In the interests of getting a conversation going, I thought I'd pose some of the issues we've been grappling with over here at UC Santa Barbara.

It seems that our sanctuary is rather unique-- in the sense that there is a huge amount of research that has already been done in the region.  Much is known about ecosystem function and the relative impacts of various stressors on the area. 

With all this SCIENCE and so many questions about management, the seminar often comes back to the following issues.

1) Is the proper role of science within policy making one of "equal stakeholder" or privileged status?

Although I believe that science may have a POV that is "priveleged", I guess I don't really believe that policy-making can defer only to expert scientific opinion.  Sean Hastings from Channel Islands Sanctuary spoke of the need for the gov to serve as moderator between all user groups, and I think that is the reality of the issue.  An averaging process is inevitable-- since for some groups, no impact is the only acceptable answer, while for others the loss of any revenue is intolerable.

2) IS the inherent UNcertainty of good science acting as an impediment to implementation of positive policy?

I say yes.  Too much emphasis on understanding more data better.  Don't we KNOW enough to identify the major stressors negatively impacting marine environments? Steve Katz (Research Coordinator at CINMS) posits that we have a management problem, not a science problem.  There are political reasons why protections are not being put in place for marine ecosystems and they seem to mirror the "Global Warming" pattern of awareness and reaction. 

I am concerned about how slowly the politics move in favor of conservation and wonder if the world can wait for an Environmental Impact Statement!!!

Leslie

Leslie, you pose some excellent questions. I think it is important to distinguish between the role of science and scientists in policy making. The role of science is to provide the best, unbiased interpretation of data in the context of the policy debate. The policy debate arises because the consequences of a particular action, such as creating a marine reserve, affect different groups disproportionately and because there are always gaps in scientific knowledge about those consequences.

Bu what happens when scientists become advocates for a particular policy position? In many cases opponents of that position seek to discredit the science. Perhaps even more subversive, advocates for a position funds "biassed" science that support their viewpoint. That can lead to all the science being discredited in the public's eye. In theory such advocacy science would not pass muster in the scientific community due to peer review other checks in the process. But there are ways around that process too, including completely bypassing it.

I think it is not just uncertainty in good science, but lack of respect and understanding of the scientific process that creates impediments to policy development. This is made worse by the lack of investment in the research necessary to support policy decisions. In the end, the public must still engage in resource management decision process. Public involvement is by its nature messy and slow. The real challenge is to protect the integrity of the public process by preventing its capture by special interest groups at the expense of the community of users.

Robert,

Interesting distinction between the role of science vs scientists...

So perhaps we can say that the role of science SHOULD be somewhat straightforward, but what about scientists as advocates?  I am not a "real scientist", I suppose, yet I must say that I find nothing wrong with intelligent, moral, scientist citizens drawing conclusions based on unbiased data.  Of course, at that point, have you corrupted yourself and the integrity of your data?

Some of the greatest scientists in the Environmental movement were also advocates-- and I wonder how ethical people who believe in positive change (who happen to be scientists) can separate those things from their work.  I realize this is more of a value judgment, but it seems to be an important question.

Should scientists be afraid to have an opinion?  Can they even avoid it anyway? Or, if they do have one, must they keep it separate from their work, as though they have 2 alter egos?

And my final question: how would you suggest "protecting the integrity of public processes by preventing its capture by special interest groups"?  Isn't the public process inevitably made up of special interest groups? Also, I know you will say Science is NOT a "special interest group", but I think other groups might think otherwise.  And often, you see this science vs. industry antagonism that almost forces scientists to defend their data and to minimize the uncertainty.  It seems a tough bind...

Thanks for joining in the conversation!

Leslie

Previously Robert Pavia wrote:

Leslie, you pose some excellent questions. I think it is important to distinguish between the role of science and scientists in policy making. The role of science is to provide the best, unbiased interpretation of data in the context of the policy debate. The policy debate arises because the consequences of a particular action, such as creating a marine reserve, affect different groups disproportionately and because there are always gaps in scientific knowledge about those consequences.



Bu what happens when scientists become advocates for a particular policy position? In many cases opponents of that position seek to discredit the science. Perhaps even more subversive, advocates for a position funds "biassed" science that support their viewpoint. That can lead to all the science being discredited in the public's eye. In theory such advocacy science would not pass muster in the scientific community due to peer review other checks in the process. But there are ways around that process too, including completely bypassing it.



I think it is not just uncertainty in good science, but lack of respect and understanding of the scientific process that creates impediments to policy development. This is made worse by the lack of investment in the research necessary to support policy decisions. In the end, the public must still engage in resource management decision process. Public involvement is by its nature messy and slow. The real challenge is to protect the integrity of the public process by preventing its capture by special interest groups at the expense of the community of users.