Going public the next frontier for scientists
American Association for the Advancement of Science's leading thinkers in Vancouver to consider how best to convert research to action
by Larry Pynn, Vancouver Sun, February 14, 2012
Climate change scientist Andrew Weaver has paid a price for bringing his research to the public.
His University of Victoria office contains a Wall of Hate, filled with the "vitriolic diatribes" of people who can-not accept the overwhelming conclusion of the scientific community that burning fossil fuels is responsible for global warming.
One man even stood in front of UVic with a placard calling Weaver a "practising liar" over concerns the professor was interfering with the natural course of religion.
"He thinks that by talking about climate science people might change their behaviour, and ... you might prevent the Rapture from occurring, and that would be against God's will," Weaver said.
He adds that whether you are researching the mating habits of an insect or something more contentious - "climate physics, environ-mental monitoring, genetically modified foods, or even evolution" - there is one constant.
That is the importance of having people see your research.
"Scientists have a duty and responsibility to convey the outcomes of their research to those who ultimately fund it, which is the public."
Thousands of scientists gathering this week at the Vancouver Convention Centre for the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science know full well that doing the research is only the first step.
Getting your results accepted as public policy can be a much greater challenge.
Weaver said the role of science is not to prescribe policy outcomes but to inform policy discussions.
As an example, he said, scientists have shown that a $782-million secondary-treatment plant upgrade is unnecessary for Victoria sewage due to the ocean's strong flushing action. However, issues such as tourism and the desire to take advantage of provincial-federal cost sharing mean that the project is going ahead anyway.
"It's a fantastic microcosm of the role of science in public discourse," he said.
Weaver said scientists get upset when their work is manipulated to support a purely ideological agenda, something he accuses the federal government of doing on the issue of climate change.
Canada has agreed to the 2009 Copenhagen Accord's plan to keep warming below two degrees Celsius by 2100, a level that Environment Canada scientists say should be reduced to zero to limit sea-level rise and harm to species.
"That's not a science-based number," confirmed Weaver, a lead author with the International Panel on Climate Change. "At the federal level with climate change, it's an example of ideology ignoring science."
Some scientists are unwilling to go public with controversial research for fear of jeopardizing future funding, especially if they are young scientists not yet well established.
"Absolutely, there is no question about that," Weaver said. "We have an unusual kind of political situation - not at the provincial level, which has always been very supportive of science, whether it be NDP or Liberal - but at the federal level; it's very bizarre.
"It's almost as if, if you have science that is not supportive of the message, it needs to be suppressed."
While some colleagues are more comfortable with quietly doing their science and avoiding the public and press, Weaver argues that is no longer acceptable.
http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Going%20public%20next%20frontier%20scientists/6149027/story.html
His University of Victoria office contains a Wall of Hate, filled with the "vitriolic diatribes" of people who can-not accept the overwhelming conclusion of the scientific community that burning fossil fuels is responsible for global warming.
One man even stood in front of UVic with a placard calling Weaver a "practising liar" over concerns the professor was interfering with the natural course of religion.
"He thinks that by talking about climate science people might change their behaviour, and ... you might prevent the Rapture from occurring, and that would be against God's will," Weaver said.
He adds that whether you are researching the mating habits of an insect or something more contentious - "climate physics, environ-mental monitoring, genetically modified foods, or even evolution" - there is one constant.
That is the importance of having people see your research.
"Scientists have a duty and responsibility to convey the outcomes of their research to those who ultimately fund it, which is the public."
Thousands of scientists gathering this week at the Vancouver Convention Centre for the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science know full well that doing the research is only the first step.
Getting your results accepted as public policy can be a much greater challenge.
Weaver said the role of science is not to prescribe policy outcomes but to inform policy discussions.
As an example, he said, scientists have shown that a $782-million secondary-treatment plant upgrade is unnecessary for Victoria sewage due to the ocean's strong flushing action. However, issues such as tourism and the desire to take advantage of provincial-federal cost sharing mean that the project is going ahead anyway.
"It's a fantastic microcosm of the role of science in public discourse," he said.
Weaver said scientists get upset when their work is manipulated to support a purely ideological agenda, something he accuses the federal government of doing on the issue of climate change.
Canada has agreed to the 2009 Copenhagen Accord's plan to keep warming below two degrees Celsius by 2100, a level that Environment Canada scientists say should be reduced to zero to limit sea-level rise and harm to species.
"That's not a science-based number," confirmed Weaver, a lead author with the International Panel on Climate Change. "At the federal level with climate change, it's an example of ideology ignoring science."
Some scientists are unwilling to go public with controversial research for fear of jeopardizing future funding, especially if they are young scientists not yet well established.
"Absolutely, there is no question about that," Weaver said. "We have an unusual kind of political situation - not at the provincial level, which has always been very supportive of science, whether it be NDP or Liberal - but at the federal level; it's very bizarre.
"It's almost as if, if you have science that is not supportive of the message, it needs to be suppressed."
While some colleagues are more comfortable with quietly doing their science and avoiding the public and press, Weaver argues that is no longer acceptable.
http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Going%20public%20next%20frontier%20scientists/6149027/story.html
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment