Scientists versus Whaling: Science, Advocacy, and Errors of Judgment

It appears to be a challenge for some scientists to exercise the same skepticism and rigor they employ in their own area of expertise to questions of science that fall outside their specialty. Although this may not be a serious problem in academic or professional arenas, where scientists stand ready, willing, and able to correct one another, it may be a serious one when scientists debate scientific controversies in public forums, where the audience is less qualified to evaluate the validity of scientists’ statements. Scientists who argue outside their expertise in the public arena can make errors of judgment that raise important concerns about their responsibilities to the public. In this vein, a recent commentary warned scientists of the dangers to science of political advocacy, cautioning that “today’s scientists need to understand the consequences for science of relying on political advocacy as the primary mechanism of connecting science with policy” (Pielke 2002, p. 368). Examples of scientists making errors of judgment, or even committing outright fraud, are not new (Weinberg 1976, Broad and Wade 1982, Kilbourne and Kilbourne 1983), but are arguably more common today in those areas the media considers to be especially newsworthy. It is irresponsible for respected specialists to allow their passion for some cause to overcome their professional responsibility to determine what constitutes the current science on the issue in question. Such carelessness is especially regrettable in contested environmental or resource use issues in which politics, emotion, urban myths, and poor science confound the search for answers. Scientists, among others, would most likely agree that there is no better basis for sound political and administrative decisionmaking than the best available scientific information, and most would agree that this is especially true in the fields of resource management and environmental protection (Brundtland 1997).