Rep. George Brown Offers Views on Science Policy Advice
On March 12, House science committee chairman George E. Brown (D-CA) gave a provocative speech on science policy advice. The occasion was a meeting to discuss a new report of the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government, “Facing Toward Governments: Nongovernmental Organizations and Scientific and Technical Advice” (call the commission at 212-998-2150 for a copy of the report.) Selections from Brown’s speech follow:
“The world that science and technology has created through discovery, enlightenment, and invention, is integral to our daily lives, and thus cannot be separated from politics. Throughout my career I have encouraged scientists to become more involved in the political process, and I continued to be frustrated by the lack of scientific literacy among policy makers.”
“I’ve suggested that the worthwhile pursuit of objectivity in science is not easily transferable to the policy process. This difficulty does not merely reflect the character of ignorant and self-serving politicians; it also reflects the intrinsic nature of the scientific method. The siren song of scientific objectivity can draw us onto the rocks of legislative inaction, by creating rhetorical gridlock on the one hand, and by perpetuating the illusory expectation of better prediction through more research on the other.”
“Policy makers today are not faced with a shortage of information. What they often lack, however, is reliable new information that they can use. Science advice to Congress often falls on deaf ears because it is not user friendly. In a vain effort to be accurate, measured, unbiased, and comprehensive, science advice can also be irrelevant, impractical, untimely, and incomprehensible.”
”...I fear that unrealistic expectations about what science can deliver to society could ultimately create an anti-science backlash.... Science offers us enlightenment through understanding, and freedom through insight. Scientific understanding and insight do not imply a mechanistic, predictable human world, but sometimes we act as if they do. As a result, we often match the needs of politics not with the strength of science -- understanding -- but with the weakness -- prediction. Perhaps we can turn this around.”
“I would like to see policy makers and scientists work together to design incremental, adaptive programs that can move toward policy goals along evolving pathways. Such an approach requires neither scientific consensus on controversial issues, nor predictive certainty over the long term, because decisions are modest, as are the consequences of error. Instead, this approach requires a mission-oriented research agenda that is closely linked to the policy process.”
”...we can, and must, seek ways to better integrate our growing body of scientific knowledge and technological expertise with our needs as human beings living in an increasingly global society. Nongovernmental organizations should play a pivotal role in this integration.”
