how to grapple with science advice in ideological conflicts

SCIENCE AND CITIZENSHeather Douglas

Waterloo Chair in Science & Society

July 23, 2014

CONTROVERSY & DISTRUST

GMOs Climate Change Vaccines

THREE MODELS

Deficit Model Scientific Illiteracy

Constructivist Model No special expertise

Framing Model Malleable humans

PROBLEMS WITH THE MODELS

Ignorant publics? All knowledge equal? Irrational publics? Perfectly informed scientists?

The problem of science in democracy

THE NATURE OF SCIENCE

WHAT IS SCIENCE?

Science is an empirical endeavor. Science builds theories that explain available

evidence. Science uses explanations to generate new

predictions. The new predictions guide new tests,

gathering new evidence. Science is always developing and changing.

Evidence

Explanation

Prediction

THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS

Evidence

Evidence

Explanation

Prediction

AN ITERATIVE PROCESS

Evidence

Explanation

Evidence

Explanation

Prediction

PredictionEvidence

Explanation

Evidence

Explanation

Prediction

PredictionEvidence

Explanation

Evidence

Explanation

Prediction

Evidence

SCIENCE AND UNCERTAINTY

Theories and explanations are always broader than the evidence they explain.

No theory is known with certainty. Theories are better or worse supported, and

have better or worse alternatives. Science is always open to challenge. Science’s uncertainty is the reason science is

robust!

THE ROBUSTNESS OF SCIENCE

Why rely on science? Two reasons:1. The evidential basis of science Scientific claims and theories are always open to

empirical challenge.

2. The communal criticism of science Scientific communities should be open and

diverse. This helps them raise the broadest possible

challenges.

THE IMPORTANT SCIENTIFIC LITERACY

The most important thing citizens need to understand: The Nature of Science Science is not fixed. Science is not complete.

Yet science is reliable generally. Because it is based on evidence. Because of the ongoing critique within the

scientific community.

THE VALUE OF SCIENCE IN A DEMOCRACYReliable empirical knowledge needed for: Effective policy decisions Tracking the impact of public policy

(assessing governance) Rethinking the public-private boundary Assigning causation to assess

responsibility

(MORE) THE VALUE OF SCIENCE

Challenging received wisdom on the nature of things

Bolstering economic development Shaping technological possibilities

GROUNDS FOR CONTESTING SCIENCE

Science is important for all these things, but it can also be contested by citizens: Science is uncertain, so is the available evidence

sufficient? Have the right range of questions been asked?

Is scientific research focusing on the right problems and the right range of solutions?

Is the scientific community functioning properly (adequate criticism)?

Is the expertise reliable?

CITIZENS AND SCIENCE

HOW CAN CITIZENS ASSESS EXPERTS?

1. Do the experts have a Ph.D. in the appropriate area?

2. Are they publishing in their area of expertise?

3. Do they have integrity?4. Do they share citizens’ values?

ASSESSING INTEGRITY

Integrity in science is having the proper regard for evidence.

Experts should change their minds when new evidence is presented OR be able to explain why the new evidence does not change their mind.

Experts should be able to say what evidence would change their minds.

DETECTING A LACK OF INTEGRITY

An expert lacking integrity will: Ignore inconvenient evidence. Cherry-pick evidence. Depend upon flawed evidence. Not be able to imagine evidence that will change

their mind. Not respond to criticism.

A lack of integrity is discovered in a pattern of argumentation.

ASSESSING VALUES?

If an expert has integrity, why does it matter whether the social and ethical values are shared?

Values help direct the questions being asked. Values help assess evidential sufficiency

through inductive risk.

INDUCTIVE RISK

Is the evidence sufficient?

Depends on false positive-false negative trade-off.

It depends on our values.

Is this evidence enough?

Value

CITIZEN QUERIES FOR SCIENCE

1. First: Is the research being done with integrity? Is the scientific community properly critical?

2. Second: Are the right questions being asked in

research? Is inductive risk being handled properly?

ADDRESSING CONTROVERSIES

HOW SHOULD SCIENCE ENGAGE CITIZENS DURING A CONTROVERSY?

Rather than presume ignorance, irrationality, or malleability of the public, assess the source of controversy.

Why are citizens distrustful of science in the particular cases?

THREE REASONS TO DISTRUST/IGNORE SCIENCE WITH INTEGRITY

1. Science vs. Faith: The issue rests on an article of faith.

2. The Research Agenda: Scientists have not yet studied the central concern.

3. Inductive Risk: Scientists are not weighing the risks of error appropriately.

Each of these reasons calls for a different response.

1. SCIENCE VS. FAITH

Different topics? Different authorities? Different epistemic stances Science: Everything is open to evidential

challenge. Faith: Evidence is irrelevant. Belief exists in

the face of evidence to the contrary.

Problem: Public decisions when faith is not shared...

1. FAITH & SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSIES

Examples: Climate change: “God won’t let us change the

climate.” GMOs: “We should not alter nature.” Vaccines: “My body is inviolate.”

Response: If issue is private, no problems arise. If issue is public, arguments must be public. The

public must decide whether to settle the matter on the basis of faith or science.

2. THE RESEARCH AGENDA

Are scientists addressing what the public is worried about?

Examples (historical): GMOs: What will be the impact of IP on

farming practices? Climate change: How will climate change

impact my region? Vaccines: What alternatives to mercury

preservatives are there? Response: Do research to address concerns!

3. THE WEIGHING OF INDUCTIVE RISKS

Is the available evidence sufficient for accepting the scientific theory?

What are the risks of false positives or false negatives?

Examples: GMOs: Do we have enough evidence that gene

transfer in this instance will not be a problem? Climate change: Do we have enough evidence

to take expensive action? Vaccines: Do we have enough evidence to trust

that the vaccine is safe and effective?

A BETTER EXAMPLE: NEONICOTINOIDS & BEE HEALTH

Neonicotinoids are a very effectivepesticide that coats seeds and protects the entire plant.

They end up in the pollen too. They are neurotoxic and

immunological suppressants. First used in the 1990s, they became widespread

by 2000. Bee population difficulties appeared as the use of

neonicotinoids rose. Recent controlled studies show a correlation

between exposure and bee colony collapse disorder.

IS THE EVIDENCE ENOUGH TO PULL THEM FROM THE MARKET?

Yes: Bee health is in serious decline where these pesticides have become widespread, and pollinators are crucial to our food supply.

No: There are contradicting studies (although not without conflicts of interest) and farmers depend on these pesticides for increased crop yields.

Balancing risks of error (false positive and false negatives) influences the answer.

DEALING WITH INDUCTIVE RISK

Responses: Ask what evidence would be persuasive (also

crucial for integrity). Discuss values openly: can greater

agreement on values be reached? Seek policies that preserve strong value

considerations rather than demanding trade-offs

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

MODES OF ENGAGEMENT

Citizen Science

Public Forums

Deliberative Forums

SCIENCE & DEMOCRACY

Whose values? Scientists don’t demographically represent

the public. Scientists often have their own disciplinary

values. Generating genuine public engagement is

the challenge.

THE NATURE OF THE PUBLIC

Preferences ill-formed Not well-informed about

science generally

BUT, Capable of learning specifics Capable of understanding science Capable of grappling with trade-offs

DELIBERATIVE FORUMS

A range of research by social scientists over the past 20 years

Analytic-deliberative processes, collaborative analysis,

citizen juries, etc. Stakeholders

OR citizen panels

BENEFITS OF DELIBERATIVE FORUMS

Participants gain greater understanding of science, through direct engagement with expertise

Experts gain local insight from members of the public Actual farming practices Better tidal current data

Value judgments clarified Representative process possible– genuinely

democratic! Trust is cultivated.

CONCLUSIONS

THE AGENDA

Educate the public on the nature of science Be clear when issue is matter of faith or

matter of science Demand intellectual integrity from everyone

Think through what evidence might be convincing

Pay attention to the range of concerns present with an issue

Pay attention to the ethical values involved with weighing inductive risks

Construct social forums where genuine dialogue can occur

THE RESULTS?

A citizenry that understands what science is and why it is important

A body of research that can be used to inform public decisions

Advice that is scientifically legitimate and democratically accountable