 |
 |
Dr Newman and PsiCommers, I am uncomfortable with the science vs politics dichotomy established in your email. Science-related political controversy, indeed, any political controversy, does not operate within such a neatly demarcated battleground. Implicit in the email below is the notion that scientists are impartial practitioners of a higher art, and politicians are all engaged in a kind of self-serving, machiavellian process of back-stabbing and self-promotion. Having worked in Parliament, I recognise this as an accurate sketch of some political actors, but it can equally be appropriated for members of scientific and journalistic communities. The communications barrier to which you refer might become more permeable once it is acknowledged that scientific advice is political in origin, content and context. Politicians are equally committed/ bound to a "questionning, uncertian, sceptical approach" in their attempts to formulate effective policy or responses to scientific controversy. Politicians are not required to be scientific experts, that's why they employ scientific advisors. Much as it pains me to say it, politicians and policy makers are rarely stupid, but they are generalists, not experts in molecular biology or genetic engineering. The quality of the policy or response they can formulate is dependent upon the quality of advice they receive, and the clarity and skill with which such advice is imparted. The onus here is most definitely on the advisors. The implication that science-related political crises might have been averted if only political actors had understood the scientific issues in depth is naive. Such 'crises' might also have been at least lessened had scientific advisors also understood the social context in depth. However, as a number of people have pointed out, scientific advisors are non-elected officials, and as such, are not publicly accountable. They are also neither impartial nor neutral actors, and bring to their advising their own particular bias, worldview and vested interest, no matter how magnanimous or utilitarian this may be. With high political and financial stakes in science as much as anywhere, I suggest that it is just as important for scientists to appear to be telling "a coherent story" and "to produce convincing narratives" as it is for the spin meisters and public faces. Scientific advisors play an important and potent role in defining the terms of a debate or controversy, so that what actually reaches the committee table or the floor of the House of Commons, for example, has already been shaped and contorted to fit a particular agenda. The outcome of a debate or the chance of a controversy being resolved is effectively predetermined by the initial definition of its terms, usually by the advisors, not the politicians. Perhaps there should be a campaign calling for all scientific advisors and communicators to have passed exams in policy making and political process in the last five years? Best wishes, alice Farrands ******************************************************** Alice Farrands PhD Research Science and Technology Studies Department University College London Gower Street London WC1E 6BT [log in to unmask] ********************************************************************** 1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the following message: set psci-com nomail 2. To resume email from the list, send the following message: set psci-com mail 3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message: leave psci-com 4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including list archive, can be found at the list web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html 5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication and science and society can be found at http://psci-com.org.uk **********************************************************************