Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday February 04 2016, @06:46PM   Printer-friendly
from the getting-buyin-pays-off dept.

Why does some research lead to changes in public policy, while other studies of equal quality do not? That crucial question—how science impacts policy—is the focus of a new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). The paper suggests the most effective way environmental scholars can boost their policy influence—from protecting wildlife to curbing pollution—is to consult widely with stakeholders during the research process.

Surprisingly, the study finds that stakeholder engagement is a better predictor of future policy impacts than perceived scientific credibility. The study is the first quantitative analysis of how environmental knowledge impacts the attitudes and decisions of conservation policymakers. Researchers from the University of Vermont, World Wildlife Fund and Natural Capital Project analyzed 15 policy decisions worldwide, with outcomes ranging from new coastal preservation laws to improved species protections.

http://phys.org/news/2016-02-secret-scholars-impact-policy.html

[Abstract]: Policy impacts of ecosystem services knowledge

[Research]: http://scholarworks.uvm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1412&context=graddis [PDF]


Left unasked is the question: How much, if any, do we want scientists to try to change policy?

Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by tfried on Thursday February 04 2016, @07:11PM

    by tfried (5534) on Thursday February 04 2016, @07:11PM (#299080)

    I imagine, it is also a lot easier to get stakeholders to cooperate, if and when there is an emerging consensus that something needs to be done, before you even start the research?

    Haven't read TFA, though.

    • (Score: 2) by davester666 on Friday February 05 2016, @11:33PM

      by davester666 (155) on Friday February 05 2016, @11:33PM (#299645)

      That always makes the job easy to do. Someone decides what the outcome should be [at least, what's best for them and the people they care about], then pays for research to support creating policy and laws to generate that outcome.

      It's a time-honored tradition, at least in the US and Canada.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @07:12PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @07:12PM (#299081)

    How much, if any, do we want scientists to try to change policy?

    Ideally, politicians would seek out information on their own, consult experts, and gather the opinions of their constituents in order to construct public policy. Stating the obvious: the US does not have ideal politicians. What the US has are politicians that let companies, unions, donors, non-profits, and other special interest groups shape policy and help them write laws.

    Knowing that there are many groups that try to change policy, would it be good or bad to also have scientists share their opinions?

    Involvement of scientists would be good for public policy but it would probably be bad for Science. The genie is already out of the bottle due to the politicization of scientific findings and public trust of scientists is already very low so it might not really get any worse.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @07:17PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @07:17PM (#299085)

    "Left unasked is the question: How much, if any, do we want scientists to try to change policy?"
    I guess this comes from martyb?

    Here's a simple answer: a lot more than the rich people already try to control policy.

    I really don't understand why people don't get this. Politicians should be given very little power. They should be there to make connections between specialists, be able to judge if anyone is lying to them, and be able to understand reasonable explanations given by the specialists about the various issues. The advisors, who are specialists/scientists whatever you want to call them, should try to state facts and propose solutions for the problems they perceive, and then the politicians should decide how to sort the proposals (i.e. who gets the money).
    If the community of the advisors' peers notices that public policy is inadequate to deal with a problem, it means that either the politician is being bribed, or their advisors are being bribed (or maybe just stupid); it is then their job, as the only qualified people able to do this, to point it out and make a lot of noise about it, i.e. "try to change policy".

    That's exactly what happened with other policy decisions. Communities made a lot of noise about various issues, until the politicians addressed them (well, some politicians just choose to shoot the noisy people). Scientists working on climate know the facts, they know that the weather patterns on Earth are profoundly disturbed by our activities, and they know that changing weather patterns will mean chaos for billions of people, so they cannot simply remain quiet.
    Unfortunately, the politicians don't need to shoot them, because the general population is so dumb that they're simply ignoring them.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @07:44PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @07:44PM (#299100)

      the general population is so dumb that they're simply ignoring them

      It is not only that they have low scientific literacy but also that there are many that are deliberately trying to confuse them, create a controversy, discredit the scientists, and make matters of science an opinion or political view.

    • (Score: 2) by SunTzuWarmaster on Thursday February 04 2016, @07:52PM

      by SunTzuWarmaster (3971) on Thursday February 04 2016, @07:52PM (#299107)

      Quite frankly, I want well-informed politicians to change policy. Being well-informed means knowledge of:
        - How the policy is expected to perform (using information from unbiased scientists, think tanks, econometricians, etc.)
        - How the policy will impact business/economy (using information from mostly biased small businesses, large businesses, sole proprietorships, employees, etc.)
        - How the policy will impact the populace (using information from mostly unbiased citizens and voters)

      Then, the *lawmaker* can make a decision on whether it is a good *law*. If the policy will affect his citizens poorly in the short run (ex. water rationing), but help them in the long run, it is their job to sell it. If the policy will have purely or disproportionately negative effects, it shouldn't be a law (ex. bandwidth rationing). If the policy is believed to have positive effects and the blessing of the people it will affect, it should be a law (ex. land rights).

      I don't want "scientists" to change policies any more than I want "big business" or "the populace" to change policy. Left to their own devices, they can all make terrible, sweeping, changes (ex. 0% carbon emission, legalized poison dumping, Exxon should give me $500/month). I want policymakers to make good, well-informed policies based on evidences towards perceived effects and the blessings of the ruled.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday February 04 2016, @07:53PM

      by frojack (1554) on Thursday February 04 2016, @07:53PM (#299108) Journal

      be able to understand reasonable explanations given by the specialists about the various issues.

      Well, there's your problem right there.

      What is reasonable. And what constitutes a specialist? And who gets to decide the answer to those two questions.

      Lets take something so simple as Food, and you can extrapolate to more politically charged topics at your leisure:

      Since well before the two world wars the world has been bombarded by the latest scientific pronouncements about food and drink, only to find these pronouncements overthrown with clockwork regularity by the next food pronouncement by the latest scientific studies, and often accompanied with regulations imposed by governments.

      Science: Coffee is bad for you. No, its ok. No, its really really bad. No, its actually good for you.
      Government: stop drinking so much coffee, ok coffee in moderation, we REALLY have to outlaw coffee, never mind its ok again, but listen to us next time, because we are professionals and know what we are saying.
      alcohol
      eggs
      meat
      salt
      dairy
      grains
      fish

      In short, substitute random food items into that same formula and you will find the same stupid boxing match going on for decades.

      .
      The world has been taught that 1) Science doesn't know what it collectively thinks, 2) government responds with whip-lash policy/laws. And then 3) we all find out it was really private interests that was driving the science and the government all along.

      So you tell us, strike that, you propose and get enacted laws that dictate what constitutes an "Ability to understand", and a proper definition of "specialists". Because unless or until we can agree on that we will always be playing this crazy game of "Simon Says".

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @09:23PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @09:23PM (#299167)

        Nutrition is one of the least understood scientific topics and most subject to sensationalism. The whole reason why bacon became associated with breakfast is because of the pork industry manipulating facts and advertising.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @08:04PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @08:04PM (#299115)

    It makes sense to me. It is seductive to think that science exists in a vacuum, and it does as long as you don't care about acting on the results. But in a democracy public policy is, by definition, a consensus. The earlier you work on consensus building the more successful you will be at building consensus.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @08:21PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @08:21PM (#299124)

    Most scientists have been drilled by the academic community into obsessive focus on their specialty. So far, so good. Unfortunately, most of them are unspeakably terrible at understanding other things. You get the occasional (VERY occasional) polymath, but scientists are not, generally speaking, big picture people.

    I was speaking recently with someone who changed from the world of English Literature into a hard sciences major (currently finishing Abstract Algebra for the last leg of the degree) who was pointing out how the people in her class, who are relatively fresh from the supposedly generalised world of high school, don't know a damn thing about history, almost nothing about literature or language, basically nothing about economics or ... well, anything outside their little field. I'm sure that in the world of mathematics education they may have some cogent thoughts, but outside it they're less relevant than Bubba the Redneck who can run a moonshine still at a profit, fix his truck, treat a sick cow and rewire his own house without killing anyone or burning it down.

    Until and unless we have some kind of test for scientists that reflects their knowledge of, at a minimum, psychology, economics, civics and philosophy, they aren't equipped to advise us on anything beyond their narrow field. Sorry, folks. Go back to your labs and when we need answers, we'll call you.

    • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @09:49PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @09:49PM (#299176)

      Most scientists have been drilled by the academic community into obsessive focus on their specialty.

      And most academic journals are run by SJW and Globalist gatekeepers who enforce their fucked up biases thereby. [youtube.com]

      Science is even more corrupt that politics, because at least we sometimes prosecute corrupt politicians.

    • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday February 05 2016, @03:39AM

      by Thexalon (636) on Friday February 05 2016, @03:39AM (#299285)

      The old saw about this: A specialist learns more and more about less and less until, in the end, s/he knows everything about nothing. A generalist, by contrast, learns less and less about more and more until, in the end, s/he knows nothing about everything.

      I'm not sure which is worse. What I do know is that scientists definitely have a role to play in forming public policy, because they can:
      A. Recognize threats that nobody else is taking seriously (e.g. lead poisoning due to gasoline), and
      B. inform lawmakers about predicted effects of their decisions that should be taken into account (e.g. nuclear power plant regulation).

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Thursday February 04 2016, @08:47PM

    by Immerman (3985) on Thursday February 04 2016, @08:47PM (#299135)

    >Surprisingly, the study finds that stakeholder engagement is a better predictor of future policy impacts than perceived scientific credibility.

    So, a policy designed to cater to special interests with power in the affected realm will be more likely to succeed than one with scientific credibility. Where's the surprise?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @08:59PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @08:59PM (#299143)

    What percentage of wildlife should be protect?

    The two extremes are completely insane. We need to draw the line somewhere in the middle. If we protect it all, then no human can be allowed to survive.

    I think we've already protected far too much. We mostly protect cute things like little owls. It's no serious loss if one type goes extinct; there are many other flying predators. Protections always get added, never removed. It's a ratchet effect. We need to stop it and somehow reverse it. Protections aren't free. They hurt our economy. You are being hurt. It might be fairly indirect... the houses you like are more expensive because other people are denied the right to build where they would rather live. The dings and dents in our economy add up.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @09:27PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @09:27PM (#299168)

      Protections always get added, never removed. It's a ratchet effect. We need to stop it and somehow reverse it.

      Species always get eliminated, never created. It's a ratchet effect. We need to stop it and somehow reverse it.

      Protections aren't free. They hurt our economy. You are being hurt. It might be fairly indirect... the houses you like are more expensive because other people are denied the right to build where they would rather live. The dings and dents in our economy add up.

      Extinctions aren't free. They hurt our ecology. You are being hurt. It might be fairly indirect... the foods you like are more expensive because the supporting species they depend on to grow are being decimated. The dings and dents in our environment add up.

  • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday February 04 2016, @09:02PM

    by krishnoid (1156) on Thursday February 04 2016, @09:02PM (#299147)

    The 1% of scientists who say there's not enough data are drowning out the 99% who say anthropogenic climate change is real? Or do the 1% have a lot of regular people doing their PR for them?

  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday February 04 2016, @10:02PM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday February 04 2016, @10:02PM (#299187) Journal

    Headline demands a one word answer: money.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
  • (Score: 2) by xpda on Thursday February 04 2016, @10:22PM

    by xpda (5991) on Thursday February 04 2016, @10:22PM (#299192) Homepage

    Phys.org is notable for sensational, misleading headlines ("Film coating transforms contact lenses into computer screens") and for questionable science ("Facebook users are 39 percent more likely to feel less happy than non-users"). In this case, a U of Vermont PhD these published by The National Academy of Sciences is prestigious and undoubtedly legitimate, but using phys.org as a reference puts the SN submission in questionable company.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @10:31PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @10:31PM (#299194)

      By that standard 99% of the articles submitted here are in "questionable company."
      How do you bare the misleading sensationalism?

      • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday February 05 2016, @06:40AM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Friday February 05 2016, @06:40AM (#299352) Journal

        How do you bare the misleading sensationalism?

        Well, usually that would involve disrobing the alleged misleading sensationalism, until it was just a naked lie. Hard to do, since most misleading sensationalism is rather fast moving.

        On the other hand, or foot, if we are to bear such misleading sensationalism, that is beyond the pale. The OP is suggesting that crap like this diminishes our standing as the last best refuge of what the green site was. And, I agree.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 05 2016, @04:25PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 05 2016, @04:25PM (#299484)

          But spelling flames make up for all of it!

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 05 2016, @04:14AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 05 2016, @04:14AM (#299294)

    What would be a good term for attempts to subordinate scientific inquiry to the authority of the state?
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesaropapism [wikipedia.org]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 05 2016, @05:35AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 05 2016, @05:35AM (#299326)

      Perhaps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism [wikipedia.org] or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik [wikipedia.org] ?

      What we're discussing here is about the opposite however.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 05 2016, @05:47AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 05 2016, @05:47AM (#299335)

        Caesaropapism is the opposite of theocracy. Same end result.