Thoughts on the relationship of environmental science and policy

Gene Myers

Estu/ Esci 301

science can:

• detect effects, situations, and potential problems that are not immediately observable & need to be addressed by policies
• over time, indicate where our understanding of a system is incomplete
• explain how ecosystems work (what processes occur), and therefore what parameters we need to attend to in policies
• provide concepts and findings that can link different parts of a system
• provide evidence about the effects of existing policies
• predict (with some uncertainty) what might happen under different policy options
• provide filters through which any acceptable policy must be able to pass
• serve as a check on bias in interest groups' definition of the situation
• help set limits on what policy permits (i.e., what levels of emissions are associated with what level of effects on system components)
• be relied on as relatively neutral if it is of high quality (high methodological standards, lacking of bias, replicated, peer reviewed -- McNaughton)
• provide a base of agree-upon fact, from which all the parties can agree to work
• if system of science is sound, it is not just another interest group, but a neutral arbitrator of alternatives backed by interest groups

science cannot:

• make the public care (we need educators to interpret and use science carefully and intelligently to do that)
• tell us how to formulate the overall problem
• tell us what to do (if it seems to, then unstated normative ideas are present in the argument)
• tell us the full range of values to consider
• tell us what values to prioritize (i.e., biotic community vs human health vs equity vs economy vs sustainability)
• tell us what level of risk to what parties is acceptable
• tell us on whom the burden of proof should lie (on those proposing an action, or those who might experience the effects of it; on those challenging the status quo or those reinforcing it; on those making 'extraordinary claims' or those benefiting/suffering if those claims are wrong/correct)
• answer questions it lacks tools to answer (scientific tools = theories; empirical methods; feasible, valid and reliable measures; and analytical procedures)
• conclusively prove any theory (but it can eliminate weak competing theories)
• be assumed to be high-quality and as scrupulously bias-free as ideal science
• ensure that its results will not be used in a partial and partisan fashion
• stop people who lack it from claiming they have scientific credibility (but it can prevent their findings from being accepted by members of the scientific community by failing to replicate them, identifying fatal methodological flaws, or showing the theories to be incorrect -- that is to say, by refuting them on scientific grounds, not by personal attack)