A new paper published in the journal Royal Society Open Science today https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.240498 explores the role of scientists in society at a time of great environmental change. It asks simply whether it is sufficient for scientists to be ‘honest brokers’ in decisions that affect society, as it has traditionally done, or whether something must change.
Here the lead author, Prof. Richard Gregory (Head of Monitoring, Conservation Science), sets the scene in a live debate that links science, policy and activism, and where passions run high.
Ben Andrew (rspb-images.com)
Science is all about accuracy, repeatability and impartiality, which uses review and discussion to validate and update knowledge. Application of knowledge has had a pervasive influence on human lives and livelihoods, and it continues to be a dominant force in building knowledge, advancing technology, and improving the quality of human life.
It does this by relentless pursuit of knowledge for knowledge sake and by meeting societal challenges to inform and help make good choices; a societal choice being a policy, a policy being political. When evidence plays a role in policy formation, then a scientist may be catapulted into the world of politics, and this where things may be complicated, in addition to the complexity of the science.
In terms of the most pressing challenges of our time, many scientists argue that the global crises of nature loss and climate change are at the top. These individually, and in combination, pose a risk to human life, prosperity, peace and sustainability, because of their cascading negative effects on human health and wellbeing, disease risk, social inequalities, human migration, food production and climate regulation. The evidence for such compound threats is compelling – the scientific consensus strong.
Yet the speed and scale of action to address those crises is at best slow, at worst glacial. Effective action is effectively delayed by vested interests who demand greater scientific certainty, pit scientists against each other, perpetuate illusions of doubt, or use plain blocking tactics. Commendable targets on nature and climate have come and gone. That leisurely policy response has led to public frustration and genuine anger, and to the rise of activism, often led by younger generations across the globe. Activism ranges from the passive and indirect, to the active and direct activism - hitting headlines and newsstands worldwide. Greta Thunberg, a global leader on climate and powerful green advocate.
Many scientists have also felt compelled to become activists in their professional or personal lives. Prominent grassroot groups have sprung up, such as Extinction Rebellion, reflecting a trend and mood in parts of society. Their aim being to use non-violent action and civil disobedience to push governments to act on nature and climate. Scientists for Extinction Rebellion, a related UK group taking action to confront the ‘impending ecological breakdown’.
And there are increasing calls for scientists to be more proactive in political debate, policy making and in civil disobedience, beyond their traditional roles in evidence-led policy. Some argue that they have a moral duty to stand up and be counted when society faces such threats. Others, however, argue it is a step too far and it isn’t the role of scientists to make such value-laden decisions for society.
So, what is the role of a scientist in meeting environmental challenges? Roger Pielke suggested four (The honest broker: making sense of science in policy and politics, 2007). The first, the ‘Pure Scientist’
does not engage in policy - they are the archetypal scientist in their white laboratory coat, far from policymakers, pursuing knowledge. The second, the ‘Science Arbiter’ engages to answer questions and queries posed by policy to remove ambiguity, but no more. The third, the ‘Issue Advocate’ comes with a strong sense of what is right, and their preferred option, coloured by evidence and values. The fourth, the ‘Honest Broker’ aims to provide an impartial and full overview of all policy alternatives. They act neutrally to inform the choices of policy makers and politicians, whose job it is to make the big decisions.
But are these roles enough and sufficient? In our paper, we argue they are not, though each may play an important role in advancing science in different settings. Noting that the risk for the ‘Issue Advocate’ is that any exaggeration or loss of objectivity in pushing a preferred outcome might undermine trust in science. There is a difficult balance between raising alarm based on evidence and being accused of ‘crying wolf’.
So, scientists face a dilemma in how best to balance a glittering scientific career, defined by its impartiality and objectivity, alongside values and beliefs, and a desire to act at a time of unusual levels of environmental change. They might also be challenged about their personal responsibility as scientists in society, conscious that a failure to speak up might give the impression that all was well. Of course, much of this is about personal choice but also freedom to act as that may be constrained for early career scientists.
Figure 1; Potential to influence policy versus scientific reputational risk.
We argue that scientists can and should advocate for one course of action over another if this is based upon their expert interpretation of the scientific evidence. This is the role of an ‘Honest Advocate’, who presents information in a rigorous scientific fashion to improve the quality of advocacy, narrowing and weighting choices, based on set criteria. We encourage each scientist to reflect on their place in society and to consider when it might be appropriate to act as an ‘Honest Advocate’ alongside other valuable roles given the urgent environmental challenges of the twenty-first century.