Scientists and Advocacy, a Sticky Situation?

"It's important for people who know things not to cede the public sphere to people who don't know things."

-Gavin Schmidt

This is a talk given last year by Gavin Schmidt at the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Fall Meeting about how scientific expertise and values should inform public awareness. Schmidt, if you don't know, was recently hired to head NASA GISS, a position previously held by James Hansen. He is a climate modeler, and this previous post may be a good introduction to him and his research, if you've never heard of him before.

Schmidt, as the quote above implies, argues in this video that advocacy, which often has the same effect on scientists that a cross does on a vampire, is not only important, but unavoidable. He further claims that it would be foolish for researchers to not advocate for science itself at a minimum, and that even staunch advocacy opponents inevitably end up promoting their own field and/or their own findings, whether or not they are willing to admit what these actions amount to. If they want continued funding, they must advocate to some degree. We're all human; we all have to go to the mat for ourselves at some point. And scientists are no different.

Schmidt does, however, strongly warn against uninformed or dishonest advocacy, declaring that your results represent a consensus in your field, and assuming that people who disagree with your personal policy choices are uninformed idiots who ignore the science. It's a scientist attempting to educate and persuade other scientists. It's like getting a peek inside the lab, or at least the break room down the hall, and it's good, heady stuff. Have a watch.



I want to follow up on Schmidt's point that people can have very different values and reach very different policy conclusions while accepting the same scientific results with an opinion piece from his GISS predecessor. Hansen advocates very strongly for nuclear power in this video. Notice how he admits that his affinity for the power generation technology is not necessarily shared by post-Fukushima governments and environmentalists who believe, like him, that something must be done to curb our emissions. People who believe in the science of human-caused climate change can and will advocate for different solutions. It's all part of healthy public discourse, not something to be avoided like the plague.