Julian Edgar, 50, has been writing about car modification and automotive technology for nearly 25 years. He has owned cars with two, three, four, five, six and eight cylinders; single turbo, twin turbo, supercharged, diesel and hybrid electric drivelines. He lists his transport interests as turbocharging, aerodynamics, suspension design and human-powered vehicles.
Science not a social panacea
I have listened on and off the ABC Radio’s Science Show for many years.
My father – a retired research scientist – listens to it weekly, and while staying with my parents I’ve often heard bits and pieces of the show. Since podcasts have become popular, I download it to my iPod and, on the rare times I am on public transport, listen to it there as well.
The presenter, Robyn Williams, is erudite and accomplished.
The show is not averse to asking hard questions, but perhaps like any vehicle dedicated to the one audience, it can at times become lost in itself.
This struck me forcefully the other day.
Williams was interviewing Lawrence Krauss, Foundation Professor, School of Earth Space Exploration at Arizona State University. The discussion was wide-ranging: the CERN Large Hadron Collider, sending people to Mars – and the US presidential campaign.
It was in commentary on the latter that Krauss said something that I thought extraordinary, especially since it seemed to be completely swallowed by Williams. After talking about the positions on science articulated by presidential hopefuls John McCain and Barack Obama, Professor Krauss said this:
But the main thing is to realise that sound public policy depends upon sound science, and as long as both candidates recognise that then from the point of view of addressing these important issues it really doesn’t matter who’s elected.
I think this statement is rubbish, premised on a falsehood. For starters, what exactly is ‘sound science’ in terms of a resulting ‘sound public policy’?
Some of the Nazi scientists in World War II were practising ‘sound science’: they gained very useful scientific results from the hideous experiments they performed, for example, by freezing and then unthawing victims. (The point of the exercise was to identify the best way of treating frozen downed airmen.)
Other Nazi experiments, that also abrogated any human rights, again resulted in ‘sound science’ outcomes. This ‘sound science’ was also wonderfully in tune with the then prevailing ‘sound public policy’ of the nation in which the scientists lived.
The same point could be made about lots of ‘sound science’ that resulted in ‘sound public policy’ – how about the development of poisonous gas used in World War I? Or even devices that scatter landmines and that have since caused so much pain and suffering?
And surely North Korean scientists developing nuclear weapons can only be practicing ‘sound science’, underlying as it does the ‘sound public policy’ of that country.
Oh, hold on!
Is ‘sound public policy’ actually to be viewed through an ethnocentric, nationalistic prism? And is ‘sound science’ this same slippery customer that actually varies over time and place – and even from place to place at the same time?
Perhaps Professor Krauss was just making a throwaway line, but he certainly appears to suggest that science should underpin public policy. In fact, public policy and science should always be a two-way street. To put this another way, those who believe scientists devise solutions that are always best for society ignore history – and even ignore what is happening in the world right now.
on October 16th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
If Krauss is an American, he’s probably fed up to the back teeth with politicians taking the facts into their own hands in every field from global warming to the teaching of evolution. Look at US policy on CO2 emissions, or rather the lack thereof. Closer to home, how did you feel about Howard’s attitude to global warming while the Murray-Darling was turning into a dustbowl?
Dragging out the Nazis is in incredibly poor taste, btw. Is the good Professor talking about eugenics? No. He’s talking about political positions on matters well-discussed and widely researched in the scientific community. I’m an evolutionary biologist, do you want to accuse _me_ of chanelling the ghost of Hitler?
on October 16th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
I am unconcerned about accusations of being in poor taste.
The example I gave is an extremely good one of an advanced scientific community performing sound science within the context of the prevailing public policy of a nation. Having ‘sound science’ underpinning ‘sound public policy’ is no guarantee of an outcome beneficial to humanity; especially when ‘sound’ is a judgement made only within the prevailing nationalistic paradigm.
Your last sentence is a complete non sequitur; if I were to accuse you of anything, it would be that you don’t seem to understand the argument.
on October 16th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
I understand the argument, all right, I just don’t think it’s appropriate.
I didn’t hear the show, but I’d lay money he was talking about climate change. Am I right?
on October 16th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
He appears to be addressing ‘science’ in the broadest of terms – http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2371801.htm#transcript
Re Nazi scientists, it is an extremely appropriate example. ‘Hitler’s Scientists’ (John Cornwall, Penguin, 2004) is an excellent reference on the subject.
on October 17th, 2008 at 7:02 am
“…Closer to home, how did you feel about Howard’s attitude to global warming while the Murray-Darling was turning into a dustbowl?…”
And that has what to do with global warming (isn’t it called climate change now?)? Or is it to do with over-allocation of water rights? That is a public policy issue 🙂
You should be careful using “global warming” as an example of sound science as a basis of sound public policy. Please give examples of sound public policy being based upon it 🙂
on October 17th, 2008 at 9:17 am
I agree with Chris’s point – The issue of ‘sound policy based on sound science’ I think is much more basic than your viewpoint suggests.. reading the transcript etc., Lawrence appears mostly concerned about them getting really basic things wrong. Imagine you had a new publisher who believed the BSFC of an Otto cycle engine was lower than a Diesel cycle..
on October 17th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Count me in for agreeing with Prof. Krauss. I think he is getting back to basics. Science is all about trying to find the truth based upon demonstratable facts and evidence. Start with that and you would hope most people would come up with a similar outcome.
on October 17th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Andrew, you miss the point. The argument is not about how science can be defined. It is whether “sound public policy depends upon sound science”.
I can give you plenty (more) examples of where the science might be correct but it certainly doesn’t underpin sound pubic policy – if “sound public policy” is taken to mean a benefit to humankind, anyway.
(But that’s part of the problem with stupid throwaway lines, isn’t it – what is ‘sound science’? What is ‘sound public policy’?)
A demonstrable scientific truth might be just that – but it doesn’t necessarily mean that adopting it as public policy is sound. Demonstrable scientific truths don’t have morals, do they?
on October 18th, 2008 at 12:22 am
The reason that science and policy are colliding in such an important way at this moment in history is that governments are attempting to intervene in very large-scale scientific issues such as the aforementioned climate change. I think that it should be fairly clear that policy-makers could not possibly hope to address the issue of, for example, climate change without “sound science” informing them of the contributing factors and the available methods for improving the situation. If the science behind the suggestion that human activity is causing climate change is not sound (as I’m sure some might argue) then any public policy made on the subject will be worse than useless.
on October 18th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Julian, I totally agree with your points, just think you may be a bit ahead of the basic message the Professor was conveying. Public policy decisions should always be based upon data that is developed through rigorous scientific precedure. How can you argue with that? Much prefer that than basing decisions on a superstition, gut feeling, heresay, ancient text, etc.
What is done with the information to construct policy is the important point you seem to be making. And I agree with you – how can you know what either guy will do in a given situation? Because morals vary between people, societies, etc what is morally ok to me might not be to you. Guess that is what all the campaigning is about. From what I have seen of both candidates, they are reasonably similar. Neither have been to jail or accused of any crimes, they have numerous expert advisors, does it really matter which one is elected?
on October 18th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
You can argue that I am taking the professor’s comments out of context – or extending them beyond his intent – and that’s fine. But people in those positions should simply not make such all-encompassing statements – or should be challenged if they choose to make them..
“Public policy decisions should always be based upon data that is developed through rigorous scientific precedure. How can you argue with that?”
I can argue with that very easily. Killing physically and mentally incapacitated people at birth can easily be proven with scientific methods to largely benefit society eg financially. But we of course make a moral judgement that is entirely different. As I said, the scientific method has no morally intrinsic ingredients.
Science must always be only ONE input into public policy decision-making. To assume that science always provides the best input in public policy decision-making is simply wrong – and easily demonstrably wrong.
on October 18th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Julian, I think your nazi example is not at all germane to Krauss’ comment. The nazi medical experiments weren’t informing policy, rather, appalling policy was driving appalling medical experimentation.
Krauss was clearly referring to the abuse of science in American politics and society by vested interests trying to find “scientific” arguments for a predetermined position, most obviously in the areas of, eg.
– climate change
– evolution
– stem cell research
where commercial and religious lobbyists have deliberately misrepresented science in order to achieve their policy aims. Not long ago you could have added tobacco research and banning chlorofluorocarbons to the list.
Right now in the US, very bad science is being used to support very bad policy. Instead, Krauss says sound science must guide policy.
He’s right.
And that nazi thing was beneath you.
on October 19th, 2008 at 7:38 am
I am surprised people recoil so from the Nazi example. If you read the book that I previously cited, and other references I am happy to list, you’ll see for yourselves how science was very strongly linked to supporting public policy in Germany in this period.
It’s an important example, because German scientists were in some areas world leaders – German science could very much be called ‘sound science’. Certainly, in Germany at that time, public policy was driving science, but science was also helping to drive public policy.
It’s obviously not something that scientists are so happy acknowledging today.
No one has taken up another of my examples from the original blog: North Korean scientists are currently helping to drive public policy in that country, and few outside of North Korea would argue that the development of nuclear weapons by that country is an overall positive.
As I stated in the original piece, what comprises ‘sound science driving sound public policy’ depends almost entirely on your point of view: Krauss (and some others here) refer to it as if it is a universal constant.
on October 19th, 2008 at 10:55 am
But for people who get sidetracked by the Nazi example, here’s one that everyone can empathise with.
It is sound science to suggest that the use of the private car be limited to certain, defined activities – the much more widespread use of public transport instead of the private car can be scientifically shown to provide better energy efficiency, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, reduced road fatalities, better use of societal resources, etc.
No one can argue that such evidence is not sound science, and therefore (for those that agree with Krauss) that public policy should be based on this science.
Therefore, on this definition, it is appropriately sound public policy (based on sound science, remember!) that bans the use of private vehicles for most activities.
We choose as a society not to do this – clearly, when one thinks about it, one DOESN’T actually want “sound public policy [to] depend upon sound science”.
As I have said all along, sound science must be only ONE input into public policy decision-making.
on October 19th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
How about:
“Poor science should never be used to infulence public policy.”
I think we can all agree with this statement.
on October 19th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
But that’s not what the argument is about. We’re talking about good science.
But just the fact that it is ‘good science’ (experimentation, proved hypothesis, use of a control, published in a peer reviewed paper, etc) does not mean that it should be used to form public policy!
It is just the arrogance of scientists who assume that good public policy depends upon sound science. Like hell it does – and there are plenty of current and historical examples to demonstrate the stupidity of such a position.
Here’s another. Shouldn’t a public policy based on sound science completely ban the sale of cigarettes? Or what about alcohol then (that costs us more the smoking)? Or make it a legal requirement that people be properly covered when in the sunshine? Or legally require that children bring to school only certain fooods for their luches?
All can be justified as ‘sound public policy based on sound science’.
Examples can go on and on. Thankfully, “the main thing is to realise that sound public policy depends upon sound science” is a philosophy not adopted by our society.
on October 19th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
It’s pretty unlikely that Krauss, or any of the commenters above, are saying “sound public policy depends only upon sound science” which is the interpretation that seems to have aroused your ire.
I can see how you could read it that way because the “it really doesn’t matter who’s elected” part does cause a bit of a double take. You should probably cut him some slack though. This was a radio interview, not a written article where you get to pore over the minute interpretation of every word. It’s pretty obvious from the broader context of the interview that the point he was trying to make was that, if you need to factor a scientific element into a policy, you should at least be sure that the science is accurate. Pretty much a truism.
Beyond that, my interpretation of “it really doesn’t matter who’s elected” was “I have nothing to say about which actual party gets elected, I’m only commenting on the importance of accurate science if it is part of the debate”.
I can’t see how this is “stupid” or “throwaway” at all, as both these terms are well defined. You certainly don’t seem to have any trouble coming up with examples of unsound public policy for example.
Of course it should. It’s just that your interpretation of “used to form public policy” is back to front. Science is usually driven by what governments or industries decide to fund (although there are reasons why this is not necessarily best for scientific progress overall) Public policy was driving the Nazi experiments and Korean nuclear program, not the other way round.
This is because it is usually used to bludgeon an argument through. Most people assume it is just being used in this way as they are unaware of your academic interest in this period of history.
on October 24th, 2008 at 1:10 am
WOW Julian you stepped in the doggy doo this time! Ian has it about right,more often the public policy comes first, the science (good or bad) comes second. Back in the ’60s when I was building roads most of our specifications were based on data from WW2 German army research (how strong must a road be to carry a tank, what strength does concrete need to be to for a submarine pen). The source does not invalidate the data. On the ghastly human experiment side, didn’t the allies (America & Russia) grab as much data (and some of the “doctors”) as they could AND use that data themselves. There was an outcry only a few years ago when an American researcher admitted to using data from the Nazi experiments.
I suspect Krauss is lamenting the fact that “Public Policy” is too often based on no science at all.
The Nazi analogy clouds the issue.
Use “clean coal” as an example (this research in USA has been dropped as having no useful outcome), but the Australian govt is poring vast amounts of money into it (to placate vested interests) and paltry grants to renewable energy research. The scientists at CSIRO accept the money because it keeps them in a job.
“Public Policy” driving “Science”
on October 24th, 2008 at 7:21 am
Science is usually driven by what governments or industries decide to fund (although there are reasons why this is not necessarily best for scientific progress overall) Public policy was driving the Nazi experiments and Korean nuclear program, not the other way round.”
Sure, but without the results, public policy can go nowhere. Without North Korean scientists developing nuclear weapons technology abilities, North Korea cannot have a deployable nuclear capability – therefore, such a public policy would be ineffective. Without WWII German scientists developing the ability to gas and cremate people in bulk numbers, Hitler’s ‘final solution’ could not have occurred. Therefore, the carrying out of public policy, often in fact does depend on the science being done.
But that’s part of the problem with stupid throwaway lines, isn’t it – what is ’sound science’? What is ’sound public policy’?
I can’t see how this is “stupid” or “throwaway” at all, as both these terms are well defined. You certainly don’t seem to have any trouble coming up with examples of unsound public policy for example.
Both are useful only in a nationalistic, ethnocentric, temporal paradigm. In other words, they aren’t sound at all.
Is North Korea’s nuclear program sound science underpinning sound public policy? I am sure they would regard it as so. Were Nazi scientific experiments ‘sound science’. Again, based solely on ideas like hypothesis, experimentation, etc, I am sure they thought the science sound.
Both ‘sound science’ and ‘sound public policy’ are slippery ideas if criteria like ‘for the greater good of humanity’ are applied.
As I wrote: To put this another way, those who believe scientists devise solutions that are always best for society ignore history – and even ignore what is happening in the world right now.
on October 24th, 2008 at 7:35 am
I suspect Krauss is lamenting the fact that “Public Policy” is too often based on no science at all.
And why should one lament that? A public policy that is based on no science at all is not NECESSARILY a bad public policy.
In fact, many of our most precious and most important public policies have zilch to do with science.
For example, the tolerance of religious freedom in our society isn’t based on any science. Our Westminster system of government isn’t based on any science.
Furthermore, one can relatively easily think about public policies that are actively taking a position against “sound science”, and they’re policies we’re pretty happy with.
We actively chose to ignore science in a whole range of areas (eg freedom to eat what you like, freedom to largely wear what you like, etc).
Most of the commentators here – and Krauss – are thinking about public policy in the narrowest of terms.
on October 26th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
The only reason why you can argue with basing public policy on science is because you are restricting the area of science you are basing it on.
Basing public policy on science doesn’t entail only looking at one small area of research but rather the whole of science (and science includes things like information science , computer science as well as mathematics and the physical sciences).
If you form public policy on only part of something , it doesn’t matter if it’s science or morality you’ll get a bad policy.
You may have taken a double take at my earlier suggestions about the non-physical sciences but they have just as much to contribute as the physical sciences.
Computer science and information science regularly study security protocols and aren’t limited to computers. (Bruce Schneiner publishes a monthly newsletter on security , with the source material coming from his security blog http://schneier.com/blog/ , he’s a very well respected author and scientist , crypto-gram and his blog schneier on security are very good examples of this).
It’s easy to pick a small area of something and misuse it , it’s much harder if you pick all of it.
on October 26th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
The only reason why you can argue with basing public policy on science is because you are restricting the area of science you are basing it on.
That’s simply not true. Take the broadest field of science you like – economics, health, biology, medicine – whatever. Based on those fields, we should as public policy dictate what people eat, and what they wear when outside in the sun. We don’t, because in fact it is freedom of choice rather than science that society sees as more important.
I am actually starting to think that the only reason I can argue with basing public policy on science is because I am the only one contributing here who doesn’t come from a science background, and who therefore sees society through a different (wider?) prism.
on October 27th, 2008 at 6:05 am
“Killing physically and mentally incapacitated people at birth can easily be proven with scientific methods to largely benefit society eg financially. But we of course make a moral judgement that is entirely different”
When you say ‘to largely benefit society’, the whole of public policy debate has been subsumed by your single word ‘largely’. In fact, killing the handicapped at birth has a set of benefits and costs, just like any other policy choice. The most obvious costs are the loss of human lives that we choose to value, and the suffering of the families whose newborns would be killed by state decree. Science does /not/ tell us that this policy would largely benefit society, it simply informs us of some of the benefits. It is for us as a society to balance the costs and benefits (informed by science), and make our decision based on what we value.
The same applies to the use of private cars; restricting their use would have costs and benefits. Science tells us what those benefits are, but we consider that the costs (in terms of lost convenience and liberty) of such a policy outweigh the benefits. However it is no good trying to pretend that the scientific arguments against private cars do not exist; instead, we need to try to understand precisely why we value them enough to keep using them anyway. That is what is meant by basing policy on science; not that policy should be ruled by ‘science’, but that science is properly an input into policy, and such science must be conducted according to scientific best practice, and not distorted by religious belief or other bias.
Any possible form of ‘science-lead policy’ is in fact based on an inherent set of preferences about the desired outcome of such a policy; science only tells you how to achieve an outcome you desire, not whether such an outcome is ‘good’.
on October 27th, 2008 at 7:09 am
Tom, to paraphrase what you have said, science cannot make any moral judgements, it cannot decide what is the best course of action for society as a whole.
You say after a paragraph of explanation “that is what is meant by basing policy on science” but I would argue that since the policy that is actually adopted may in fact be the opposite of what science suggests should occur, it is not true to suggest that the policy is “based on science”. In many cases, it’s actually based on ignoring what science has to say! It can’t be “based on it” if it then takes far more notice of other factors!
Science tells us what those benefits are, but we consider that the costs (in terms of lost convenience and liberty) of such a policy outweigh the benefits.
In other words, the policy outcome is not based on science at all, is it? It is more accurate to say it is based on sociology and philosophy.
on October 27th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
So is this discussion actually about (or has it turned to) whether scientists can distance themselves from the ethical implications of their work? Now there’s an area where I suspect we would agree. I find it appalling that, for example, someone can go to work each day to refine an antipersonnel device to more efficiently rip people apart without regard for the human consequences. I presume they resolve the cognitive dissonance by arguing to themselves that “we’re the good guys” or “if I didn’t do it someone else would”.
But we digress.
To be effective science needs to be dispassionate and, yes, amoral. It’s job is to get the right answers; society’s job is to decide what answers are appropriate to ask. Once the decision has been made to pursue a policy that requires input from science it would just be dumb to do that science badly.
Of course it’s not. Once again, you seem to imply everyone is saying “all policy must be based on science”. No one is suggesting that we should find a way to sprinkle some sciencey fairy dust on a policy to validate it, nor are they saying that any policy that happens to contain an element of sound science is automatically good.
In a sense that’s true because everyone, including Krauss, is saying that they are only concerned about public policy where it intersects science.
As I wrote: Nobody said that.
on October 28th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Julian said:
And why should one lament that? A public policy that is based on no science at all is not NECESSARILY a bad public policy.
That’s true. But, it would be better if scientifically acquired data (if available) was used in the debating/decision making process politicians undertake to derive public policy. That is the main, irrefutable point of this discussion.
Also:
But just the fact that it is ‘good science’ (experimentation, proved hypothesis, use of a control, published in a peer reviewed paper, etc) does not mean that it should be used to form public policy!
Why not? If it’s relevent, legally obtained data it should be utilised, without a doubt. I can’t think of any examples where you would not want to develop a policy based on facts and evidence.
Julian again:
Here’s another. Shouldn’t a public policy based on sound science completely ban the sale of cigarettes? Or what about alcohol then (that costs us more the smoking)? Or make it a legal requirement that people be properly covered when in the sunshine? Or legally require that children bring to school only certain fooods for their luches?
Wow, without scientific evidence you couldn’t even cite these points as being detrimental to human health. We’d all be in the dark. The important distinction to make here is that science is used in the decision making process for public policy. And how public policy has changed over time **for the better** thanks to that scientific data.
Your interpretation of what science is and does is just not quite right.
Let me take your cigatettes example. A scientific publication might show that from 10,000 smokers investigated 50% died from smoking related illnesses. How are you going to interpret that. The science doesn’t do the interpreting – people do. If I’m a chain smoker I’d think wow, that’s not bad, I though my chances were worse than that, where’s my lighter. A non smoker might think, 1 in 2 chance of dying, those smokers must be nuts. That’s why publc policy is based upon age restrictions and lots of advertising to try and get people off cigarettes. It costs a fortune to treat people in hospitals, however, remember, ***science never actually says anything***. It is all in the interpretation made by people of the data, in the context of other implications such as establishing a black market, enforceability, culture, etc. Just because there is a significant correlation between smoking causing death doesn’t mean the science says we should ban cigarettes. The science doesn’t give an **opinion**on what is the best course of action.
What if the evidence was more like 3% of smokers died from a smoking related illness? Is that bad enough to warrant restrictions? Science doesn’t force us to ban cigarettes just because we can show a significant impact. But, it is important in providing data for us to discuss and make an informed decision.
All can be justified as ’sound public policy based on sound science’.
You also cite scientific