Scientists don’t own the ‘facts’
Andrea Byron, leader of the National Science Challenge for Biological Heritage, recently wrote: ‘‘I am not debating the facts. 1080 is safe to use.’’ Such statements from scientists harden, rather than resolve, the environmental conflict over 1080’s use. They are paraded by one side as the ‘‘scientific truth’’ and decried by the other as misleading. Each side accuses the other of falsehoods, and the conflict worsens.
Scientists’ assurances about 1080’s ‘‘safety’’ aren’t helpful because they are expressions of their personal and cultural values, not the ‘‘facts’’ that they pronounce them to be.
How poisonous 1080 is, and what and how many animals are killed, can be measured and established as a fact. But to conclude that 1080 is ‘‘safe’’, scientists must interpret those facts subjectively, in ways that are influenced their values and beliefs.
It is normal to mix factual information with our cultural values and beliefs – we all do it. The problem arises when scientists pretend they do not.
Like old-fashioned religious leaders, when scientists make authoritative statements about the safety of tools, like 1080, Roundup, and genetically modified wildlife, they are behaving as if they have infallible knowledge from a higher power. But instead of an imaginary God, their higher power is science and its imagined objectivity.
Take, for example, the promotion of 1080 as ‘‘moderately humane’’. If we could measure how much pain an animal experiences when poisoned with 1080, then it might get a middling score, say 5 out of 10.
The personal values of some scientists have led them to interpret that score as good, and supporting 1080’s use, because they value protecting biodiversity over eliminating animal suffering. But someone who is more concerned about animal cruelty could use the same score to conclude that 1080’s use is unacceptable. After all, any poison that is moderately humane must also be moderately inhumane.
Both are legitimate and reasonable arguments using the same facts. Neither is incorrect.
It is the same for 1080’s safety. A more risksensitive person than Dr Byron would conclude that 1080 is not safe enough. Both are interpreting the same facts, but with a different set of values and priorities. They are both sensible arguments.
Putting aside the false information from some on both sides, the 1080 debate is not a conflict over facts. Whether discussing the safety or humaneness of 1080, Roundup, or genetic engineering, and all the other environmental conflicts that fill our news, it is people’s different values and cultures that are the source of disagreement.
On this Dr Byron and I agree: ‘‘People make decisions and form opinions based on their personal values, belief systems, and world views.’’ What she failed to do was acknowledge that this is true of scientists too.
We scientists could contribute more constructively to environmental debates if we acknowledged the part played by our own subjectivity and values.
Instead, unfortunately, scientists have a tendency to inflame debate by accusing others of allowing subjectivity to cloud their judgment. In her writing, Byron described the pro-1080 and science community as applying ‘‘reason and logic in decision-making’’ – implying that the anti-1080 community was irrational.
This science ‘‘facts rational’’ v ‘‘values irrational’’ framing is a common error by the pro-1080 community, especially among scientists, and it is understandably interpreted as insulting by others.
So long as we erroneously claim to be ‘‘right’’ because we use facts, and others ‘‘wrong’’ because they use values, we will continue to fuel environmental conflicts.
Science and scientists can provide us with more reliable information but they cannot, and should not, impose their values on others from pulpits of scientific authority – behaving like high-priests of the truth.
Science and scientists have been used to justify polluting industries, cigarettes, DDT, and nuclear weapons, to name a few of many. It is right, therefore, for citizens to be critical of science and scientists, and the values they mix with facts when they make pronouncements about the ‘‘truth’’.
It is naive to think that these environmental debates can be solved by scientists and science. Instead, we resolve them by sitting down together to respectfully speak and hear about our different values, beliefs and cultures. Then we engage in some good old-fashioned person-toperson negotiation to find a way for both sides to be part of the solution.
Only then are scientific information and scientists most useful – values first, facts second.