- Email: [email protected]
Receptivity to scientific and technological advice
0190-79lxm $5.00 + .oo CopyrightQ 1992 PergamonPressplc
n&wlQgy in society,Vol. 14, pp. 49-63,1992 Printedin the USA. All rightamend
Receptivity to Scientific and Technological Advice Hanan Bar-On
ABSTRACT One of the stumbling blocks for S&T advice seems to be the lack of a common language between those seeking advice and those who tender it. The prevalent educational system seldom allows for scientific literacy to develop. Science teaching throughout elementary and high schools is too rudimentary and not systematic enough. It would appear that at least as far as future generations of politicians are concerned, a much more thorough grounding in mathematics could well pave the way to greater receptivity to S&T advice. As long as the language of S&T is a closed book to very many of those who have to make decisions on a national level (and increasingly so on a transnational one), this will not be the case. S&l: which so profoundly affects all our lives, is important enough that an attempt should at least be made to deepen considembly science teaching in all educational systems.
In a recent issue of the New Scientist a story appeared headlined: “Media saturation fuels debate about fats in diet.” The story quoted a leading nutritionist as saying, “the media hype [is] a good example of the dangers of taking advice from people who do not have the professional responsibility to ensure that it is correct.” The story ends with the only too familiar refrain: “Far too little money, from government or industry,goes into nutritional studies.” These three sentences seem to describe some of the issues that this forum tries to address. In trying to analyze them one might conjecture on the following: 1. Some scientists alerted the media to certain findings on increased dangers in the intake of fats. The media, being undoubtedlyinterested in human health, featured this issue fairly prominently Hanan Bar-On is the Vii President fir Intemational Operations and Public &i.rs ofthe Weisman n Znstitute of Science. He was appointed to the Institute administration in 1987 after serving as Deplrty-Dim&or General of Israel’s Foreign Mini&y. Prior to that he served in several senior posts in Israel’s foreign service: in the United States and Africa, as Ambassador to the Netherlands, and in Ismel’s delegation to the United Ncrtions. 49
50
H. Bar-On
2. other scientists raised doubts whether the conclusions were as definite as stated. 3. Public perception of the media stories was, more likely than not, that indeed fats are somehow dangerous. This conclusion was probably reached irrespective of whether the mass media presented the findings as established fact, or only in a much more tentative fashion. Headlines, which condense stories, tend to appear as established truths. If one chooses to conjecture further, one could possibly think of the following scenario: 1. Media attention to the subject may have aroused political interest. 2. This in turn could lead government, in its attempt to be responsive to the public, to turn to experts in order to find out (a) whether the media attention was warranted, and (b) if the answer is in the affirmative, whether any government action is called for. 3. Given the law of averages, it must be assumed that the experts with whom government would consult would most likely divide in a similar fashion as those who brought the disagreement to the fore. In other words, there would be those who would tend to support the original claim and those who would state that, at least for now, there does not yet exist sufficient evidence to warrant any action. 4. Should the case be presented to governmental decision maker, they would face a dilemma. They could decide according to the famous dictum of Descartes, “that it is sometimes requisite in common life to follow opinions which one knows to be uncertain, exactly as though they were indisputable.” Yet, this would probably happen only if they considered the issue to be of overwhelming intrinsic importance, or of no importance at all and therefore to be ignored completely In most cases they would either not decide (by referring the case to further study), or strike a compromise (i.e., allocating some funds for further research, but, given the constant budgetary restraints, cutting allocations to some other, most likely related, research). Should this conjecture contain even a semblance of reality, it follows that in the final analysis, a governmental decision-making process, triggered by public attention or otherwise, depends on the judgment of the decision maker (or makers). It is the elected or appointed official who decides, based upon first-hand knowledge and judgment and/or on the trust placed in employees’ or advisors’ studied opinions. It seems trite to restate that all decisions, be they governmental or otherwise, rest on individual judgment, even if taken not by a single person but by a collective body Yet, this fact bears repeating because governments often have to decide within an extremely short time span and, as decisions are individually based, their effectiveness depends on the decision maker’s ability to comprehend the full implication of his or her judgment. It is to restate the obvious to say that even the most educated decision makers, fully grasping all implications, may well err in their judgment.
Receptivity to Scientific and lbchrdugical Advice
51
The purpose of any advisory machinery is to try and make this depndency on the quality of judgment less of a hit-or-miss proposition. Considering the complexity of S&T, the question cannot but arise whether such a task is not completely illusory, given the fact that most governmental decision makers have little knowledge of, and sometimes also little interest, in S&l! There are too many examples in history to make one sanguine on this point. I am wondering who of the decision makers on the eve of World War I was cognizant of the fact that the advent of the machine gun had fundamentally altered warfare and that it had, together with advanced artillery, made trench warfare, and therefore a long and bloody war, nearly inevitable. Others, more experienced, have expanded on the need and function of science advice, the need for which seems indisputable. It seems that less attention has been given to the question of whether decision makers could become more receptive to S&T advice. Obviously, there is the statutory role that was so effectively played in the U.S. by the PSAC machinery. But, as the abolition of this body by President Nixon demonstrated, statutory bodies serve only at the discretion of those who appoint them. If a decision maker does not seek advice, the advisory body will either be abolished or become irrelevant. I am not certain whether any remedy can be found for this ill. Nor am I certain whether there exists a way to make a decision maker receptive to advice proffered. But as the problem cannot be left at that, the question arises whether there are ways in which the political establishment could be made nearly instinctively aware of S&T, an instinct that could not only lead decision makers to think in S&T terms, but would also attune them to the language used by science. Today one of the stumbling blocks for advice receptivity seems to be that there hardly exists a common language between the person seeking scientific advice and those who tender it. The prevalent educational system seldom allows for scientific literacy to develop. Science teaching throughout elementary and high schools is too rudimentary and not systematic enough. It would appear that at least as far as future generations of politicians are concerned, a much more thorough grounding in mathematics could well pave the way for greater receptivity to S&T advice. As long as the language of S&T is a closed book to very many of those who have to make decisions on a national level (and increasingly so on a transnational one), this will not be the case. S&T, which so profoundly affects all our lives, is important enough that an attempt should at least be made to deepen considerably science teaching in all educational systems. One cannot forget that mathematics is the only true international language, which if at least understood by the educated elites everywhere, could form some kind of bridge across national boundaries. (It is of
52
H. Bar-On
course possible that the new “computer generations” of children will fashion their own common language, making this superfluous). Another element in trying to sensitize decision makers to S&T advice is obviously the media. The media’s role in this respect can hardly be overstated. It stimulates public opinion and, therefore, the political establishment. Media attention to a problem, even if haphazardly selected, often makes or breaks the political fate of a given subject. Dr. David Owen, in a paper he presented to this forum, cites as the beghming of effective environmental consciousness Rachel Carson’s book, The Eternul Spring. There is little question that he is right, but I doubt whether the book would have had the same impact on public opinion if The New Yorker had not serialized it, prior to its publication in book form. Given the growing impact of the media on public policy, the question arises as to the S&T awareness of the media and the influence of those of its employees who are scientifically literate on editorial policy. In many basic respects the questions arising in science advice to governments are similar to those arising in regard to the media. Although it is clear that science advice to either the media or government cannot be a substitute for individual science literacy, a science advice mechanism, supported by the scientific establishment, should be considered.
Recommendations Most of the discussions on science advice turn on the question of how best to tender such advice. The following section tries to draw attention to the other side of the coin, namely, how to sensitize the recipients of the advice to the need to seek advice. There is a need to develop, through the educational process, a common science-based language understood not only by the practitioners but also by those trained in the humanities, the law, social sciences, economics, and management. (It is assumed that most political and media decision makers study those subjects rather than science or technology). It is suggested that educational authorities should not only emphasize mathematics and science in elementary and high school curricula, but that courses in these subjects ought to be mandatory in college education. At the same time one ought to think of the possib,ility of mandatory courses in elementary government practice and history (a subject for political science to develop) for all or most science students. It might also be worthwhile to consider whether the US practice of appointing young scientists and engineers to fellowships in governmental departments and parliamentary bodies should not be emulated in most democratic states. A similar practice might also be considered for the media; both scientists and media professionals could well benefit. As far as the media is
Receptivity
to Scientific and !#chm&icalAdvicc
53
concerned, one should consider whether scientific and technological professional bodies should not set up small independent expert panels to which media could turn as a matter of course and routine in nearly all scientific matters. Such panels, which would not assume any editorial responsibilities, could serve for the individual editor or editorial board as a sounding and review board for scientific ideas and stories of public interest, thereby setting a more objective framework for public discussions of S&T issues.
n&wlQgy in society,Vol. 14, pp. 49-63,1992 Printedin the USA. All rightamend
Receptivity to Scientific and Technological Advice Hanan Bar-On
ABSTRACT One of the stumbling blocks for S&T advice seems to be the lack of a common language between those seeking advice and those who tender it. The prevalent educational system seldom allows for scientific literacy to develop. Science teaching throughout elementary and high schools is too rudimentary and not systematic enough. It would appear that at least as far as future generations of politicians are concerned, a much more thorough grounding in mathematics could well pave the way to greater receptivity to S&T advice. As long as the language of S&T is a closed book to very many of those who have to make decisions on a national level (and increasingly so on a transnational one), this will not be the case. S&l: which so profoundly affects all our lives, is important enough that an attempt should at least be made to deepen considembly science teaching in all educational systems.
In a recent issue of the New Scientist a story appeared headlined: “Media saturation fuels debate about fats in diet.” The story quoted a leading nutritionist as saying, “the media hype [is] a good example of the dangers of taking advice from people who do not have the professional responsibility to ensure that it is correct.” The story ends with the only too familiar refrain: “Far too little money, from government or industry,goes into nutritional studies.” These three sentences seem to describe some of the issues that this forum tries to address. In trying to analyze them one might conjecture on the following: 1. Some scientists alerted the media to certain findings on increased dangers in the intake of fats. The media, being undoubtedlyinterested in human health, featured this issue fairly prominently Hanan Bar-On is the Vii President fir Intemational Operations and Public &i.rs ofthe Weisman n Znstitute of Science. He was appointed to the Institute administration in 1987 after serving as Deplrty-Dim&or General of Israel’s Foreign Mini&y. Prior to that he served in several senior posts in Israel’s foreign service: in the United States and Africa, as Ambassador to the Netherlands, and in Ismel’s delegation to the United Ncrtions. 49
50
H. Bar-On
2. other scientists raised doubts whether the conclusions were as definite as stated. 3. Public perception of the media stories was, more likely than not, that indeed fats are somehow dangerous. This conclusion was probably reached irrespective of whether the mass media presented the findings as established fact, or only in a much more tentative fashion. Headlines, which condense stories, tend to appear as established truths. If one chooses to conjecture further, one could possibly think of the following scenario: 1. Media attention to the subject may have aroused political interest. 2. This in turn could lead government, in its attempt to be responsive to the public, to turn to experts in order to find out (a) whether the media attention was warranted, and (b) if the answer is in the affirmative, whether any government action is called for. 3. Given the law of averages, it must be assumed that the experts with whom government would consult would most likely divide in a similar fashion as those who brought the disagreement to the fore. In other words, there would be those who would tend to support the original claim and those who would state that, at least for now, there does not yet exist sufficient evidence to warrant any action. 4. Should the case be presented to governmental decision maker, they would face a dilemma. They could decide according to the famous dictum of Descartes, “that it is sometimes requisite in common life to follow opinions which one knows to be uncertain, exactly as though they were indisputable.” Yet, this would probably happen only if they considered the issue to be of overwhelming intrinsic importance, or of no importance at all and therefore to be ignored completely In most cases they would either not decide (by referring the case to further study), or strike a compromise (i.e., allocating some funds for further research, but, given the constant budgetary restraints, cutting allocations to some other, most likely related, research). Should this conjecture contain even a semblance of reality, it follows that in the final analysis, a governmental decision-making process, triggered by public attention or otherwise, depends on the judgment of the decision maker (or makers). It is the elected or appointed official who decides, based upon first-hand knowledge and judgment and/or on the trust placed in employees’ or advisors’ studied opinions. It seems trite to restate that all decisions, be they governmental or otherwise, rest on individual judgment, even if taken not by a single person but by a collective body Yet, this fact bears repeating because governments often have to decide within an extremely short time span and, as decisions are individually based, their effectiveness depends on the decision maker’s ability to comprehend the full implication of his or her judgment. It is to restate the obvious to say that even the most educated decision makers, fully grasping all implications, may well err in their judgment.
Receptivity to Scientific and lbchrdugical Advice
51
The purpose of any advisory machinery is to try and make this depndency on the quality of judgment less of a hit-or-miss proposition. Considering the complexity of S&T, the question cannot but arise whether such a task is not completely illusory, given the fact that most governmental decision makers have little knowledge of, and sometimes also little interest, in S&l! There are too many examples in history to make one sanguine on this point. I am wondering who of the decision makers on the eve of World War I was cognizant of the fact that the advent of the machine gun had fundamentally altered warfare and that it had, together with advanced artillery, made trench warfare, and therefore a long and bloody war, nearly inevitable. Others, more experienced, have expanded on the need and function of science advice, the need for which seems indisputable. It seems that less attention has been given to the question of whether decision makers could become more receptive to S&T advice. Obviously, there is the statutory role that was so effectively played in the U.S. by the PSAC machinery. But, as the abolition of this body by President Nixon demonstrated, statutory bodies serve only at the discretion of those who appoint them. If a decision maker does not seek advice, the advisory body will either be abolished or become irrelevant. I am not certain whether any remedy can be found for this ill. Nor am I certain whether there exists a way to make a decision maker receptive to advice proffered. But as the problem cannot be left at that, the question arises whether there are ways in which the political establishment could be made nearly instinctively aware of S&T, an instinct that could not only lead decision makers to think in S&T terms, but would also attune them to the language used by science. Today one of the stumbling blocks for advice receptivity seems to be that there hardly exists a common language between the person seeking scientific advice and those who tender it. The prevalent educational system seldom allows for scientific literacy to develop. Science teaching throughout elementary and high schools is too rudimentary and not systematic enough. It would appear that at least as far as future generations of politicians are concerned, a much more thorough grounding in mathematics could well pave the way for greater receptivity to S&T advice. As long as the language of S&T is a closed book to very many of those who have to make decisions on a national level (and increasingly so on a transnational one), this will not be the case. S&T, which so profoundly affects all our lives, is important enough that an attempt should at least be made to deepen considerably science teaching in all educational systems. One cannot forget that mathematics is the only true international language, which if at least understood by the educated elites everywhere, could form some kind of bridge across national boundaries. (It is of
52
H. Bar-On
course possible that the new “computer generations” of children will fashion their own common language, making this superfluous). Another element in trying to sensitize decision makers to S&T advice is obviously the media. The media’s role in this respect can hardly be overstated. It stimulates public opinion and, therefore, the political establishment. Media attention to a problem, even if haphazardly selected, often makes or breaks the political fate of a given subject. Dr. David Owen, in a paper he presented to this forum, cites as the beghming of effective environmental consciousness Rachel Carson’s book, The Eternul Spring. There is little question that he is right, but I doubt whether the book would have had the same impact on public opinion if The New Yorker had not serialized it, prior to its publication in book form. Given the growing impact of the media on public policy, the question arises as to the S&T awareness of the media and the influence of those of its employees who are scientifically literate on editorial policy. In many basic respects the questions arising in science advice to governments are similar to those arising in regard to the media. Although it is clear that science advice to either the media or government cannot be a substitute for individual science literacy, a science advice mechanism, supported by the scientific establishment, should be considered.
Recommendations Most of the discussions on science advice turn on the question of how best to tender such advice. The following section tries to draw attention to the other side of the coin, namely, how to sensitize the recipients of the advice to the need to seek advice. There is a need to develop, through the educational process, a common science-based language understood not only by the practitioners but also by those trained in the humanities, the law, social sciences, economics, and management. (It is assumed that most political and media decision makers study those subjects rather than science or technology). It is suggested that educational authorities should not only emphasize mathematics and science in elementary and high school curricula, but that courses in these subjects ought to be mandatory in college education. At the same time one ought to think of the possib,ility of mandatory courses in elementary government practice and history (a subject for political science to develop) for all or most science students. It might also be worthwhile to consider whether the US practice of appointing young scientists and engineers to fellowships in governmental departments and parliamentary bodies should not be emulated in most democratic states. A similar practice might also be considered for the media; both scientists and media professionals could well benefit. As far as the media is
Receptivity
to Scientific and !#chm&icalAdvicc
53
concerned, one should consider whether scientific and technological professional bodies should not set up small independent expert panels to which media could turn as a matter of course and routine in nearly all scientific matters. Such panels, which would not assume any editorial responsibilities, could serve for the individual editor or editorial board as a sounding and review board for scientific ideas and stories of public interest, thereby setting a more objective framework for public discussions of S&T issues.