A Vote for Scientists as Politicians
I applaud and admire B. Alberts's long-time advocacy for science
education and the engagement of scientists with their communities, but
his Editorial “Policy-making needs science” (3 December 2010, p. 1287)
leaves out one essential activity. Scientifically trained individuals
need to enter political office. Thoughtful National Academy documents
have no impact when ideology is the rule of the land. All of our
advocacy and all of our reports will not affect the bottom line if those
massive efforts can be thwarted by a single vote cast by a single
official. Therefore, in addition to improved science education, our
society needs people trained in the scientific process and scientific
thinking to serve in the political arena, not just as advisers, but as
the actual policy-makers at the local, state, and federal level. This
can only happen if the scientific community supports such career
ambitions. As Carl Sagan said, “Science is a way of thinking much more
than it is a body of knowledge” (1). It is that way of thinking that we
need in the minds of those casting votes critical for our future.
____________________________________________
1. C. Sagan, Broca's Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science
(Random House, New York, 1979), p. 13.
|
Senator Cameron asked: what role can the
scientific community play to educate the general public about global
warming in the face of such confusion.
Thank you for that question, which
I believe is a very important question. And it is one that scientists
are struggling with; I think it is fair to say, all over the world.
It is an enormously important time in history, probably
unlike any before, for a number of reasons. Science is not the complete
answer, but science does provide a way to provide evidence on which
decisions can be made…
Science does not tell us which of these decisions to make,
but it does tell us the possible consequences of some of those
decisions. And because of that, and my view that [global warming] is an
enormous issue, perhaps one of the most important issues facing the
world, it is important that scientists engage.
I believe scientists are attempting to do that and they face
challenges in doing that. Therefore, they need to, I believe, be clear
about when they are talking about science and when they are talking
about policy. That line needs to be very clear so there is no confusion…
So first and foremost I would like to see a clean, clear and
continual reminder of the division between what is science and what is
policy. And this is what I have attempted to do and continue to do even
here today, because I think it is a disservice to both important areas
of human endeavour not to do so.
Scientists, . . . and when I say scientists, I would like to
point out again, as I think has been mentioned in these chambers before,
that we’re talking about all of science. We are talking about physics,
we’re talking about chemistry, we’re talking about the science of the
oceans. Every area of science is broadly telling us the same thing
[about global warming]. That’s a very important message for people to
hear.
It is not a particular sort of scientist [providing evidence
of climate change]. It is not a scientist that works in Government labs,
but not those who do not. It is not the scientist of one country only,
or a few countries only. It is scientists of all sorts, in all
countries, in all sorts of laboratories that are telling us the same
things.
That is a message that I have great concern is not reaching
the general population at a level that engages them and enables them to
ask the questions that they have, in an environment where those
discussions can take place without distractions of policy, without
distractions of politics, if I may say. This is a great concern for me.
|