Robert Lackey, a senior fisheries biologist for the Environmental Protection Agency in Corvallis, Oregon, has a number of very interesting papers on the role of science in politics and policy, and in particular on the role of scientists in policy and politics.

One very interesting essay (of many) is on “normative science” (PDF here) which appeared in Fisheries in 2004. In this essay, which focuses on fishery science but has much broader relevance, Dr. Lackey starts by noting where he stands on science in policy and politics:

“First, fisheries scientists should contribute to policy analysis. Not only is it the right thing to do, we are obligated to do so. I do not hold with the notion that it is sufficient for scientists to publish their findings solely as scholarly reports. Second, when scientists contribute to policy analysis, they need to exercise great care to play an appropriate and clearly defined role. Here is where the interface between science and policy gets muddled for many fisheries scientists. Exactly what is an appropriate role and how do we tell when we are off track? Our role is not described adequately under the current rubric of providing the so-called “best available science.” Further, scientists are often asked to contribute to help resolve fisheries policy issues that are unfolding amidst a complex, volatile mix of clashing values, differing preferences, and opposing, often mutually exclusive, societal priorities.”

Dr. Lackey defines “normative science” as follows:


“These days, one commonly asserted imperfection in the science-policy interface is that some so-called “science” is imbued with policy preferences. Such science may be labeled as normative and it is potentially an insidious kind of scientific corruption. By normative science, I mean “information that is developed, presented, or interpreted based on an assumed, usually unstated, preference for a particular policy or class of policy choices.” In some forms, normative science is not obviously normative to policy makers or even to many scientists. Such “science” has become a serious problem. I believe that use of normative science is stealth policy advocacy.”

This perspective is one that Prometheus readers will be familiar with as a topic frequently discussed on this site. “Normative science” has also been labeled “post-sensible science” by Dennis Bray, described here at Prometheus by Hans von Storch as, “science which is encroached by moral entrepreneurship which is usually a mix of “good” political intentions and personal drive for the limelight.” Dr. Lackey also notes, “Politically, from what I observe, the use of normative science cuts across the ideological spectrum. It seems no less common on the political Left or the Right, nor from the Greens nor from the Libertarians.”

For many scientists and observers of science a common, but misplaced, response to issues of “normative science” is to call for science to be pure, or somehow separate from normative considerations. We see this from those on the political right in calls for “sound science”, and on the political left in their calls for “scientific integrity.” These are really just different terms for the same concept. Others suggest that a focus on scientific consensus can work to avoid normative concerns, e.g., such as claimed by the IPCC. As Dr. Lackey suggests, dealing with issues at the messy interface of values and science requires that scientists engage with, not pull away from, issues of policy and politics. How to structure such engagement is the real challenge.

Reference

Lackey, Robert T. 2004. Normative science. Fisheries. 29(7): 38-39.