Tuesday, Nov. 29, 2022 | 2 a.m.
The article “Can scientists also be activists?” published Nov. 19 is a great conversation starter. The author missed one crucial point, though, about the unbiased nature of science. The scientific method is employed in the context of scientific practice. In addition to unbiased objectivity, this also mandates honesty and transparency.
If policymakers enforced the same penalties on misinformation that scientific communities impose on anyone caught fudging data or knowingly misrepresenting results, scientists might be obligated to hold an impartial official view. In the case of climate change “activism,” however, much of the action involves correcting misinformation or dishonest interpretations of data. My science training mandates action to correct outdated or dishonest conclusions.
Rational thought should view accurate data objectively, but also should not be silent when confronted with inaccuracies. And objectivity does not apply to inherently biased emotional marketing. (If I am trying to selling you something, I am inherently emotionally biased and my use of even fully fact-checked data would not meet the gold standard of double-blind research. Good scientists want an outside party to confirm their conclusions, and use peer review to fact-check conclusions prior to marketing. Doctors are forbidden from buying stocks involving products they use for this reason.)
The scientific method that mandates strict objectivity applies only in the controlled context of scientific study. When confronted by a market-driven context like policy, science’s role is to update facts, call out misinformation and oppose decisions that are inconsistent with most up-to-date scientific knowledge.
