Scientific Objectivity, Value Systems, and Policymaking

Abstract

A t its annual meeting in August 1999, the Ecological Society of America held a symposium, the goal of which was to promote discussion of the relationships among scientific objectivity, value systems, policy decisions, and communication between scientists and nonscientists. The participants, who were selected to represent a range of thinking in these areas, were asked to present their views on the general topic rather than to address a specific agenda.

Range of Variability in Southern Coastal Plain Forests: Its Historical, Contemporary, and Future Role in Sustaining Biodiversity

“…Many factors contribute to such lack of public awareness: time lags between developing theories of landscape dynamics by scientists and application of new techniques by managers; confusion about scientists' role in associated practices by managers (Rykiel 2001, Lach et al 2003; cultural and structural barriers between scientists and nonscientists (Priest 1995, Pouyat 1999, Fischer 2000, and challenges in subsequent understanding by the concerned public (Mills andClark 2001, Duncan 2006). The lack of understanding by the public is exacerbated by the lag time in seeing results of management actions.…”

“…The historical division between scientists and nonscientists, the allegedly rational and the irrational, and decisions made in democratic and technocratic settings, all contribute to our propensity to view ecological and sociological information separately (Priest 1995, Pouyat 1999, Fischer 2000, Rykiel 2001, Yosie 2001, Duncan 2006. However, in many senses, ecological and social contexts are codependent and even co-created-unless we ignore human beings and their daily pursuits.…”

What doJ-NABSpapers tell us about the state of knowledge in freshwater benthic science?

“…In the face of global change and current environmental crises, we perceive immediate needs for: 1) effective communication with the public, policymakers, and resource managers (Pringle et al 1993, Parrish et al 1995, Gosz 1999, Barbour et al 2008, 2) interdisciplinary research across boundaries of scientific disciplines (Hawkins et al 2010, Lamberti et al 2010, Poole 2010 and across boundaries of science, politics, and economics (Rykiel 2001), and 3) research on and dissemination of badly needed information to nations facing pressures from health crises, population growth, economic development, and resource degradation (e.g., Saxena et al 2004). We argue that scientific journals have a social responsibility to facilitate scientific progress and the application of that knowledge to problems faced by society at large (see also Shrader-Frechette and McCoy 1992, Harman et al 1998, Franz 2001, Saxena et al 2004, Barbour et al 2008.…”

“…However, the core mission of J-NABS (dissemination of scientific information to an international audience of scientists) cannot be forgotten as we try to deal with the interface between science and society. Thus, a major challenge is to develop the ethical and scientific positions from which to consider manuscripts that address policy, advocacy, and communication of scientific data to practitioners and policy makers (Gosz 1999, Rykiel 2001, Pringle et al 1993, Barbour et al 2008. These opportunities come at a time of global environmental crisis, and benthologists are positioned at a key intersection among scientific disciplines, science and policy, and policy and practice.…”

Scientific Independence and Credibility in Sociopolitical Processes

“…As biodiversity decreases and global change increasingly threatens the biodiversity that remains, calls for action are aimed directly at these societies and their members (Czech 2007, Nelson and Vucetich 2009, Arlettaz et al 2010, Scott and Rachlow 2011. Although most members have a keen interest in conservation of the species and ecosystems they study, they differ in their views concerning the scope of conservation activities that are appropriate for scientists and their professional societies to undertake (Barry and Oelschlaeger 1996, Noss 1996, McCoy 1996, Rykiel 2001, Robertson and Hull 2001, Murphy and Noon 2007, Lackey 2007, Scott et al 2007, Wilhere 2008, Nelson and Vucetich 2009, Scott and Rachlow 2011, Parsons 2013. This lack of consensus has constrained the abilities of these societies to contribute to conservation in meaningful ways, and has generated conflicts among members within societies (e.g., Hagan 1995, Johnson 2006.…”