Re: [asa] Role of research scientist

Randy, I hear what you're saying here, but what you're getting at is the
entire rich and complex field of Science, Technology and Society (STS)
studies. People get Ph.D.'s in this field and spend their careers wresting
with these questions. (Here's a syllabus for one introductory course that
scratches the surface of the introductory literature:
http://www.umich.edu/%7Eumsts/documents/KPPSTM.pdf?passCID=471) I agree
with you completely that the rules and norms of science matter -- as the
Jesus Tomb debacle is demonstrating. But the relationship between
scientific institutions and policy-making, particularly in a liberal
democracy, is extraordinarily complex -- worthy of the careful study it's
given in the STS field, and beyond a simple heuristic of trusting the rules
and norms of one community.

On 2/27/07, Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Now that I've finally been able to work through the last ten days of
> notes on this list, I find myself in quite a quandary. There were so many
> good notes and so many topics I'd love to reply to that it just wouldn't be
> physically possible. Maybe I'll get a chance in the future. But for now let
> me inject something else in the discussion.
>
> Offlist, Johnny Lin sent me several links that I found very interesting.
> One was http://www.issues.org/13.1/jasano.htm by Sheila Jasanoff based on
> a talk in 1995. She correctly identifies the importance of trust and
> community in the dialog between science and the public. This takes me back
> to Rich's comment that a key role for ASA should be building that sense of
> trust between the scientific community and the (esp. Christian) public. I'm
> still looking for ideas of how we could do this.
>
> He also sent me a copy of an outstanding article that I believe is very
> thoughtful and helpful. It is by Thomas J Mills and Roger N Clark, "Roles of
> Research Scientists in Natural Resource Decision-Making" published in the
> journal Forest Ecology and Management, Vol 153 (2001) pp. 189-198. I can't
> seem to find it online and it's too long to copy and I don't know how to
> attach it for this list. But if you have it in your library, it's worth
> digging out. Though they focus on forest management as the key example,
> their comments apply to the broader situation and I think are very relevant
> to the discussion we were having on climatology.
>
> Mills and Clark list a number of "propositions" for both researchers and
> decision makers Here's one for researchers:
> "Research scientists must be prepared to respond to harsh critiques and
> attacks meant to undermine their credibility or to challenge their work. In
> cases with which we are familiar, research scientists have been attacked
> both professionally and personally, evidently in an attempt to undermine the
> credibility of their work because of its implications for the policy
> outcome. One of the best ways to cope with this scrutiny is to stay in the
> science role using time-tested strategies.. If someone wants to debate the
> science, they must play by the rules of science, using peer reviewed
> information, clearly stated assumptions, and rationale. This often reveals
> that the debate is not about science information at all but about
> different value positions."
>
> I think this is particularly true in areas of science and Christian faith.
> It's so easy to move the debate outside the realm of "the rules of science"
> when we don't like the conclusions or implications of mainstream science. We
> would even prefer to change the rules of science to make a better fit.
> Perhaps it would be much better to humbly admit we don't know how to
> reconcile the two rather than distort either the theology or the science to
> forcefit concordance.
>
> Randy
>
>
> Randy
>
>
>
>
> "
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Feb 28 13:15:30 2007