December 26, 2013, by Brigitte Nerlich
Making science public: The science and silence conundrum
The issue of science and advocacy is a complex topic and has led to heated discussions amongst scientists, science communicators and commentators of different persuasions, especially this year it seems. There was first a flurry of debate provoked, in July this year, by an article written by Tamsin Edwards who argued that climate scientists should not advocate particular policies, and then another one towards the end of the year triggered by a talk delivered by Gavin Schmidt at the American Geophysical Union, who argued that honesty is the best policy in the context of science and advocacy. Both these debates took place in the context of climate change, where science and society seem to clash most frequently in recent times and where science communication is confronted by a long list of problems.
Then, at the end of December 2013, Professor Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre claimed that scientists working on climate change and who remained silent implicitly advocated the status quo. He said in an interview: “I think the scientists – particularly those of us who do work at the interface between science and translating that into a language that others can engage with – not just policy-makers, but broader civil society, businesses and so forth. For those of us to stay quiet about our work, that is political. […] So we may think we’re doing this neutrally, but we’re not at all. That silence is an advocacy for the status quo. So there are no such things as scientists that are not political. Scientists by their nature are being political, whether they engage or do not engage in the wider debates. And I would argue that the ones are who are the least political are the ones who engage in it.” Silence in the context of climate change is seen as a political act, an implicit act of advocacy.
This intervention in the growing debate around science and advocacy in turn provoked a lot of discussion, and I don’t think that this will be the last time the science/advocacy debate has flared up. Interestingly, one commenter speaking out for speaking out was completely misunderstood by a moderator. The commenter’s argument was that breaking the silence on climate change should indeed come from the community of climate scientists and not be left largely to others; and that one part of this communicative activity should be to point out and correct errors or erroneous information which, if perpetuated, repeated and amplified, may distort the debate as it is being carried out openly and in public. In his own blog the commenter also argued, very reasonably in my view, that “it does seem unfair to suggest that those who choose not to engage are advocating for the status quo. There are many reasons why people may choose to engage or not and we should be willing to let people do what they think is best. That doesn’t mean that they’re beyond criticism, but a blanket judgement seems unjustified.”
Science and silence
Interestingly, Kevin Anderson intervened in the science/advocacy or science/communication debate on the same day (17 December, 2013) that an AHRC funded workshop took place at Imperial College London entitled Silence in the History and Communication of Science .This was the second in a series of workshops organized by Dr Felicity Mellor on the topic of The Silences of Science. This second workshop dealt mainly with historical examples of silence and science. It seems to me that the work carried out in the context of this workshop programme might be a good place to focus on more contemporary debates (and perhaps this will happen in the third workshop scheduled for spring 2014 on The Role of Silence in Scientific Practice: Spring 2014), and deal in particular with the issue of science and silence in the context of climate change.
Felicity herself pointed to some of the dilemmas inherent in science and silence in her invitation to the first workshop: “Restricted access to scientific knowledge becomes the object of moral censure, whilst maximised communication is frequently taken as an unquestioned social good. However, science – and its communication – depends as much on discontinuities, on barriers and lacunae, as it does on the free flow of information. Contrary to the Mertonian ideal, scientific innovation and scientific commerce rely on the constant use of moral, legal and technical devices that restrict, rather than encourage, the sharing of ideas; a feature highlighted by those historians of science who have studied secrecy in science. A number of recent events – from the so-called ‘Climategate’ affair through to debates about open access – have highlighted the need for a critical examination of the role of silence in science. Whilst the public communication of science and public engagement with science are important ideals, there are times when it is expedient and appropriate for scientists to withdraw from the public sphere. The qualities of such withdrawals will vary, from professional silences prompted by competition and fears of plagiarism, to reticence in the face of uncertain knowledge.”
Are these some of the reasons why some, but certainly not all, climate scientists, especially those scarred by the climategate affair, are reticent to break their silence? Are these some of the reasons, but certainly not all, why some shy away from advocacy (which may however be an impossible position to take, as Kevin Anderson argued)?
Making science public
These recent debates make public some of the dilemmas at the heart of making science public. These are particularly problematic in the context of climate change, where speaking up, from whatever perspective and position, can lead to being shouted down, but where speaking up is increasingly demanded of scientists in particular by people in high office, such as the UK’s Chief Scientific Advisor Sir Mark Walport. The complex relationship between science, communication and policy (which is not as linear as some might think or wish it to be) and the complex relationship between science, advocacy and silence is however little understood (and quite easily misunderstood) and needs much more research. This also holds for the relationship between science and noise of course, but that’s another story.
All these recent episodes demonstrate that every act of speech and every act of silence opens up a space for interpretation and misinterpretation leading to further speech and further silence. These acts of speech and silence also open up spaces for power struggles over who should speak (for whom), who has the right to speak (about what), how to deliberate about science and politics, what the outcomes of these deliberations should be, and so on. How we use our individual and collective acts of speech and silence to negotiate common (global, national, local) goals relating to the world we live in and want to live in, still remains a deep democratic conundrum.
Image: Wikimedia Commons: Faras Saint Anne
If I could have one New Year’s wish in relation to this subject it would be that those involved in social science and science communication would have a hard think about what they actually mean when they trot out the almost de rigeur social science mantra about science and society being in conflict.
Warren Peace did this not so long ago this thread:
https://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2013/11/03/the-subterranean-war-on-science-a-comment/#comments
(happily he corrected himself when the appalling illogic of his statement, suggesting that bullying of scientists by thugs encouraged by internet bloggers was akin to a conflict between society and society, was pointed out).
Please explain Brigitte, in what sense any of the topic you’ve written about involves a conflict between science and society. Science is part of society. As taxpayers and consumers we fund the scientific enterprise, and in the case of publicly-funded science this is done in the expectation that science will contribute to important (perhaps targetted) knowledge and provide net benefits to societal wealth and wellbeing. Climate science is no different in this regard. Publicly-funded climate science has produced a vast wealth of knowledge about the nature of Earth climate and its response to an enhanced greenhouse effect. It’s all there in the IPCC reports. Policymakers have an extraordinary valuable resource as an important input to policymaking.
There is a conflict at play here and this relates (partly) to what Kevin Anderson was discussing. In addition to the science there is a veritable industry (not publicly funded of course) aimed at misrepresenting the science. My impression from these pages is that social scientists are unable to address this problem with any degree of scholarship because they (speaking generally) don’t consider it terribly interesting to engage with (i.e. try to understand) the actual science that informs us on this subject. This is a rather sad state of affairs for social science in my opinion…
In every example of the last 25 years I can think of (e.g. ciggie smoking and its consequences; AIDS/HIV; CFC’s and effects on denuding the ozone layer; the UK foot and mouth outbreak; addressing hospital acquired infections; the MMR scare and so on), publicly-funded science has produced the evidence that allows for appropriate policy making. I don’t see how climate science is any different in this regard.
In none of these examples as far as I can remember was there any consideration of science and society being “in conflict”. I can’t see it with the climate science and its input into policymaking, although it’s of paramount importance to recognize that this is a particularly tough scientific and societal problem with considerable uncertainties since it deals with consequences that accrue largely in the future.
So where is this “conflict” between science and society in this instance? I think it’s rather important that social scientists are able to justify what I think is a completely inappropriate, lazy mantra (as Warren Peace’s usage has shown). And if it can’t be justified then some thought might be given to avoiding using it.
What I meant was that there are topics such as climate change where sparks tend to fly and friction occurs at the interface between science and society. There are other topics where this happens as well around certain biotechnologies for example. I know the expression ‘science and society’ is a ‘short-cut’ but that’s language for you. It allows you to compress long thoughts into short words. But of course, there is the danger that other people might connect different thoughts with the words used. Actually it’s not a danger. That’s how communication works. One can always ask questions… and answers can always be unsatisfactory and provoke more questions.
Hello Chris. Thanks for cutting into your Yuletide festivities to comment.
Five points to clarify here:
1. In my original ‘Subterranean’ post which you reference, I made my position on bullying very clear: “…where bullying is identified it should not be tolerated anywhere in modern society.”
2. I did not say that “science and society were in conflict”, which seems to imply some kind of endless war. Rather, I talked about “managing conflicts – both legitimate and otherwise – between science and society” i.e. occasional scientific controversies which flare up, and which were part of the rationale for the Making Science Public research programme (BSE, MMR, Climategate etc etc).
3. The quote above (2) was the only time I used the word “conflict” in the ‘Subterranean’ post, and Brigitte did not use the word *at all* in the post above. Despite this, the word has formed the centre of your critique here, using it 18 times in your first three comments. Is this a proportionate response?
4. As you are probably aware, Lewandowsky et al responded to my comment on ‘Subterranean’ Still much to discuss in the future about this, but obviously I was pleased to see the debate moved forward in a constructive manner.
5. When you objected to my science/society binary previously I agreed that such a binary was imperfect. Perhaps I should have added that this is in common with the use of all binaries used as heuristics in the social sciences. As Brigitte mentions, we use these as means of getting ideas across concisely; there is no optimum means of communicating ideas. Perhaps a better term to use than ‘society’ would be ‘publics’, which emphasises that society is made up of many overlapping groups of people who organise themselves (either formally or informally) around issues of interest.
To take the familiar example of Climategate, one could identify two publics (there are more) who took an interest: around climate science as policy justification and the ethics of scientific practice (data publication, peer review etc). These publics were/are not necessarily the same: notable speakers in scientific community were agitated about the latter without denigrating the former eg Horton: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/jul/07/climate-email-inquiry-revolution Moriarty: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/3/26/making-science-public.html The impression I get from your comments (I may be mistaken) is that those publics quibbling with aspects of climate science are all politically motivated in some way. This is not the case.
Right, so when you say: “Both these debates took place in the context of climate change, where science and society seem to clash most frequently in recent times…” you don’t actually mean a clash between science and society, even ‘though that’s what your words say. It turns out that when Warren Peace stated on the subject of thugs attempting to intimidate climate scientists: “With better systems for dealing with this, we can hopefully focus more on transparent and robust methods of managing conflicts – both legitimate and otherwise – between science and society, rather than seeking to devise new laws to protect the former from the latter.”, he didn’t actually (on consideration) mean that this was about a conflict between science and society at all…even though that’s what his words say.
Wouldn’t it be better to use appropriate words and phrases that say what you mean? I think it’s extraordinary that social scientists that comment on science, an endeavour in which its practitioners go to considerable lengths to say what they mean are so lazy with language. Especially those with a stated interest in science communication! Given this usage on two occasions now on this blog, one might wonder whether (some) social scientists would wish to create the impression that science and society are “in conflict” so as to “spice up” the subject of their researches! In my opinion manufacturing some pretense that “science” and “society” are “in conflict” would be completely negligent and lacking of scholarship. A danger of using lazy language that expresses untruths is that you contribute to the “friction” that may cloud contentious issues.
Anyway, as I understand it you don’t actually think there is a clash, or conflict, between science and society, and when you state such a thing, you don’t actually mean it (you mean something else). It’s very important to establish that in my opinion. It would certainly colour my readings of (some) social scientists if it were apparent that their writings were made within a context of a belief that science and society were somehow in conflict (or clashing).
I am really sorry that my use of the expression ‘science and society’ has caused such offence. It is used quite commonly in the social sciences, but that doesn’t mean one shouldn’t reflect on this use more critically.
Brigitte, there is nothing concerning about the expression “science and society”! The concern is the pretense that “science and society” are “in conflict” (Warren Peace’s assertion) or that “science and society” “clash” (your statement). If you and Warren really do mean that you consider that science and society are in conflict or are clashing then fine, but you need to justify this. In my opinion it’s very clear that there is no conflict between science and society. Tedious conflicts involving science and science misrepresenters, or between scientists and bullies attempting to intimidate scientists, should NOT be framed as representing conflicts or clashes between science and society. This is so obvious as to seem to be beyond requiring explanation, yet the sentiment that science and society are in conflict has appeared twice on this blog as if this is some sort of accepted truism within the social science community.
Brigitte, thanks for this post. I think this may have won the MSP post of the year award at the very last gasp!
Lots to think about here, both in climate change and other areas of science we are considering on the programme. We know from hermeneutics that we cannot expect individuals to interpret a text in the same way (we also know this from our blog!) What your post shows up is that silence is just another sort of text, which could be interpreted in different ways. It could be a sign of acquiescence or of disinterest, for example. For climate bloggers, silence is often seen as a vacuum, particularly in the cut and thrust of claim and counter-claim which takes place daily. Notably, this constant blog chatter is sometimes referred to as ‘noise’, the opposite of silence.
Brigitte, interesting post and thanks for the complimentary comment about my post 🙂
I have wondered about the implication of climategate myself and you seem to imply that it may have had some effect.
Are these some of the reasons why some, but certainly not all, climate scientists, especially those scarred by the climategate affair, are reticent to break their silence? Are these some of the reasons, but certainly not all, why some shy away from advocacy (which may however be an impossible position to take, as Kevin Anderson argued)?
Another factor that I have considered since writing my post is how much the ridiculousness of what is said by some might influence the response of some scientists. I sometimes get emails from people with all sorts of claims that they’ve refuted Einstein (or something similar). You tend to just ignore these since they seem so obviously wrong, how could anyone take it seriously. Do you think it’s possible that some of the silence by climate scientists is related to this? It’s obvious to them that something is clearly incorrect, but they don’t necessarily realise that it isn’t as obvious to others.
I think all the reasons you mention may contribute to why some scientists prefer to remain silent rather than speak out. However, it is of course difficult to say which of these factors may be at work, alongside many others we have not even thought about, without doing some research. But such research itself would probably be methodologically quite difficult to carry out. Even within the growing field of research relating to public engagement and science communication it is quite rare to find examples of research trying to determine why scientists engage or communicate (or indeed not). This article by Ellen Poliakoff is one of the rare examples and is quoted in some other articles dealing with similar topics: http://scx.sagepub.com/content/29/2/242
in response to Warren Peace above (Dec 26, 10:47):
no problem with that.
No. “scientific controversies” do NOT equate to “conflicts” “between science and society”. In the case of BSE, ongoing and targeted scientific research uncovered the links between particular methods of animal husbandry and BSE in cattle, with further scientific study showing evidence for a link between variant Creutzfeld-Jacob disease and eating infected beef products. As a result of this research the problem has been largely removed, some aspects of animal husbandry are improved in the UK and elsewhere, the public is both better protected against this problem and far better informed, and scientific research in related pathologies (e.g. Alzheimer’s and some forms of Parkinson’s disease) has advanced.
I can’t think of any way in which these outcomes or the controversies apparent at the time equate to a “conflict” between “science and society”. There were obviously controversies relating to the nature of the Government response to the scientific information, the role of some elements of the food industry in attempting to downplay the scientific evidence and so on. If you are referring to these specific elements of controversy then you should do so specifically rather than insinuating that the BSE episode constituted a conflict between science and society (which is what your words say).
Not sure what that’s supposed to mean (“proportionate response”). In conveying meaning one uses words. I’m discussing what seems to be an underlying theme in social science commentary (at least as judged by this blog) of an apparent perception that science and society come into conflict or clash. Since I’m talking about this apparent perception I’m bound to use the appropriate words (“conflict”, “society”, “public”). I’m actually trying to explain something about meaning and understand something about what social scientists think. I’m not using words as if they were hand grenades!
O.K. so social scientists use obscure or imprecise meaning as shorthand to communicate ideas. That’s unfortunate, especially when perusal of this blog suggests a particular interest in science communication! Personally speaking if I was a social scientist interested in communicating more widely with the public I would involve using the nouns “binaries” and “heuristics”. And if social scientists have a special private meaning of the noun “public” then they should jolly-well let everyone else know what they mean when they use it in any particular case!
My blog post tried to highlight some of the dilemmas and conundrums that beset science communication (in the widest possible sense) in the context of climate change. I briefly alluded to the issues of ‘clashes’ between ‘science’ and ‘society’ in the context of climate change. These were not the topic of my post. I therefore did not go into lengthy detail about them. Obviously these three or so words leave a lot of things unsaid that could be said, perhaps in another blog post or an article or a book or even series of books. You won’t deny, I think, that the issue of climate change is a rather controversial one, where various groups of people within society discuss and debate issues around science and policy, sometimes in rather aggressive ways that one could refer to as ‘clash’ or ‘conflict’. In alluding to such controversies, I am not in any way trying to belittle science or scientists. On the contrary, I hold them in quite high esteem. You should know this from my other posts. This does, however, not mean that various aspects of modern science are not contested or contestable and that this happens, in particular in the context of climate change. Can we agree on that?
[…] […]
It’s really not difficult – it’s a question of who pays for and hence owns the science.
So where the science is publicly funded, it should be publicly available. The deliberate denial of publicly-funded data to persons whose conclusions the curator disagreed with, that luckily came to light in Climategate, was a flagrant anti-science breach of ethics that really ought to have resulted in dismissal. Instead, what followed was official coverups, and to this day the corrupt individuals and institutions remain in place and unrepentant.
Climategate has highlighted the need for more openness. However, I agree with this sentence in a Nature editorial: “More openness alone is unlikely to resolve tensions between scientists, the media and politicians, or between sceptics and alarmists.” (Although I would avoid the dichotomy of sceptics and alarmists) And also with this one: “Along with greater openness, a much more nuanced and multifaceted discussion of the physical aspects of climate change needs to be presented to the public to avoid future accusations of cliquiness and gatekeeping.” http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n8/full/ngeo937.html That’s exactly what some climate scientists try to do, in my opinion.
“there is a veritable industry (not publicly funded of course) aimed at misrepresenting the science”
The elephant in the room though, is on the other ‘side’ – the fact that government is both the funder of the climate science that speaks of dangerous man-made warming, and stands to benefit handsomely from public belief in this danger (by means of more taxes and red tape with which to dominate people).
There is thus an obvious, inherent and truly monumental conflict of interest problem here – an example of how a science can be corrupted into being a weapon for manipulating society. By way of analogy, trusting government climate science, is like trusting tobacco company science on the effects of smoking.
Paula, those are curious ideas. Your analogy about ciggie smoking is rather suspect unfortunately. Remember that Richard Doll and other scientists that uncovered and publicised the statistical evidence for a strong link between ciggie smoking and lung cancer and other respiratory diseases were publicly-funded scientists. We’re in a somewhat similar situation today, in that a very large and global effort of largely (but not exclusively) publicly-funded science provides evidence on man-made contributions to global warming and climate change that informs policy. Like the ciggie smoking example, the efforts to misrepresent the science are certainly not publicly-funded; far from it! It’s difficult to see (outside of conspiracy theorising perhaps!) how governments benefit from this knowledge other than by virtue of its input into, hopefully, informed policymaking.
Brigitte, anyone following your link to the Nature editorial would be advised also to read the linked commentaries in that issue of Nature by Klaus Hasselmann and Werner Krauss:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n8/full/ngeo919.html
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n8/full/ngeo927.html
To my mind, it’s unfortunate that a well-informed and dispassionate account of Climategate and its background has not yet been written, since this would be helpful in improving the general understanding of science in the raw.
I agree, such an account would be good. In the meantime I might refer you to something I wrote immediately after the climategate affair, actually over Christmas and New Year 2009/10 😉
https://www.academia.edu/2521175/Nerlich_B._2010_._Climategate_Paradoxical_metaphors_and_political_paralysis._Environmental_Values._Environmental_Values_19_4_419-442
O.K. I will read that with interest (prbly over the weekend as it’s quite long!). Happy New Year and good luck with your endeavours at helping to make science public.
[…] metaphor of ‘mind change’ (created in analogy to ‘climate change’). I wrote about science and silence. I wrote about scientific methods. And finally I wrote about worms! As I just bought myself a […]