TY - JOUR
T1 - Science and policy
T2 - Crossing the boundary
AU - Jamieson, Dale
AU - Oreskes, Naomi
AU - Oppenheimer, Michael
N1 - Funding Information:
This paper draws on research done as part of the project “Assessing Assessments,” funded by the US National Science Foundation and to be presented in greater detail in a forthcoming book by the same title.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 The Author(s).
Copyright:
Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2015/1
Y1 - 2015/1
N2 - Because of their specific knowledge, scientists are well positioned to identify environmental threats to humankind, sound the alarm, and propose and comment, at least on a general level, on potential responses. However, many policy makers and scientists believe that scientists should have no more to say about public issues than anyone else and that science can only tell us how the world is, not how it ought to be. Although there are deep differences between science and policy, the line between policy-relevant and policy-prescriptive science is under continual negotiation, and there is no uniquely "objective" way of characterizing facts. In the authors' view, scientists should generally refrain from making recommendations in areas far from their expertise and from making categorical policy declarations, but when their expertise is relevant scientists should not be excluded from the policy process whether by external forces or by self-censorship. Scientists' input and influence has played a key role in the past, and remains essential in shaping responses to important policy questions such as what to do about anthropogenic climate change.
AB - Because of their specific knowledge, scientists are well positioned to identify environmental threats to humankind, sound the alarm, and propose and comment, at least on a general level, on potential responses. However, many policy makers and scientists believe that scientists should have no more to say about public issues than anyone else and that science can only tell us how the world is, not how it ought to be. Although there are deep differences between science and policy, the line between policy-relevant and policy-prescriptive science is under continual negotiation, and there is no uniquely "objective" way of characterizing facts. In the authors' view, scientists should generally refrain from making recommendations in areas far from their expertise and from making categorical policy declarations, but when their expertise is relevant scientists should not be excluded from the policy process whether by external forces or by self-censorship. Scientists' input and influence has played a key role in the past, and remains essential in shaping responses to important policy questions such as what to do about anthropogenic climate change.
KW - Climate change
KW - F. Sherwood Rowland
KW - Mario J. Molina
KW - Policy
KW - Science
KW - Two worlds
KW - Values
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84927704285&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84927704285&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/0096340214563675
DO - 10.1177/0096340214563675
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84927704285
SN - 0096-3402
VL - 71
SP - 53
EP - 58
JO - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
JF - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
IS - 1
ER -