How involved should scientists be in shaping policy?

Just how involved should scientists be in shaping policy?

This question recently popped up in the blogosphere after the American Meteorological Society (AMS) awarded its highest honor, the Carl Gustaf Rossby Research Medal to James Hansen of NASA's Goddar Institute for Space Studies. Hansen is one of the country's most respected climate scientists, as well as one of the most visible figures pushing for greenhouse gas reductions, so his award was rather controversial.

The scientific community, including members of the AMS, debates the appropriate role of scientists in shaping policy. Some argue that scientists should avoid advocacy efforts, because it may influence the objectivity -- and therefore credibility -- of their scientific research. Others applaud scientists who take an active role in the political process.

Although science rests on the basis of objectivity, I believe social concerns have always shaped the course of science. Why else do we ask questions about our natural world, if not to make it better? Did Louis Pasteur invent pasteurization so he could understand micro-organisms, or to protect human health from food-borne diseases? Did Albert Sabin discover an effective polio vaccine to make a contribution to his discipline, or to eliminate the pain and suffering of millions of people? The latter, of course!

I think science should exist for the benefit of humanity. So should public policy. So it follows logically that scientists,who engage in the most noble of efforts to improve our lives, should play an important role in shaping our policies. We cannot effectively enact policies to stop climate change, cure cancer, or feed billions of the earth's hungry citizens without sound scientific analysis, so we need our scientists to play an active role in shaping our decisions.

Why else would our nation's best-ranked graduate schools for public policy offer joint degrees with science departments? Why would scientific advisory councils play a major role in NGOs that engage in grassroots advocacy to influence policy? Or at the highest level, why would President Obama appoint Steven Chu, a Nobel prize winning physicist, as our nation's Secretary of Energy?

Of course, when we permit a close relationship between science and advocacy we open the door for unwanted influences. We all know that Exxon Mobile spent years funding scientific research to deny climate change, and that the efforts of these scientists impacted our policy as well.

The alternative, however, is that we write policy for crucial issues like climate change and public health based on theory, and not on scientific fact. If that is the case, we will never successfully solve the problems that are so urgent. And problems like climate change are certainly urgent.

I believe good science informs good policy, so good scientists must influence policy makers. I hope Dr. Hansen and other scientist-activists keep doing what they're doing, on behalf of us all!