Should scientists be “dispassionate, objective, and neutral seekers of nature’s truths,” or should they feel free to advocate for causes they feel strongly about, building on their scientific work? The topic was raised recently on CBC Radio One’s popular show Quirks and Quarks.
In this episode, “Prominent climate scientist argues it’s time to ditch the ‘myth of neutrality,’ ” Katherine Hayhoe argues that scientists should stop trying to be neutral and instead embrace their values. She sees her role “more like that of a physician for the planet – diagnosing its ills and advocating for the health of her patient, and her patient’s inhabitants.”
Dr. Hayhoe is a highly qualified and highly regarded atmospheric scientist with extensive experience in atmospheric modeling and climate change assessment. Her remarks on Quirks and Quarks were based on a paper she co-authored in the journal Nature Climate Action – “Challenging the neutrality myth in climate science and activism” which was written as a rebuttal to another Nature Climate Action paper by Ulf Buntgen; “The importance of distinguishing climate science from climate activism”.
The two positions are diametrically opposed.
- Buntgen: “I recommend that climate science and climate activism should be separated conceptually and practically, and the latter should not be confused with science communication and public engagement.”
- Hayhoe and co-authors: “we advocate for redefining the boundaries of acceptable influence of values in scientific communication and offer practical strategies to move beyond the misleading myth of neutrality.”
To be clear – Buntgen is no climate denier; he has published extensively on climate-related research.
And this is not a new topic – there is plenty of history and debate in scientific literature about communication of scientific information; both Hayhoe’s group and Buntgen cite a number of relevant publications. But communication of climate-related science has become particularly prominent as climate change debates become more intense, and calls for radical policy shifts based on “the [climate] science” get louder.
As I wrote a few years ago: Do you ‘believe the science’? How about starting with understanding the science?
“When somebody says ‘well, I believe the science’ in a discussion, it almost always means they don’t understand science, the scientific method, or how scientific results should be used. Instead, they have decided to believe simplistic statements declaring “this is the science” from their favourite authority – whether that’s David Suzuki, the Manhattan Contrarian, Al Gore, or their brother-in-law.”
Data scientist Laurie Weston weighed in with “Manipulating Science – Activism and Advocacy”, with some interesting observations:
- “science is often co-opted to lend legitimacy for all kinds of purposes, innocent or otherwise. Corporate or political interests may deliberately influence scientific investigation to support an agenda, with promised resources contingent upon certain “acceptable” avenues of investigation or preconceived outcomes. Well-intentioned environmental or charitable organizations might selectively publish information that highlights a perspective designed to attract maximum public sympathy, support, and donation, while downplaying or excluding information that would cause ambiguity or indecision, clouding their agenda in the process. Scientific education curricula may be shaped in a way that emphasizes moral or cultural objectives promoted by regional government or other institutional leaders of the day.”
- “science has been employed to support all sides of emotionally charged arguments and news headlines in areas including the environment (climate change crisis), wealth concentration (the 1%), and health (COVID-19 pandemic). Threats to our very existence have been implied or directly stated, causing panic in some, and skepticism and distrust in others.”
- “… most [people] do not have basic scientific knowledge, nor the critical thinking skills to logically dissect and analyze an argument. Therefore, people look to expert authority to simplify and communicate the important, relevant conclusions. Despite repeated examples in history to the contrary, many are easily convinced of the validity of these arguments through an innocent desire and willingness to trust the perceived authority.”
Both my and Weston’s analyses focused on non-scientists selectively quoting or even distorting scientific results to support their particular beliefs or causes. Buntgen echoed those concerns:
“(Non-)specialist activists often adopt scientific arguments as a source of moral legitimation for their movements, which can be radical and destructive rather than rational and constructive.”
But what about scientists themselves? In particular, what about scientists advocating on causes related to their research? Buntgen’s position is pretty clear:
“I suggest that an ever-growing commingling of climate science, climate activism, climate communication and climate policy, whereby scientific insights are adopted to promote pre-determined positions, not only creates confusion among politicians, stakeholders and the wider public, but also diminishes academic credibility.”
Hayhoe’s CBC interview reflects Buntgen’s concerns. A couple of quotes:
“We need to help people understand that clean energy is more affordable and better for our health than the old ways of energy, that sustainable food and water systems are better for us and give us a better future, that a better world is possible, and that these changes are not just changes for the climate, they are changes for us, our health, our families, our safety, and our well-being.
You have people you love, places you love, things you love, and if you are a human being living on this planet, that means you have everything you need to care about climate change and to use your voice with mine to advocate for climate action.”
Again, Hayhoe is an expert climate scientist, and she is no stranger to public policy; she is a Paul Whitfield Horn Distinguished Professor and the Political Science Endowed Chair in Public Policy and Public Law in the Department of Political Science at Texas Tech University. She obviously feels her academic credentials sufficiently qualify her to advise policymakers and the public.
And that is fine – she should provide expert advice, with her academic and professional credentials adding weight to that advice. However, that advice should be tempered by the scope of her expertise and the breadth of her research. It is fine for her to put forward her scientific findings as she states in her online bio:
“I analyze observations, compare future scenarios, evaluate global and regional climate models, build and assess statistical downscaling models, and constantly strive to develop better ways of translating climate projections into information relevant to agriculture, ecosystems, energy, infrastructure, public health, and water resources.”
But that is not what she is doing when she advised the public (and policymakers) by speaking on a popular and highly respected online/radio forum.
Why not? Look at the first quote from her interview. She is pushing for “clean energy”, deriding the “old ways of energy”, and talking about a “better world” beyond just changes in climate. These are much, much bigger topics than climate science, and cannot be addressed with facile buzzwords.
Hayhoe has a very limited understanding of energy, energy generation, and energy security – yet she presumes to advise about energy based on her qualifications as a climate scientist. A “better world” encompasses a lot more than climate or climate change, but Dr. Hayhoe will tell us how to achieve positive changes for our families, our safety, and our well-being based on her knowledge of climate models. Sorry, that is not enough.
In fact, in the second point above, she indicates that it is all about climate action. She expresses fuzzy feel-goodisms as a climate activist, but trades on her status as a climate scientist to provide authority to her advocacy talking points.
This is exactly the problem Ulf Buntgen wrote about. Katherine Hayhoe is an acknowledged and accredited expert across a broad scope of scientific topics related to climate. She should advance her work to inform public discussion and policy creation in related areas.
But as a climate activist, she steps beyond her expert limits in making pronouncements on preferred (“clean”) energy and sustainable food and water systems. Her willingness to do so reflects Buntgen’s concern, and his words are worth repeating:
“an ever-growing commingling of climate science, climate activism, climate communication and climate policy, whereby scientific insights are adopted to promote pre-determined positions, not only creates confusion among politicians, stakeholders and the wider public, but also diminishes academic credibility”.
What should scientists do?
This is not an easy question. Scientists are obviously entitled to their opinions, and nothing should prevent them from advocating for causes in which they believe. Most scientists choose to study things that interest them, and it is not unusual to become passionate about subjects you know well and find fascinating.
But important societal issues are always complex, and are always based on many different fields of expertise. To address humanity’s well-being – issues around energy, food, water, and safety – we need Dr. Hayhoe’s expert advice on climate science. But we also need expert advice on energy production and distribution, on agriculture, on water systems – and on many other things.
So Hayhoe’s activist position – for example, supporting “clean” energy over “old” energy, is not tenable, or at a bare minimum must be clearly disassociated from her position and authority as a scientist. Her activism focuses on her interests (climate) only, without considering myriad other factors in providing humanity with energy security and other essential needs.
I suggest that scientists wishing to communicate to wide audiences adopt Roger Pielke Jr.’s approach. Dr. Pielke writes about a variety of science and statistics-based subjects, addressing specific topics with clear insights backed by hard data. Instead of telling us what we should think, he presents data, offers reasonable interpretations, and invites readers to debate.
Check out Dr. Pielke on Substack at: The Honest Broker – Making sense of science, policy and politics.
