what is unknown; what has been accomplished and what are the limitations. Collins states “scientists can guide us only by admitting their weaknesses.” An outstanding example of this in my own studies is PSU archaeologist Virginia Butler, who advocates for an explicit revelation of methodology and limitations, so readers of varied degrees of experience can piece the study together and determine for themselves how sound or unsound they find it. If the goal is to give the public a range of alternatives to stimulate decision-making, granting readers a clear picture of the known and unknown within a study may eliminate the chances of knowledge falling out of context.