How Does Society Value Science?
David Boerner
January 28, 2010
Policy = Decisions:
Where are the scientists?
“Pure” Scientist
• No interest in the situation, only interested in
generating information
Advocate
• Makes the case for one policy direction
Arbiter
• Factually answers posed scientific questions
Honest broker
• Objectively generates and/or analyzes scientific
knowledge for policy alternatives
2
How does society value
science?
To every man is given the key to the gates
of heaven.
The same key opens the gates of hell.
Buddhist Proverb
quoted by Richard Feynman
3
Framing any problem is a key
cognitive challenge
Imagine a deck of cards with numbers on one side
and letters on the other
D
F
3
7
Hypothesis: If D then 3
Which two cards would you check to test the Hypothesis?
One card is trivial, and one other could be definitive.
4
Reframing the problem may
make it trivial
Imagine enforcing the legal drinking age in a bar by
when you know either a patron’s age or beverage
Beer Coke
35
14
5
Behaviour is
predictably irrational
“A Conflict of Visions” (1987)
“Tragic” versus “Utopian”
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Language
Decision Making
Knowledge
Freedom
Equality
Justice and Law
War, Crime and Punishment
Moral Duty
Control
Twin, family and adoption studies imply
political attitudes are 60% heritable!
Thomas Sowell (1930 – )
6
The Utopian Vision
George Bernard Shaw
“There is nothing that can be
changed more completely than
human nature when the job is
taken in hand early enough.”
On the Rocks (1933)
You see things as they are and ask,
"Why?" I dream things as they
never were and ask, "Why not?"
George Bernard Shaw
(1856 – 1950)
Back to Methuselah (1921)
7
The Tragic Vision
Walt Kelly
(1913–1973)
1971
Human selfishness and cognitive biases are intrinsic, universal traits
Our ability to change human nature is fundamentally limited
8
Language
Utopian
Perfectible: communication
can be improved through
refined use of precise, explicit
articulation
Tragic
Evolved social process, with a
complex, consistent inner logic, but
not designed by any one person
9
Informing Decision Making
Utopian
Tragic
Elite & Ideological
Universities
Inclusive & Experiential
Think Tanks
tend to rust explicitly articulated
propositions from “experts”
tend to trust knowledge that is
distributed through society
10
Trusted Knowledge Sources
Utopian
Articulated reason of experts –
deliberate and ideological
rationality - “age of reason”
Tragic
Social experience of many from
past events - recounted verbatim
until systemically inculcated
11
Freedom
Utopian
One is able to achieve their
goals – impediments can all
be overcome
Tragic
One is able to pursue their goals
– but caveat emptor
12
Equality
Utopian
Equalized probability of
achieving the result
Tragic
Equalized opportunity for
achieving the result
13
Justice and Law
Utopian
Fairness of results - for the
individual
Earl Warren – “But is it right?
Is it good?”
1891-1974
Tragic
Fairness of process - to preserve
precedent and tradition
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. - “The
life of law has not been logic: it has
been experience.”
1841-1935
14
War, Crime & Punishment
Utopian
Tragic
Inconceivable, the actor must not
understand their actions. Since
deterrence is useless, punishment
is retribution that needs to be
managed by the elite.
Individuals will always put their
own interests above those of
others. Punishment is a deterrent
to be demonstrated publicly.
15
Moral Duty
Utopian
Sincerity, one should aspire
for higher ethical behaviour.
Disingenuous behaviour is
intentional and must indicate
corruption or prejudice
Tragic
Fidelity, whether one
understands why or not.
Advocacy must represent
knowing disloyalty
16
Control
Utopian
Power should be concentrated
for efficient central planning,
stability and collective benefit
Tragic
Although inefficient and unstable,
power should be distributed to
prevent abuse
17
Perceptions of the other
vision
Tragic Adherents are
“common” people, unable to
understand how the world can
be improved and unwilling to
listen to experts
Utopians are
an “elite” operating in an extremely
narrow reality, unable to recognize
grave consequences or incredible
costs of pursuing their goals
18
Perceptions of the other
vision
Tragic adherents...
Utopians...
must be stuck in the past, focused
on understanding the trade-offs
and avoiding the costs of change,
rather than implementing
attainable improvements.
must be naïve to not recognize
their goals are unattainable and
would require excessive social
and economic costs with
inconsequential benefits.
19
Could the two visions be
partially heritable?
•
The dopamine receptor gene (DRD2), A2 allele is significantly associated
with political partisanship (much more than the A1 allele which results in a
30% reduction in D2 receptor density) – Dawes and Fowler (2009).
•
Genes associated with serotonin have been correlated with voter turnout
Dopaminergic and serotonergic
neurotransmitter systems play a
vital role in the regulation of
emotion and mood.
Dopamine is associated with
human reward systems, social
attachments and cognitive function
(attention, planning, visual
processing and working memory)
20
Two extreme views of
science
Utopian
Tragic
Science and technology can
solve any problem
Human nature makes ideal
application of S&T impossible
Training an S&T elite is
essential for creating leaders
Too much training narrows focus
and blinds one to other issues
Human behaviour can be
overcome and perfected
Human behaviour is immutable
and flawed
Why not change/improve?
It always worked this way before
Progress at any price
Change is too difficult & expensive
The “best” is the only thing
worth having
The “best” gets in the way of “what
works”
“Improve it, even if it breaks”
“If it isn’t broken, leave it alone”
21
How do Tragic adherents
perceive science?
Because science was deemed
instrumental in winning WWII, Roosevelt
asked Vannevar Bush for a science plan
“Science, The Endless Frontier” was
rejected (by Truman’s administration), but
did result in the creation of NSF (which
was meant to be the “National Research
Foundation”), but Bush’s underlying
ideology was widely adopted…
Basic > Applied > Development > Technology > Wealth
Vannevar Bush (1890–1974) & Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
22
What does the reservoir
model mean?
Benefits are predictable (linear)
Any research funding results in wealth
Research makes contributions to an “information
reservoir” that accumulates over time
Research
Information
Reservoir
Applications
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
23
Yet a reservoir could have
negative implications
• “Plausible Deniability”
o Leaves no evidence of wrongdoing or abuse
• “Buyers” and “Sellers” have different knowledge
(asymmetrical information) leading to
– “Adverse Selection”
o Sellers could be motivated to sell their “bad” products
– “Moral Hazard”
o Isolation from consequences could induce excessive risk-taking
• Science is “Self-regulating” (expert review guides
decision-making)
24
And we don't know what
we don't know...
“As we know, there are known knowns.
There are things we know we know. We
also know there are known unknowns. That
is to say we know there are some things
we do not know. But there are also
unknown unknowns, the ones we don't
know we don't know.”
Donald Rumsfeld, Feb. 12, 2002,
Department of Defense briefing
25
Does research deliver the
promised benefits?
Booz-Allen-Hamilton (October 2005) found
• 1000 largest R&D investors globally who
spent 384B $US
• 80-90% of corporate, 60% of all R&D globally
“No relationship between R&D spending
and the primary measures of economic or
corporate success.”
26
Are the reservoir contents
truly accessible?
27
And how much of the
reservoir is “scientific”?
Positive experimental testing outcomes
can NOT confirm a scientific theory
A single genuine counter-instance is
logically decisive in showing the theory
to be false
Popper proposed a theory should be
accounted scientific if, and only if, it is
falsifiable.
Karl Popper (1902 – 1994)
"Our knowledge can only be finite, while our
ignorance must necessarily be infinite."
28
And the reservoir could
be “contaminated”
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Science is punctuated by “Paradigm
Shifts”
Observed there is little evidence that
scientists use Popperian falsification.
Rather they tolerate contrary data
until a ‘crisis’ ensues.
Thomas Kuhn (1922 – 1996)
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its
opponents and making them see the light, but rather
because its opponents eventually die, and a new
generation grows up that is familiar with it." Max Planck
29
Are we promoting Utopian
myths?
The myth of infinite benefit:
 More science and more technology will lead automatically to more
public good.
The myth of unfettered research:
 Any scientifically reasonable line of research is as likely to yield
societal benefit as any other.
The myth of accountability:
 Peer review and reproducibility of results are the principal ethical
responsibilities of the research community.
The myth of authoritativeness:
 Scientific information provides an objective basis for resolving
political disputes.
The myth of the endless frontier:
 New knowledge generated at the frontiers of science is
autonomous from its moral and practical consequences in society.
30
Can science be better
described?
Research inspired by the
quest for fundamental
understanding?
Research inspired by end use?
No
Yes
Niels Bohr
Louis
Pasteur
“Basic”
“UseInspired”
Yes
No
?
Thomas
Edison
“Applied”
Pasteur’s Quadrant - Donald Stokes, 1997
31
Is science best described
by “motivations”?
BASIC
Benefits Shared Widely
Heterogeneous / Serendipitous Orientation
Strategic / Mission Orientation
FUNDER-DIRECTED
Benefits Appropriated by Particular Groups
INVESTIGATOR-DIRECTED
APPLIED
Peter Nicholson, 2009
32
Two Worlds, two Value
Systems: Science and Policy
• Understanding
– Narrow/Deep versus Broad/Shallow
• Communication styles and needs
– Factual/Direct versus Perceptual/Nuanced
• Preferred information sources
– Experts (Peers) versus Society at large
• Time constraints
– Long Term versus Immediate
• Dealing with uncertainties and conflict
– Additional work versus Compromise and implement
• Measures of success
– Knowledge/Peers versus Societal acceptance/Political
Masters
33
Will conflict always arise
over science?
Conflict, yes but over visions, not science.
At the interface of Policy and Science I am trying to:
•
•
•
•
Understand, acknowledge and address the concerns of
both visions, both want science...
Communicate to satisfy both audiences' information
needs (difficult!)
Counter a Utopian tendency to revert to education and
reasoning when they (I) “don’t understand”
Remember that these descriptions represent extremes –
real people generally accept elements of both visions...
34
Thank you!
For your attention and
your willingness to listen
Please remember – Statistics apply!
Individuals generally display elements of
both visions
and
We need both visions...
35