Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Laboratory >

Reticence and Science Communication

Lagrange's Nightmare

15:24 / 24.09.07

The recent IPCC Climate Change 2007 report contained a projected range of 18–59 cm for sea level rise this century. In one of the more heavily debated points the IPCC did not evaluate possible dynamical (and rapid) responses of the ice sheets stating the uncertainty was too great to use these predictions.

James Hansen argues here that a scientific reticence is hindering the effective communication of the threat global warming / sea level rise presents to us.

I suggest that `scientific reticence', in some cases, hinders communication with the public about dangers of global warming. If I am right, it is important that policy-makers recognize the potential influence of this phenomenon.

Scientific reticence may be a consequence of the scientific method. Success in science depends on objective skepticism. Caution, if not reticence, has its merits. However, in a case such as ice sheet instability and sea level rise, there is a danger in excessive caution. We may rue reticence, if it serves to lock in future disasters.

This case raises interesting questions for science communication particularly in any area where there is significant interest from and discussion in the public domain. Since any scientific study will have uncertainty within its results the following questions are raised:

Is it ever excusable to downplay the uncertainty involved in a result if you believe the risks are large enough?

What standards do you expect from scientists involved in public policy debates?

There is no reason for this thread to be tied to climate type problems, if you have examples from other fields please post them!

17:32 / 24.09.07

Nice topic. It's one I've been thinking about. I think there's a continuous temptation to abuse whatever authority one may have as a scientist to make statements that other people may take more on your assumed intelligence as a scientist rather than on the evidence you are presenting.

I think the climate change issue brings this up sharply: it's so tempting to say, 'for fuck's sake, I've spent four/seven/whatever years following the literature/doing experiments/modelling this, can't you just take my word for it?'. But - this may be showing my utopian urges - I believe the current crisis requires greater honesty and effort than that. The movement to live sustainably on the earth I think needs to engage everyone possible at the level of the evidence itself, rather than giving into the temptation to make authoritative statements.

From my perspective this is crucial stuff - the basis of the future of democracy, in the sense of collective decision-making - if we humans are to start working together to live on this planet in a way that doesn't destroy the ability of future generations to also live. I guess my Quaker background's pretty strong on the inseparability of ends and means - 'the means are the ends in the making' - so I don't want to squander the power of science to convince by deceit. I'm closer the idea of requiring oaths of honesty and ethical conduct from all scientific practitioners, on the understanding that researchers are accountable to all humans for our use of resources.

18:16 / 24.09.07

Hmmm...nuanced question indeed. I think that you should not "downplay" the uncertainty, so much as "play up" the total catastrophe of the possible situation. As long as you clearly state the uncertainty involved, you should have carte blanche to tell all the horror stories you want.

To step back from climate change for a second: I work in a virology lab, with some nasty stuff. If I sent round an email that said "hey, folks. I made some mistakes today, and there's a 1% chance of a containment breach," we would lock down the lab ASAP and follow the outbreak protocols. The 99% doesn't matter, it's all the crap that happens that 1% of the time.

Or, for another example, what if there was a 1/1000 chance a meteor would strike the earth within the next decade? Do you think people could muster interest?

Hmmm...that gets me thinking, now. Perhaps the level of accessability of the science involved makes a significant difference - the simpler and easier to understand an outcome is, the more likely it seems to a layperson, despite the actual odds involved.

13:29 / 25.09.07

Good point spectre.

I'm a big fan of science communication. I fully support the idea of writing simple summaries of important ecological findings for broad public consumption. There's often money available from the UK research councils for articulating science to a broader audience, but few scientists seem willing to take on the challenge. I want to see more of that, and I am not convinced of any necessity for deception.

I think it's easier to just talk to other scientists - perhaps it's like feminism. By that I mean, if I'm not talking to someone else who uses that political analysis, the equivalent of a few years' hard reading has to be communicated before a sensible conversation's possible, and that's just too much like hard work sometimes. I guess I have to ask myself how important it is. Am I willing to share the sense of liberation from using feminist analysis? Or willing to share the powerful reality-describing tools of science with people who don't already have those frames? It's a bit like evangelism I guess. If I really believe it's useful and important, shouldn't I devote time and effort to sharing it with people who haven't got years to spare studying it directly?

harmonic series

22:28 / 28.09.07

I think that scientists can only ethically speculate within a narrow set of boundaries. Those boundaries are mainly statistics and past events.

H.G. Wells stated,

Statistical thinking will one day be as necessary for efficient citizenship as the ability to read and write.

Because statistical education has not seemed to have yet become part of global society, I feel that honesty by scientists is of sterling importance.

Scientific information can be manipulated by spokespersons to serve a cause. The presentation or the commentary can harmfully skew numerical results, misleading naive populations. Advertisments, for example,(here hypothetically) proclaim that 4/5 people enjoy X cigarettes better than Y cigarettes. Which 4 people? Is that a condensed fraction or were only 5 people asked? Were they all employees of company X? Just recently I heard an add that said people thought a drink had more cola taste than another. What is "cola taste"?

My point is that because information can be manipulated, adding to false connotation of the data, it is of utmost importance to keep science honest and straightforward. Statistics are phenomenal predictors of phenomena. Teach people how to understand statistics- or at least help them to put trust in scientists' interpretations of the empirical information.

If someone wants to convince the public that global warming, sea levels rising, etc. is dangerous- start a marketing campaign and offer financial incentives to help the cause- and allow the numbers to represent themselves.