3 ms·

> Science is about what is, not what we should do. Politics is about what we should do. > The minute you cross that line, the minute you start advocating for a

> Science is about what is, not what we should do. Politics is about what we should do. > The minute you cross that line, the minute you start advocating for an outcome, you are an activist, not a scientist. I'm not a scientist, but that seems like a rather simplistic view based on an artificial dichotomy. Firstly, and while I agree that the primary concern of science is the examination of reality, politics can direct science. Experimenting on humans and sentient animals is strongly regulated, for example, as is scientific work that can cause environmental damage (radioactivity, chemicals). The motivations for these are political/legal, not purely scientific. A major concern in politics is choosing between alternatives, but science can and does influence this. Consider the safety of fracking or whether geoengineering is an alternative to atmospheric carbon reduction. Political considerations may indicate one set of views, but the scientific evidence may (with some level probability) indicate others. I think that scientists have a right, and sometimes an obligation, to advocate outcomes based on their scientific knowledge. Especially when the consequences can be grave. > Real scientists can't be advocates. It's a conflict of interests. This comes worryingly close to asserting that scientists who advocate are not real scientists, which is a powerful tool for silencing people. Scientists have a lot of practice with dealing with conflicts of interest (pharma, nuclear weapons, medicine, etc.) and while that is not in itself part of science, it is part of how science is done when it is embedded in complex human societies.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
DanielBMarkham 10y ago
Dichotomy implies a forced choice. I think you're reading far more into this than was intended. Professions have ethics. These ethical standards evolve over time based on how these professions interact with the larger society. Lawyers can't testify on their clients, for instance, because to do so would destroy the adversarial system of justice. Doctors don't prescribe medicines for themselves. Elected officials can't receive personal gifts from foreign countries over a certain amount. And so forth. There are conflicts of interests here between the professional responsibilities these people have and how their profession can interact in a free society. A good set of ethics requires that we identify those conflicts of interest and prevent even the appearance of impropriety. This is just ethics 101. Doesn't matter what your profession is. We can quibble about what ethics should be for publicly funded scientists. We should not be quibbling about whether those ethical standards should exist or not. At least I hope not. Nobody is asserting that scientists that advocate are not real scientists, and more than doctors who self-prescribe are real doctors. The question on the table here is in a democracy which funds lots of science, what is the appropriate ethical standard for recipients of public funding? How about for scientists in general? I can define the word "science" for you, and it's not about persuading people in a democracy. People who do this thing can also do many other things. There is no dichotomy. I've pointed out the conflict of interest. We can either continue exploring that conflict with an eye to finding solutions -- or run off into the deep grass with the misunderstandings and whatnot. With the reproducibility crisis alone, science has a lot of problems. It doesn't need to be adding any more. We all have the same goals here -- at least where it concerns the advancement of human knowledge.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

DanielBMarkham 10y ago

Dichotomy implies a forced choice. I think you're reading far more into this than was intended. Professions have ethics. These ethical standards evolve over time based on how these professions interact with the larger society. Lawyers can't testify on their clients, for instance, because to do so would destroy the adversarial system of justice. Doctors don't prescribe medicines for themselves. Elected officials can't receive personal gifts from foreign countries over a certain amount. And so forth. There are conflicts of interests here between the professional responsibilities these people have and how their profession can interact in a free society. A good set of ethics requires that we identify those conflicts of interest and prevent even the appearance of impropriety. This is just ethics 101. Doesn't matter what your profession is. We can quibble about what ethics should be for publicly funded scientists. We should not be quibbling about whether those ethical standards should exist or not. At least I hope not. Nobody is asserting that scientists that advocate are not real scientists, and more than doctors who self-prescribe are real doctors. The question on the table here is in a democracy which funds lots of science, what is the appropriate ethical standard for recipients of public funding? How about for scientists in general? I can define the word "science" for you, and it's not about persuading people in a democracy. People who do this thing can also do many other things. There is no dichotomy. I've pointed out the conflict of interest. We can either continue exploring that conflict with an eye to finding solutions -- or run off into the deep grass with the misunderstandings and whatnot. With the reproducibility crisis alone, science has a lot of problems. It doesn't need to be adding any more. We all have the same goals here -- at least where it concerns the advancement of human knowledge.