My own observation is that there are ordinary disciplinary journals, say in the wildfire sciences, that don't have those biases. But Nature and Science definitely do.
We do need a larger conversation about the Science Establishment - what disciplines/approaches are favored and which not? Who determines where research $ go and where is the public voice in all that (or even the voices of those in less-favored disciplines)? What institutions could even begin to ask these questions..
As in how many more studies do we need of impacts of future climate change on wildfires in 2050 when we don't have the funding to understand who is committing arson and why today? We should wonder if the presence of satellites and climate models have induced a kind of scientific "streetlight effect"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlight_effect
Again, I wish Patrick's activism would have provoked some Science Establishment self-awareness.. but as noted above, I'm not sure that there is an institution with that charter.
If the scientific community leans towards attention getting climate 'headlines', they have learned that from the popular press, cable networks, and many journalistic entities. They all know that in order to attract eyeballs and ears alarmism seems to work. this is a wider issue and I don't know how we solve it - pandora is out of the box. Climate variability and human impact on climate are very complex issues. The people I know who are working in this area are trying very hard to document and explain. But will anyone listen to a reasoned, nuanced explanation?
Great point. I've heard that from a lot of scientists. It's a real dilemma: getting heard but at the risk of generating mistrust if/when claims are found to be hyperbolic.
It seems like a worthy trade, given the urgency of issues like climate change. But I think it assumes the only path to change is that scientists paint a sufficiently troubling picture and then politicians act, what we in the policy world call the "linear model".
The problem is not just that that strategy has missed more than it has hit. There's a strong argument that climate progress is as much solution driven as provoked by dire scientific messaging, perhaps even more so.
We think people should be willing to upend their lives in the face of scary scenarios, but that upheaval can be just as frightening. I think we underappreciate the importance of facilitating change, of making it less scary. That's where I wished we dedicated more brainpower and resources.
It seems like the scientific establishment has been thouroghly delegitimized in the eyes of the public. (wether it is actually legitmate or not is slightly different question). So, perversely, an RFK figure might be the best thing for science because he will "drain the swamp" (or at least be percieved to). Someone so skeptical of the regulatory, scientific and law enforcement agencies as president could boost the legitmacy of science long term.
It's a complex situation, so I'm worried about all the unanticipated consequences of something like that. My view is more in line of what I argue here: https://tamingcomplexity.substack.com/p/crisis-science And I hope it wouldn't take some radical shake up for more honesty and intellectual humbleness to happen.
RFK seems to have a very lawyerly notion of truth. For example, is moral hazard in the vaccine approval process evidence that vaccines are unsafe? A scientist would say no, since the safety of a vaccine is purely a scientific question about its chemical composition and the human body. But in criminal justice, a corrupt cop is evidence for the innocence of the suspect. So maybe?
Moreover, PH officials make decisions about deployment with a cost-benefit framework across the whole population. Whereas RFK, worried mothers, and Big Pharma skeptics are on a hair pin trigger for damage to individuals. For example, the oral polio vaccine will cause polio in <10 people a year, so the west stopped using it, but it's still used aboard. To PH officials, this is still a big win because the alternative option will result in less vaccinations and more polio overall. But to some members of the public itss unacceptable, mostly because they are less certain about the effects on both sides of the decision.
It's a trolley problem vibe, but there is uncertainty about how many people are on each track. Wether you throw the switch depends first on your certainly about the consequences. The experts are much more consequentialist because they believe they can predict the outcomes enough to decide on cost-benefit. But experts are as bad predictors as anyone, and are often arrogant about it. The problem is we no longer believe the experts are good enough to technocratically throw the switch on our behalf, for better or worse.
To your point about humility, at least in the short run, expressing uncertainty is equivalent to admitting they shouldn't have the power to throw the switch. So your asking people to voluntarily give up power, and idk about that.
Yeah, my hope would be that public health people are not just in it for power, so there's a chance to convince them (or at least governments in charge of them) that long-term success hinges on trust, and that trust is undermined by an excess of technocratic paternalism.
My own observation is that there are ordinary disciplinary journals, say in the wildfire sciences, that don't have those biases. But Nature and Science definitely do.
We do need a larger conversation about the Science Establishment - what disciplines/approaches are favored and which not? Who determines where research $ go and where is the public voice in all that (or even the voices of those in less-favored disciplines)? What institutions could even begin to ask these questions..
As in how many more studies do we need of impacts of future climate change on wildfires in 2050 when we don't have the funding to understand who is committing arson and why today? We should wonder if the presence of satellites and climate models have induced a kind of scientific "streetlight effect"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlight_effect
Again, I wish Patrick's activism would have provoked some Science Establishment self-awareness.. but as noted above, I'm not sure that there is an institution with that charter.
If the scientific community leans towards attention getting climate 'headlines', they have learned that from the popular press, cable networks, and many journalistic entities. They all know that in order to attract eyeballs and ears alarmism seems to work. this is a wider issue and I don't know how we solve it - pandora is out of the box. Climate variability and human impact on climate are very complex issues. The people I know who are working in this area are trying very hard to document and explain. But will anyone listen to a reasoned, nuanced explanation?
Great point. I've heard that from a lot of scientists. It's a real dilemma: getting heard but at the risk of generating mistrust if/when claims are found to be hyperbolic.
It seems like a worthy trade, given the urgency of issues like climate change. But I think it assumes the only path to change is that scientists paint a sufficiently troubling picture and then politicians act, what we in the policy world call the "linear model".
The problem is not just that that strategy has missed more than it has hit. There's a strong argument that climate progress is as much solution driven as provoked by dire scientific messaging, perhaps even more so.
We think people should be willing to upend their lives in the face of scary scenarios, but that upheaval can be just as frightening. I think we underappreciate the importance of facilitating change, of making it less scary. That's where I wished we dedicated more brainpower and resources.
What are your thoughts on RFK Jr?
It seems like the scientific establishment has been thouroghly delegitimized in the eyes of the public. (wether it is actually legitmate or not is slightly different question). So, perversely, an RFK figure might be the best thing for science because he will "drain the swamp" (or at least be percieved to). Someone so skeptical of the regulatory, scientific and law enforcement agencies as president could boost the legitmacy of science long term.
It's a complex situation, so I'm worried about all the unanticipated consequences of something like that. My view is more in line of what I argue here: https://tamingcomplexity.substack.com/p/crisis-science And I hope it wouldn't take some radical shake up for more honesty and intellectual humbleness to happen.
Thanks for the link, very nice.
RFK seems to have a very lawyerly notion of truth. For example, is moral hazard in the vaccine approval process evidence that vaccines are unsafe? A scientist would say no, since the safety of a vaccine is purely a scientific question about its chemical composition and the human body. But in criminal justice, a corrupt cop is evidence for the innocence of the suspect. So maybe?
Moreover, PH officials make decisions about deployment with a cost-benefit framework across the whole population. Whereas RFK, worried mothers, and Big Pharma skeptics are on a hair pin trigger for damage to individuals. For example, the oral polio vaccine will cause polio in <10 people a year, so the west stopped using it, but it's still used aboard. To PH officials, this is still a big win because the alternative option will result in less vaccinations and more polio overall. But to some members of the public itss unacceptable, mostly because they are less certain about the effects on both sides of the decision.
It's a trolley problem vibe, but there is uncertainty about how many people are on each track. Wether you throw the switch depends first on your certainly about the consequences. The experts are much more consequentialist because they believe they can predict the outcomes enough to decide on cost-benefit. But experts are as bad predictors as anyone, and are often arrogant about it. The problem is we no longer believe the experts are good enough to technocratically throw the switch on our behalf, for better or worse.
To your point about humility, at least in the short run, expressing uncertainty is equivalent to admitting they shouldn't have the power to throw the switch. So your asking people to voluntarily give up power, and idk about that.
Yeah, my hope would be that public health people are not just in it for power, so there's a chance to convince them (or at least governments in charge of them) that long-term success hinges on trust, and that trust is undermined by an excess of technocratic paternalism.
For sure. I don't think theyre in it just for power. Its just a question of should you relinquish some authority or not.
I hope they'll calculate that arrogance undermines authority more than humility.