LitFuse

This article from The Australian highlights an important issue about the neutrality of science in policy debates. It can be tempting for scientists to act like politicians and journalists – by spinning all information they come across to reinforce their point of view. I’m not saying Professor Kingsford from ANU necessarily did this by the way – The Australian publishes some woefully biased, anti-science journalism and this could be another example. Nevertheless, on first reading it is not a good look, and perhaps more care should have been taken in the interpretation of the information.

The one strength science has in environmental debates is its neutrality. If scientific input into policy debates becomes based on things other than a dispassionate analysis of data and information, it simply reverts to political debate and loses its special status. It reverts to being just another form of opinion.

We should value, cherish and continue to demand neutrality in scientific interpretation. While the science comunity may be frustrated by the sometimes outrageous twisting of facts, deliberate misinterpretation, or even straight out lying, by journalists and politicians, in the long run, scientists will have the greatest influence in policy debates if they are seen as being scrupulously dispassionate in their scientific interpretation in scientific reports.

Written by Paul Dalby on 12 January 2009

~ by litfuse on January 12, 2009.

Posted in LitFuse, research