Re: [Phys-l] Scientists speaking outside their fields. Was... The Cause of Global Warming...

[Stefan Jeglinski <jeglin@4pi.com>]

> My questions for this group are...

These are great, and tough, questions. Some small thoughts on just 
parts of the topic:

> Some related questions... Even though my graduate degree was nuclear
> physics, is that the only field in which I can offer expert testimony?

If you mean from a legal standpoint, in a courtroom, then quite 
possibly yes. I know a person who testifies on behalf of power 
utilities in trial proceedings. I also have a family member who seems 
to have a problem staying out of trouble. I've sat on two juries, one 
criminal, one civil. The American legal system is about power, not 
justice. [having said that, I'm relieved to say that, from my POV, it 
ain't half bad; that is, justice has a way of peeking through quite 
often]. You must establish power before you can establish justice, 
and if you are a nuclear physicist trying to offer expert testimony 
on climate change, for example, you probably have a long road ahead 
of you - the power isn't there, or at least doesn't appear to be.

>   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?

Depends on the job. As always, one should get to know something about 
the employer before going to the interview. :-) If trying to go into 
the courtroom, peer-reviewed papers would help immensely, because you 
*will* be challenged on that, and a dog's breakfast of other things 
as well. But take the example of your health commissioner. You were 
hired for the job before you were even asked. This person is just 
looking to not be hit over the head with his question; real 
information on top of that is a lovely bonus. As you said yourself, 
yours is a trust relationship. This frees you to give a better answer 
even than in a courtroom. Herein lies the responsibility of everyone 
calling themselves a scientist: don't abuse the trust relationship. 
Ironically, perhaps the best way to preserve the trust relationship 
is to /not/ say "just trust me."


Stefan Jeglinski