Normative Science: When Scientists Become Stealth Policy Advocates

Friend and colleague Dr. Robert T. Lackey recently published an article on normative science in OSU's Terra Magazine. It's an excellent take on science and advocacy. 

He begins:

Scientific information is important in many policy debates in the Pacific Northwest (salmon; wildfire severity; human activities and climate; genetically modified organisms; water scarcity). Science is essential in such policy debates, but I am concerned that policy-biased science is increasingly common.

Science should be objective and based on the best information available. Too often, however, scientific information presented to the public and decision-makers is infused with hidden policy preferences. Such science is termed normative, and it is a corruption of the practice of good science. Normative science is defined as “information that is developed, presented or interpreted based on an assumed, usually unstated, preference for a particular policy choice.”

I won't continue here - you can go to the article, which also allows comments.

One of the comments was by friend and colleague Todd Jarvis who alluded to an article he wrote that was recently published in the Oregon Geologist Examiner.

Last May I posted a PDF of Bob's lecture on Is Science Biased Toward Natural?

Good stuff.

"Science is not value free, but it should be policy neutral." - Robert T. Lackey 

Comments

[Mark boslough]

I look forward to reading this. I want to know how the author defines "policy." If an asteroid were discovered that was on a collision course with earth, would it be a no-no for scientists to suggest that we do something to prevent the collision? Or would that be ok, as long as we don't try to tell policymakers whether we should deflect it or blow it up. Or would that technical advice be ok, as long as we don't try to suggest who should be in charge or who should pay for it. Where, exactly, does science end and policy start?