In commenting for the first time on this list, I should perhaps
mention my 3 decades as an activist scientist (on nuclear weapons, nuclear
power stations, some pesticides, lead in petrol, genetic engineering, etc).
I personally left behind long ago the pure ivory tower, but I don't think
everyone should!
        My main comment is that it takes all kinds.  For every Henry
Kendall (whose death I mourn), both top researcher and public policy
advocate, there will be hundreds of ivory-tower researchers who have
neither the ability nor, crucially, the temperament to speak out publicly
on controversial issues.
        It is unreasonable to imply that each given scientist should, on
some general ethical ground, emulate such heroes as Pauling, Kendall, or
von Hippel.  It is even more unreasonable to suggest that none of them
should.


>Speaking Up For Science - Baloney!
>
>The recent editorial in Scientific American "Speaking Up For Science" by
>David Appell (November, 1999 Creationism Heading) is a call for science to
>shoot itself in the foot.
>
>Appell and Scientific American argue that scientists should be politically
>proactive in science issues to avert anti-science political decisions - a la
>the recent Kansas School Board decision.  According to the article, one should
>use ingenuity and manipulation of circumstances in getting views in print in
>the press and the author offers the dubious method:
>
>"Science's answers are usually incomplete or complex, and many researchers
>hang back from speaking out on an issue.  But they may be missing valuable
>opportunities to educate the public, says William Spitzer, director of
>education at the New England Aquarium in Boston.  "If you really care about an
>issue, being accurate isn't always the way to be most effective.  As an
>example, Spitzer cites the 1998 "Give Swordfish a Break" campaign, in which
>some chefs removed swordfish from their pricey menus in an effort to revive
>stocks of North Atlantic swordfish.  Despite not directly addressing the
>complexity of the problem--Pacific swordfish stocks, for example, are
>fine--the boycott captured the public's attention.  "If you're really trying
>to make a change in public attitudes, sometimes you have to adopt a different
>strategy," Spitzer explains."
>
>The problem is that the example misleads the public and it is just the kind
>of thing that science does not need and should avoid. It is the kind of thing
>that causes the news media and private interests to take editorial license
>beyond their scientific competence.  It is the kind of thing that erodes
>public confidence in science's demands for increased public funding. It is
>the kind of thing that reduces the credibility and respectability of science
>to the pit bottom habitat of politics, used car salesmen, and the news media.
>
>Beyond recent trends for publicity and flamboyance, there may be merit in the
>purity of returning basic research to the ivory tower approach where
>researchers were cloistered beyond closed doors and they did their thing
>without regard to what the public wants.

        This is a phoney issue.  Nobody was suggesting that all ivory-tower
scientists should abandon their careers, or even that all of them can be
expected or wanted to add public advocacy to their work.  Some are too shy;
others are simply too craven to risk their grants; others would be
downright embarrassing.
        The realistic hope is that each scientist will at least become
informed on the public significance of their work.  Most don't.  Of the
minority who do, a minority of them will speak out.
        But some will do literature searches for trusted friends; others
will assay samples; the point is the variety of modes of action amongst
which different temperaments will allot themselves.


>In the past fifty-five years research lost its independence, its charm, and
>its, purity in pursuing Bush's Endless Frontier.  Science became political
>par excellence as evidenced by the successful lobbying activities of the
>American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Institute of Physics
>and the Union of Concerned Scientists to name just a few of the related
>groups that exist today.

        It is ignorant to imply that these bodies are similar.  The Inst of
Ph is less oriented to policy; UCS exist for the purpose (and has done
magnificently); the AAAS is in between, and should not be vaguely
disparaged  -  it had the courage to investigate its own government's
chemical warfare on Viet Nam.


>While the social construction of science is a legitimate issue worthy of wide
>spread debate,

        a most unfortunate expression, redolent (perhaps unintentionally)
of the ludicrous and thoroughly anti-science 'constructivism' nightmare


> science should have clean hands - or as clean as possible -
>and avoid being crassly politically driven so as to minimize political and
>social backlash against research and science education. At the dawn of the
>new millennium

        what has that to do with the subject at hand?


> science should the high route and distance itself from the
>likes of the scientific American editorial.
>

        That is what it did regarding nuclear reactors until the late
1960s.  The enthusiasts for nuclear reactors were allowed to procure huge
funding for their fascinating creations before any public discussion of the
implications.  The first top-rank scientist to point out what's wrong with
big fission reactors was Kendall.  He did win the Nobel prize for physics,
but to my mind his greatest contribution was his unrelated work in UCS, the
prototype of the  COMPETENT  public advice which is not always emulated by
Greepneace, etc.
        The short answer is to raise the level of public debate, not to
imagine that scientists will withdraw from advising the public.


R

Robt Mann
 CEO House Tuners Ltd            National champion Kiwi Quiz
P O Box 28878, Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand  (9) 524 2949