Mark Shapiro gave us a link to the streaming video of a forum presentation
at CSU-Pomona made by Naomi Oreskes. Although it took a bit of time, I
watched the full video. I thought her presentation was very good and
provided some worthwhile insight into how science works, as well as the
problems scientists face as we try to convince the general public of what we
consider as "fact." I recommend this video is worth watching. Here again
is the link...
At the end of the presentation, Oreskes criticizes non-climate-scientists,
particularly some physicists, for interpreting global warming data
differently than she and others interpret the data. She makes a general
claim that scientists who are not specialists in a particular field should
not speak publically about those fields. She implies that policy decisions
should be made only after consulting with scientists who are specialists and
have published in the particular field being examined.
This comment was especially interesting in her case because her background
is geology and she herself does not have formal training in climate science
nor in history of science nor philosophy of science (the field she now
claims to be doing research in).
Aside from the fact that her criticism of some scientists would seem
legitimately applied right back to her, what do we think about this idea in
general? I have certainly seen evidence that the public lumps all
scientists into one pot. The public does not even distinguish between
biologists, chemists, and physicists, let alone between a nuclear physicist
and a solid state physicist. Therefore it seems true that in the public eye
a biologist talking about nuclear power carries just as much weight as a
nuclear physicist talking about nuclear power. Or to take the reverse
example... the public would give as much weight to a physicist talking about
evolution as they would an evolutionary biologist talking about evolution.
On one hand this is a problem because I have certainly observed scientists
misunderstand and therefore misinterpret data because they are not in the
field being studied. On the other hand, scientists in the field can fall
prey to the proverbial "missing the forest due to all the trees" syndrome.
Scientists in the field can also fall prey to exaggerating the significance
of their data and their conclusions because it is their chance for 15
minutes of fame, and it also might enhance their ability to get more
funding, or more lab space, etc.
All scientists, no matter what field, should be trained to understand and
evaluate data. I believe it is a valid part of how science works for
scientists in one field to scrutinize and ask questions about data and
interpretations in other fields. Yes, the scientists in a particular
discipline need first to convince their colleagues of the validity and
interpretation of their data. But before they can convince the public, it
seems they first need to convince other scientists outside their specific
disciplines. Are we up to the challenge?
Although it is an impossible task, I should try to keep up to date on as
many things as possible. I need to be aware that non-scientists will tend
to view me as an expert (or at least more expert than they are) on all kinds
of science. I serve on an environmental committee in my county that was
appointed by the county health department. The health commissioner chairs
the committee and I am the secretary. I am the only traditional scientist
on the committee. Other members include people with specific training that
might peripherally be science. For example, the health commissioner has a
masters degree in public health and the sanitary engineer is a licensed
engineer.
It is clear the committee turns to me for answers or opinions on all types
of science. At the end of our meeting last month, the health commissioner
turned to me and said, "So what is your take on global warming? How serious
is it? Are people causing it? " The health commissioner knows me from
working with me for the past 20 years. He trusts me and values my judgment.
Even though I am not a climate specialist, I am sure he will trust my
interpretation more than a specialist that he does not know. So how should
I respond? So far, I have not given a response. I said, "give me a few
weeks and I'll get back to you."
My questions for this group are... what is the role of scientists with
respect to issues outside their area of expertise? What do we do about the
tendency for the public to lump all scientists together. What do we do when
journalists find one scientist at odds with 99 scientists and give
journalistic equal weight to the 1% view?
Some related questions... Even though my graduate degree was nuclear
physics, is that the only field in which I can offer expert testimony? Is a
scientist in one field trapped in that field forever, or does a good
scientist necessarily have the right tools to "self train" in other areas
and become an expert in an area outside the original PhD or master's thesis?
If I am going to speak about an area of science outside my specialty, what
would be the recommended preparation before doing so? Do I need to take
more course work? Do I need to publish a peer-reviewed paper or two?
Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D.
Professor of Chemistry and Physics
Bluffton University
1 University Drive
Bluffton, OH 45817
419.358.3270
edmiston@bluffton.edu