opinionsubmit@hotmail.com

 

 

ALCS

David Suzuki,
David Suzuki
Foundation

 

When should scientists be advocates? It’s a sim-
ple question that often raises a storm of contro-
versy.

Some argue that scientists should not be
advocates, period. According to this view, sci-
ence is value-neutral—simply a quest for knowl-
edge. Scientists should conduct research to
reveal information about our world, but leave it
up to society to decide what to do with that
information.

Of course, such a viewpoint ignores the fact
that no activity is truly value-neutral. Even
deciding what research to undertake requires a
value judgment. So for most people, the ques-
tion is really—at what point should scientists
take a stand on an issue?

Correcting misleading information in the
media would be a good start. Right now, well-
heeled groups that have a lot to gain from main-
taining the status quo are actively funding cam-
paigns of misinformation to confuse the public
about science issues. Some of these campaigns
are organized through conservative think tanks
based out of the United States. But their pres-
ence is felt in Canada too.

One of their most successful strategies in
recent years was to have spokespeople consis-
tently complain about the “liberal bias” in the
media. It was like a mantra, over and over. Of
course there was no liberal bias, but by repeating
the phrase ad nauseum, people began to believe
it. They assumed it must be true. In response,
media (in the US in particular) took a sharp turn
to the right.

Journalist Chris Mooney’s new book 7

War Science chronicles just how suc

“hor Hirth cont Nolan 1 tr
ite change, birth control, endangered spe

 

stem cell cloning, and more, Mooney says indu
try groups and the Bush administration have
deliberately tried to keep the public misin
formed.

Don’t think this doesn’t happen in Canada?
Newsrooms across the country are routinely
bombarded with articles from rogue scientists or
“environmental consultants” who have a story
to tell. These stories are usually the opposite of
the prevailing scientific opinion, but because of

 

this conflict, media often pick them up. That’s
why, even though there is no debate about cli-
mate change in scientific circles, you still see one
being played out in the editorial pages of news-
papers. And that’s why television news programs
still find a spokesperson with an opposite view
to provide “balance” to a story—even if that
opinion is patently absurd.

One could argue that it’s the media who are
letting us down. After all, the task of dissemi-
nating information to the public belongs square-
ly in their hands. Having worked both as a sci-
entist and a journalist, [ can see why that argu-
ment is tempting, But journalists work on tight
deadlines and with ever-shrinking resources.
Journalists with specific beats who would get to
know an issue in detail are becoming scarce.
And science journalists are a rare breed indeed.

Perhaps journalists could be doing a better
job, but so could scientists. It isn’t enough to do
good work in the lab or in the field only to have
your issues distorted in the press. If those who
know the issues most intimately don’t set the

record straight, wno willr in a recent essa

 

media. We must not forget our hearts even as
we apply our minds. We do not do science in a
vacuum but against the grinding poverty and
environment-unfriendly character of modern
times, and we can use our scientific knowledge
to reduce suffering and make life more full for
fellow humans and creatures.”

When should scientists be advocates?
Whenever they can.

DJ TOM

Speaking out in the name of science

 

re cetch
MY THE T

‘Every Frid