Stephen H. Schneider does not and has not advocated that scientists should "stretch the truth" to get publicity

  APS News Online August/September 1996 Edition

Don't Bet All Environmental Changes Will Be Beneficial

 by Stephen H. Schneider, Prof., Dept. of Biological Sciences and Sr.
 Fellow Inst. for International Studies, Stanford University

 [Editor's note: Professor Schneider was offered space to express his
 views following the publication of an erroneous quote attributed to
 him in the March issue. The opinions expressed are the author's and
 not necessarily those of the APS, its elected officers or staff.]

 Perhaps you shouldn't believe me, at least that is what Julian Simon's
 characterization of my views of environmental threats would lead you
 to believe in APS News Back Page article (March 1996, p. 12). Simon
 "quotes" me directly, as supposedly saying "Scientists should consider
 stretching the truth..." to get good publicity for their cause. After
 the March issue was in print, Simon notified the editor that this
 false and very damaging statement was incorrect. What he hasn't yet
 admitted is that even what he states to be the "correct quote" is
 still an out-of-context misrepresentation of my views, a distortion he
 persists in perpetuating even months after I personally told him of
 the context of the original quote.

 The Simon APS News article offers to bet environmentalists "...that
 any trend in material human welfare will improve rather than get
 worse." This article echoes an editorial essay entitled "Earth's
 Doomsayers Are Wrong" that appeared in the 12 May 1995 San Francisco
 Chronicle open forum. Simon then said that "Every measure of material
 and environmental welfare in the U.S. and the world has improved..."
 and that "All long run trends point in exactly the opposite direction
 of the doomsayers" Thus he implied that few, if any, people would
 likely accept his bet since for the past 25 years the pessimists have
 been "proven entirely wrong." When my Stanford colleague, Paul
 Ehrlich, and I took up his challenge[1] and named 15 environment-related
 trends we were willing to bet would deteriorate, Simon refused,
 claiming to the Chronicle (18 May 1995) that "I do not offer to bet on
 the progress of particular physical conditions such as the ozone
 layer" (as if its decline were not a negative measure of environmental
 welfare!).

 In November 1995, I debated Simon on Lateline, the Australian TV
 equivalent of the U.S. Nightline program, on the issue of the Chronicle
 bet. In a segment they did not air, Simon charged that I advocate
 exaggerating science to enhance the appearance of environmental
 threats. To bolster this charge he resurrected an oft-quoted, but
 usually out of context, partial quote from a Discover Magazine
 interview[2] in 1989 in which I decried soundbite science and journalism
 by pointing out that nobody gets enough time in the media either to
 cover all the caveats in depth (i.e., "being honest") or to present
 all the plausible threats (i.e., "being effective"). During the TV
 debate, months before Simon's APS News article appeared, I pointed out
 that he was taking only part of the full quote and that part was
 seriously out of context - this is the same source he "quoted" in APS
 News. The full quote follows, where I have italicized what portions
 of it Simon quoted and bracketed what I did not say but he attributed
 to me in the APS News article:

 "On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the
 scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole
 truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the
 doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we
 are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people
 we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context
 translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially
 disastrous climatic change. To do that we need [Scientists should
 consider stretching the truth] to get some broadbased support, to
 capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting
 loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make
 simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts
 we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves
 in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the
 right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that
 means being both."[2]

 Vested interests have repeatedly claimed I advocate exaggerating
 threats. Their "evidence" comes from partially quoting my Discover
 interview, almost always - like Simon - omitting the last line and the
 phrase "double ethical bind." They also omit my solutions to the
 double ethical bind: (1) use metaphors that succinctly convey both
 urgency and uncertainty (p. xi of ref. 3) and (2) produce an
 inventory of written products from editorials to articles to books, so
 that those who want to know more about an author's views on both the
 caveats and the risks have a hierarchy of detailed written sources to
 which they can turn.[3-5] What I was telling the Discover interviewer,
 of course, was my disdain for a soundbite-communications process that
 imposes the double ethical bind on all who venture into the popular
 media. To twist my openly stated and serious objections to the
 soundbite process into some kind of advocacy of exaggeration is a
 clear distortion. Moreover, not only do I disapprove of the "ends
 justify the means" philosophy of which I am accused, but, in fact have
 actively campaigned against it in myriad speeches and writings.
 Instead, I repeatedly advocate that scientists explicitly warn their
 audiences that "what to do" is a value choice as opposed to "what can
 happen" and "what are the odds," which are scientific issues (e.g., p.
 213 of ref. 3). I also urge that scientists, when they offer
 probabilities, work hard to distinguish which are objective and which
 are subjective, as well as what is the scientific basis for any
 probability offered. For such reasons I was honored to receive, in
 1991, the AAAS/Westinghouse Award for the Public Understanding of
 Science.

 If the readers of APS News are confused by all this rancor and want a
 fair and balanced treatment of environmental scientific and policy
 debates, they can turn to the several National Research Council or
 IPCC assessments[6], in which words like "any," "all," "every," and
 "entirely" are scarce, and citations are quoted or paraphrased in
 their proper context.

 References
 1. P. R. Ehrlich and S. H. Schneider, Environmental Awareness, 18(2),
 47-50 (1995).
 2. J. Schell, Discover, pp. 45-48 (Oct. 1989).
 3. S. H. Schneider, Global Warming: Are We Entering the Greenhouse
 Century? Vintage (1990).
 4. S. H. Schneider, with L. E. Mesirow, The Genesis Strategy: Climate
 and Global Survival. New York: Plenum (1976).
 5. S. H. Schneider, National Geographic Research & Exploration, 9(2),
 173-190 (1993).
 6. Intergovernmental Panel on Climatic Change (IPCC), Climate Change
 1995. The Science of Climate Change. J. T. Houghton et al. (Eds.),
 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press (1996).
      _________________________________________________________________

 Copyright 1996, The American Physical Society.
 The APS encourages the redistribution of the materials included in
 this newsletter provided that attribution to the source is noted, the
 materials are not truncated or changed.
   _________________________________________________________________

Link to this text:  http://home.att.net/~rpuchalsky/sci_env/sch_quote.html