Heather Douglas of the Institute for Science, Society and Policy at the University of Ottawa on grappling with science advice in ideological conflicts.

1. SCIENCE AND CITIZENS
Heather Douglas
Waterloo Chair in Science & Society
July 23, 2014

2. CONTROVERSY & DISTRUST
 GMOs
 Climate Change
 Vaccines

3. THREE MODELS
 Deficit Model
Scientific Illiteracy
 Constructivist Model
No special expertise
 Framing Model
Malleable humans

4. PROBLEMS WITH THE MODELS
 Ignorant publics?
 All knowledge equal?
 Irrational publics?
 Perfectly informed scientists?
 The problem of science
in democracy

5. THE NATURE OF SCIENCE

6. WHAT IS SCIENCE?
 Science is an empirical endeavor.
 Science builds theories that explain available
evidence.
 Science uses explanations to generate new
predictions.
 The new predictions guide new tests, gathering
new evidence.
 Science is always developing and changing.

7. Evidence
Explanation
Prediction
THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS

8. Evidence
Evidence
Explanation
Prediction
AN ITERATIVE PROCESS

9. Evidence
Explanation
Evidence
Explanation
Prediction

10. Prediction
Evidence
Explanation
Evidence
Explanation
Prediction

11. Prediction
Evidence
Explanation
Evidence
Explanation
Prediction
Evidence

12. SCIENCE AND UNCERTAINTY
 Theories and explanations are always broader than
the evidence they explain.
 No theory is known with certainty.
 Theories are better or worse supported, and have
better or worse alternatives.
 Science is always open to challenge.
 Science’s uncertainty is the reason science is
robust!

13. THE ROBUSTNESS OF SCIENCE
Why rely on science? Two reasons:
1. The evidential basis of science
Scientific claims and theories are always open to
empirical challenge.
2. The communal criticism of science
Scientific communities should be open and diverse.
This helps them raise the broadest possible challenges.

14. THE IMPORTANT SCIENTIFIC LITERACY
 The most important thing citizens need to
understand: The Nature of Science
Science is not fixed.
Science is not complete.
 Yet science is reliable generally.
Because it is based on evidence.
Because of the ongoing critique within the scientific
community.

15. THE VALUE OF SCIENCE IN A DEMOCRACY
Reliable empirical knowledge needed for:
 Effective policy decisions
 Tracking the impact of public policy (assessing
governance)
 Rethinking the public-private boundary
 Assigning causation to assess responsibility

16. (MORE) THE VALUE OF SCIENCE
 Challenging received wisdom on the nature of
things
 Bolstering economic development
 Shaping technological possibilities

17. GROUNDS FOR CONTESTING SCIENCE
 Science is important for all these things, but it can
also be contested by citizens:
Science is uncertain, so is the available evidence
sufficient?
Have the right range of questions been asked?
 Is scientific research focusing on the right problems and the
right range of solutions?
Is the scientific community functioning properly
(adequate criticism)?
Is the expertise reliable?

18. CITIZENS AND SCIENCE

19. HOW CAN CITIZENS ASSESS EXPERTS?
1. Do the experts have a Ph.D. in the appropriate
area?
2. Are they publishing in their area of expertise?
3. Do they have integrity?
4. Do they share citizens’ values?

20. ASSESSING INTEGRITY
 Integrity in science is having the proper regard for
evidence.
 Experts should change their minds when new
evidence is presented OR be able to explain why
the new evidence does not change their mind.
 Experts should be able to say what evidence would
change their minds.

21. DETECTING A LACK OF INTEGRITY
 An expert lacking integrity will:
Ignore inconvenient evidence.
Cherry-pick evidence.
Depend upon flawed evidence.
Not be able to imagine evidence that will change their
mind.
Not respond to criticism.
A lack of integrity is
discovered in a
pattern of argumentation.

22. ASSESSING VALUES?
 If an expert has integrity, why does it matter
whether the social and ethical values are shared?
 Values help direct the questions being asked.
 Values help assess evidential sufficiency through
inductive risk.

23. INDUCTIVE RISK
 Is the evidence
sufficient?
 Depends on false
positive-false negative
trade-off.
 It depends on our
values.
Is this evidence enough?

Value

24. CITIZEN QUERIES FOR SCIENCE
1. First:
Is the research being done with integrity?
Is the scientific community properly critical?
2. Second:
Are the right questions being asked in research?
Is inductive risk being handled properly?

25. ADDRESSING CONTROVERSIES

26. HOW SHOULD SCIENCE ENGAGE CITIZENS
DURING A CONTROVERSY?
 Rather than presume ignorance, irrationality, or
malleability of the public, assess the source of
controversy.
 Why are citizens distrustful of science in the
particular cases?

27. THREE REASONS TO DISTRUST/IGNORE
SCIENCE WITH INTEGRITY
1. Science vs. Faith: The issue rests on an article of
faith.
2. The Research Agenda: Scientists have not yet
studied the central concern.
3. Inductive Risk: Scientists are not weighing the
risks of error appropriately.
Each of these reasons calls for a different response.

28. 1. SCIENCE VS. FAITH
 Different topics? Different authorities?
 Different epistemic stances
 Science: Everything is open to evidential
challenge.
 Faith: Evidence is irrelevant. Belief exists in the
face of evidence to the contrary.
 Problem: Public decisions when faith is not
shared...

29. 1. FAITH & SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSIES
 Examples:
Climate change: “God won’t let us change the climate.”
GMOs: “We should not alter nature.”
Vaccines: “My body is inviolate.”
 Response:
If issue is private, no problems arise.
If issue is public, arguments must be public. The public
must decide whether to settle the matter on the basis of
faith or science.

30. 2. THE RESEARCH AGENDA
Are scientists addressing what the public is worried
about?
Examples (historical):
GMOs: What will be the impact of IP on farming
practices?
Climate change: How will climate change impact my
region?
Vaccines: What alternatives to mercury preservatives
are there?
 Response: Do research to address concerns!

31. 3. THE WEIGHING OF INDUCTIVE RISKS
 Is the available evidence sufficient for accepting the
scientific theory?
 What are the risks of false positives or false
negatives?
 Examples:
GMOs: Do we have enough evidence that gene transfer
in this instance will not be a problem?
Climate change: Do we have enough evidence to take
expensive action?
Vaccines: Do we have enough evidence to trust that the
vaccine is safe and effective?

32. A BETTER EXAMPLE: NEONICOTINOIDS & BEE
HEALTH
 Neonicotinoids are a very effective
pesticide that coats seeds and
protects the entire plant.
 They end up in the pollen too.
 They are neurotoxic and
immunological suppressants.
 First used in the 1990s, they became widespread by
2000.
 Bee population difficulties appeared as the use of
neonicotinoids rose.
 Recent controlled studies show a correlation between
exposure and bee colony collapse disorder.

33. IS THE EVIDENCE ENOUGH TO PULL THEM
FROM THE MARKET?
 Yes: Bee health is in serious decline where these
pesticides have become widespread, and
pollinators are crucial to our food supply.
 No: There are contradicting studies (although not
without conflicts of interest) and farmers depend on
these pesticides for increased crop yields.
 Balancing risks of error (false positive and false
negatives) influences the answer.

34. DEALING WITH INDUCTIVE RISK
Responses:
 Ask what evidence would be persuasive (also
crucial for integrity).
 Discuss values openly: can greater agreement on
values be reached?
 Seek policies that preserve strong value
considerations rather than demanding trade-offs

35. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

36. MODES OF ENGAGEMENT
 Citizen Science
 Public Forums
 Deliberative Forums

37. SCIENCE & DEMOCRACY
 Whose values?
 Scientists don’t demographically represent the
public.
 Scientists often have their own disciplinary values.
 Generating genuine public engagement is the
challenge.

38. THE NATURE OF THE PUBLIC
 Preferences ill-formed
 Not well-informed about
science generally
BUT,
 Capable of learning specifics
 Capable of understanding science
 Capable of grappling with trade-offs

39. DELIBERATIVE FORUMS
 A range of research by social scientists over the
past 20 years
 Analytic-deliberative processes,
collaborative analysis,
citizen juries, etc.
 Stakeholders
OR citizen panels

40. BENEFITS OF DELIBERATIVE FORUMS
 Participants gain greater understanding of science,
through direct engagement with expertise
 Experts gain local insight from members of the
public
Actual farming practices
Better tidal current data
 Value judgments clarified
 Representative process possible– genuinely
democratic!
 Trust is cultivated.

41. CONCLUSIONS

42. THE AGENDA
 Educate the public on the nature of science
 Be clear when issue is matter of faith or matter of
science
 Demand intellectual integrity from everyone
Think through what evidence might be convincing
 Pay attention to the range of concerns present with
an issue
 Pay attention to the ethical values involved with
weighing inductive risks
 Construct social forums where genuine dialogue
can occur

43. THE RESULTS?
 A citizenry that understands what science is and
why it is important
 A body of research that can be used to inform
public decisions
 Advice that is scientifically legitimate and
democratically accountable