Should scientists remain 'on tap not on top' in politics?
This morning, as the first Cabinet of the new government took their seats, David Willetts we learned, has been handed the science brief.
"Two brains", as he's often nicknamed, steps into a lively discussion. Science is in the midst of a process of self-examination.
How science relates to politics, the media and the public is the all up for discussion.
"Climategate" helped to precipitate this, but it has been coming for a while. And as scientists work out how they should best engage with the new government, there's been much talk of the need to stress the uncertainty at the heart of what they do.
The theme emerged again on Tuesday evening, during a lively discussion after the recording of the first of this year's Reith lectures.
This took place in central London, at the same time, and just a few streets away from where Gordon Brown was resigning as prime minister and the new coalition government was taking shape.
Some think scientists should champion a return to the idea of science as a process of systematic doubt.
Chris Rapley, director of the Science Museum, put it another way when we grabbed a quick chat at the pre-Reith lecture reception: "Perhaps we scientists ought to get back to our knitting" - that is, leaving the politics to the politicians.
It's a subject I have touched on before in this blog. A knowledge of science will become increasingly important as the 21st Century progresses - yet we have a new government and a new parliament with frighteningly little scientific background or expertise.
The hot topics of the day demand that politicians know the questions to ask, and who to ask them of.
The US oil spill is just one example. Is this yet an environmental "catastrophe" or still only an "incident"?
One oceanographer - Simon Boxall, of Southampton University - told me this morning that in terms both of the volume of oil released and of impact, this leak has yet to enter the rankings of the world's top 50 worst oil spills.
And there is much uncertainty ahead. Capping a well at these depths is an unprecedented technological challenge. In the long term, drilling a "bypass" into the well should work, but BP and the teams of engineers working on this do not know when they will stop the leak, how much oil will be released before the well is capped, or the likely long-term ecological impact.
Plenty of room for doubt there then. And making clear what science does NOT know, as well as what it thinks it understands cropped up in the Reith lecture itself.
This year's lecturer is Lord Rees - president of the Royal Society, Astronomer Royal and all-round widely acknowledged very clever person.
Lord Rees is familiar with the tensions that arise when scientists advise politicians: "It's crucial to keep 'clear water' between the science on the one hand, and the policy response on the other," he said. "Risk assessment should be separate from risk management."
Lord Rees cited Winston Churchill's refrain that scientific advisors should be "on tap, not on top", but it seems he only partly goes along with that:
"It is indeed the elected politicians who should make decisions. But the role of scientific advice is not just to provide facts to support policies. Experts should be prepared to challenge decision-makers, and help them navigate the uncertainties of science.
"But there's one thing they mustn't forget. Whether the context be nuclear power, drug classification, or health risks, political decisions are seldom purely scientific. They involve ethics, economics and social policies as well. And in domains beyond their special expertise, scientists speak just as citizens."
Some feel this represents too meek a view of the role of science, and that scientists .
Lord Rees pointed to the area where he believes science has recently had the most contentious policy impact, and where the stakes are highest - climate change, one of the subjects of his second lecture.
There has not been much room for doubt and uncertainty in the climate change debate, and some are arguing that it illustrates the need for .
Doubt and uncertainty are the bedrock of science, but scientists often complain that that is not what politicians want to hear.
Professor Lisa Jardine, chair of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, spoke up on Tuesday evening about the difficulties scientists face when the public and politicians want to know the "right" answer to their questions, and they want to know NOW.
Lord Rees' answer?
"We have to make people realise that science has limits, and that some key questions are not yet solved."
This year's Reith Lectures start on ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ Radio 4 on Tuesday 1 June at 0900 BST and on the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ World Service on Saturday 5 June at 1800 GMT. It will also be possible to listen again online, read transcripts and download the podcast from the Radio 4 Reith Lectures website www.bbc.co.uk/reithlectures.
UPDATE AT 1812BST: Re comment below: Yes clumsy phrase, have changed to "science as a process of systematic doubt" - thanks.
Comment number 1.
At 13th May 2010, Gareth wrote:"Some think scientists should champion a return to the idea of science as the pursuit of systematic doubt."
It ought to be the systematic pursuit of doubt.
"Lord Rees pointed to the area where he believes science has recently had the most contentious policy impact, and where the stakes are highest - climate change, one of the subjects of his second lecture.
There has not been much room for doubt and uncertainty in the climate change debate, and some are arguing that it illustrates the need for a new relationship between science and politics."
The phrase 'the stakes are highest' is post-normal science talking. That is not science at all but conjecture and politics. By ensuring the framing of the argument in that way it automatically excludes the views such as 'the stakes are not high at all because it is not man doing it' to 'the cost of trying to stop it (without even being certain it would) is far, far more than the cost of adapting'.
The originators of post-normal science insist on two things; 1. The facts are secondary to a consensus and that 2. The most consensual outcome can only be achieved if opinions of all spectrums are included.
The actions of the IPCC and world Governments excludes contrarian opinion, insists there is certainty when there is not and insists there is a consensus when there is not.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 13th May 2010, Jericoa wrote:To understand the limits and benefits of science simultaneously all cabinet ministers should be made to study quantum mechanics, see the double slit experiment for themselves, marvel at the counter-intuitive yet undeniable and proven 'hardy's paradox.
They may then take adifferent approach to 'climate science'.
I have no objection to the outcomes of 'climate science' i.e. moving towards a more sustainable future that doed not rely on the ridiculous cencept of 'eternal growth'.
We should be moving to amore sustainable future, not because of climate science but because if we dont we will try to use more and more of a finite resource which will become rarer and rarer and more and more expensive until we reach the point that we start to kill each other for control of it.
Why do we need the poxy politisizes 'excuse' known as climate change for goodness sake. There are far more compelling arguments to do it!!
Just bonkers.
P.s. I would like to apply for the job of Merlin in David Camerons 'Camelot'...anyone know where I can apply?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 13th May 2010, stevie wrote:oh goody, lectures, like they used to have, with experiments and bunson burners and ...things, I used to hope they would blow up just for a bit of drama but they usually fizzle out.....
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 13th May 2010, jauntycyclist wrote:i remember the media being gung ho about climate change as 'fact'. Even to the point of propagandising it as such. So if there is a bit more questioning in the media that might also be good? How many in the media are trained in science? Do the media know 'what questions to ask' about 'no doubt science'? When all that was in no doubt was that it was a cocktail of an agenda by those running the carbon exchanges, one world maoist cultism and governments who saw another way to tax people?
at least all the pompous 'flat earthers', 'climate deniers' name calling has evaporated as so much hot air.
when climate changers were showing people 20 year charts and saying there was 'a trend' why did no one point out that climate ice ages work on 100,000 year cycles and if you place the 20 year trend on the longer ice age chart all you see is nothing unusual and that everything is normal and that to pretend you can see a trend is ridiculous?
sometime the vested interests on all sides do not want to hear?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 13th May 2010, barriesingleton wrote:A CAT ASLEEP IN FRONT OF AN ELECTRIC FIRE.
To cool down, do you get rid of the cat? And what if the fire is controlled from 'elsewhere'?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 13th May 2010, barriesingleton wrote:SUSAN: PLEASE DEFINE "KNOWLEDGE OF SCIENCE".
"A knowledge of science will become increasingly important as the 21st Century progresses"
I take issue with that statement. What is needed is the ability to know when scientific rigor is/has been applied, to any piece of purportedly 'scientific thinking' - INCLUDING ONE'S OWN.
Being in a position to sound authoritative, while quoting hypothesis as fact, has got the planet in a bizarre mess, and put a fair few innocents in prison for extended terms.
No to dumb knowledge - yes to wisdom.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 14th May 2010, JunkkMale wrote:A bit like with 'reporting', I think a step forward would be getting back to a relationship between scientists, engineers and politicians based on competence, independence and fact, as opposed to team-playing, patronage and opinion.
But as we are now well entrenched in an era of 'enhanced narratives', what is and might be seems well suborned to what some have decided to shape into what 'should' be, with all efforts devoted not so much to investigation any more in favour of pre-production or changing things to suit in the edit suite to ensure things are quickly 'settled'.
And that... isn't science.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 14th May 2010, barriesingleton wrote:PSSSSSSST JUNKK (#7)
Any sign of Susan?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 18th May 2010, croydonjgb wrote:As it happened, I was paying quite closer attention to the Met Office Red/Black composite graphics on Sunday evening and yesterday. I was surprised to see the large Black area extending southward nearly to LGW predicted on the 0600 forecast suddenly retreat at the speed of light at 1200!! The new southern Black boundary then went only as far south as Central Scotland.
Explanations for this came there none - how people who rely on this stuff for flight planning are supposed to make good decisions beats me!.
Just pre-announcement of yet another category of ash cloud flyable under yet more conditions, risk-assessments, etc.
Then, ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ Newsnight covered the topic of VA. Aha! I thought - now the UK public will get some clarity. Wrong. All we got was a deeply-flawed piece (with an incorrectly labelled diagram of an engine) about the effects of VA. If you do cover technical topics, please, PLEASE get right whatever detail you DO include. The material is already dumbed-down, after all!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)