INSTITUT Veolia Environnement

  • Home
  • Knowledge Systems for Sustainable Development

Knowledge Systems for Sustainable Development

  • Table of contents
    • Beyond the debate between "specialists and activists"
      • Science must not be used to disinform the public - Paul REITER

Science must not be used to disinform the public - Paul REITER

Public policy is increasingly dependent on issues of science, but many scientists avoid public debate because their speciality defies straightforward dialogue. In contrast, many advocacy groups use well-defined and fiercely judgmental "scientific" pronouncements to influence public perceptions, adding a tone of danger and urgency to attract coverage in the news media. Such coverage nurtures notions of'scientific knowledge' that influence education, public opinion and the political process. Some scientists are willing to endorse such notions to secure public interest and funding, and dismiss those who question them as insensitive sceptics. In reality, a genuine concern for mankind and the environment demands the inquiry, accuracy and scepticism that are intrinsic to real science. A public that is unaware of this is vulnerable to abuse. Scientists need to develop effective strategies to communicate with the public.

More than a million articles are published in peer-reviewed scientific journals every year. The lay-public is unaware of this colossal output; popular information on research findings is limited to "newsworthy" articles, selected, described and interpreted by the media.

Professional scientists rarely draw firm conclusions from a single article, but consider its contribution in the context of other publications and their own experience, knowledge, and speculations. The complexity of this process, and the uncertainties involved, are a major obstacle to meaningful understanding of scientific issues by non-scientists.

In the age of information, popular knowledge of scientific issues—particularly on issues of health and the environment—is awash in a tide of misinformation, much of it presented in the "big talk" of professional scientists. Alarmist activists operating in well-funded advocacy groups have a lead role in creating this misinformation. In many cases, they blatantly manipulate public perceptions with emotive and fiercely judgmental "scientific" pronouncements, adding a tone of danger and urgency to attract media coverage. Their skill in promoting notions of scientific "fact" sidesteps the complexities of the issues involved, and is a potent influence in education, public opinion and the political process. These notions are often re-enforced by attention to peer-reviewed scientific articles that appear to support their pronouncements, regardless of whether these articles are widely endorsed by the relevant scientific community. Scientists who challenge these alarmists are rarely given priority by the media, and are often presented as "skeptics".

The misuse of science is not a new phenomenon. A classic example is the eugenics movement that emerged soon after the publication of The Origin of Species and culminated in the atrocities of the Nazi regime. In the early 20th century, many countries implemented laws to "preserve" racial purity and "improve the human stock". These laws were based on "science" that demonstrated, for example, that the chromosomes of Africans were visibly "inferior" to those of Europeans, and "morphometric tests" that revealed criminal traits by analysis of facial characters. Forced sterilization of "feeble-minded" persons and other undesirables continued in Europe until 1970. Another example was the tragic destruction of Soviet Biology by Trophim Lysenko, a poorly-educated agronomist who persuaded the Soviet government to replace "bourgeois" genetics with a form of neo-Lamarckism, with devastating impact on Soviet agriculture. Lysenko continued to ruthlessly suppress his critics until the mid-1960s; aspects of the damage caused by his autocratic reign have yet to be corrected. A current example is the promotion of unsubstantiated claims that mosquito-borne diseases are moving to new latitudes and altitudes because of "global warming". These claims are made by persons unfamiliar with the complexity of the epidemiology of these diseases. None have been substantiated by professional scientists, but they continue to be repeated in public by environmental alarmists, national governments and international agencies.

The democratic process requires elected representatives to respond to the concerns and fears generated by such alarmists. Denial is rarely an effective strategy, even in the face of preposterous claims. The pragmatic option is to express concern, create new regulations, and increase funding for research. Lawmakers may also endorse the advocacy groups, giving positive feedback to their cause. Whatever the response, political activists—not scientists—are often the most persuasive cohort in science-based political issues, including the public funding of scientific research. There is an urgent need to correct this situation by promoting the participation of professional scientists in public debate.

Promoting a reconciliation between scientists and public opinion:

One of our problems is the growing dichotomy between scientists who are in the possession of knowledge, and everyone else. If research is not also aimed at users, there is soon a confrontation with pressure groups who claim varying degrees of scientific competence. I find it surprising that scientists are so often ready to go on missions, but very rarely desirous of staying where they are to implement lasting solutions.
Mamphela RAMPHELE, Managing Director of the World Bank

Scientists and the duty to warn: how can manipulation be avoided?

The concept of precaution implies a duty to sound alarms. Today, alerts are amplified by very powerful media whose interests are not always clearly visible. There can be social manipulation in a context devoid of any democratic safeguard. This justifiably worries the scientific community. The debate on GMOs is a case in point..
William Dab, Director General, French Ministry of Health