
Let’s stop the manipulation of science - vmarsy
http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2016/11/29/let-s-stop-the-manipulation-of-science_5039867_3232.html
======
vmarsy
I found a quite impressive list of scientists behind this open letter,
including professors from big U.S. schools such as Stanford, Harvard, MIT,
Penn State, CMU and many others.

    
    
        The primatory signatories of this article are : Andreas Kortenkamp, Brunel University (UK); Barbara Demeneix, CNRS/Muséum national d’histoire naturelle (France); Rémy Slama, Inserm, University Grenoble-Alpes (France); Edouard Bard, Collège de France (France); Ake Bergman, Swetox Research Center (Sweden); Paul R. Ehrlich, Stanford University (USA); Philippe Grandjean, Harvard Chan School of Public Health (USA); Michael Mann, Penn State University (USA); John P. Myers, Carnegie Mellon University (USA); Naomi Oreskes, Harvard University, Cambridge (USA); Eric Rignot, University of California (USA); Niels Eric Skakkebaek, Rigshospitalet (Denmark); Thomas Stocker, University of Bern (Switzerland); Kevin Trenberth, National Centre for Atmospheric Research (USA); Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, Université catholique de Louvain (Belgium); Carl Wunsch, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (USA); R. Thomas Zoeller, University of Massachusetts, Amherst (USA).
        The other signatories are [...]

------
droopyEyelids
This article is really disappointing to me because it's just a helpless plea.

If someone wants to say "let's stop the manipulation of science" the right way
to do that is to start suggesting how to change the incentives, fund science
outside of industry. Thats the only thing that will change anything.

~~~
marcus_holmes
It's also clearly picking horses based on political preferences. The science
behind GMO foods is solid, there is consensus, and the same "doubt tactics"
are being used against it, yet it's not mentioned here. Probably because the
opposition to GMO foods is coming from the left not the right in this case.

If we're going to back Science in all things, we need to back Science in _all_
things, regardless of where that leads.

If we're not going to back it in _all_ things, and follow blindly where it
leads, then it's politics and all decisions are up for debate, regardless of
the science.

I have huge faith in our ability to steer a good course between these rocks.
We'll never get it perfectly right, of course, but going by our history we
also won't mess it up completely.

~~~
grzm
They've chosen two issues to be concerned about: climate change, and endocrine
disruptors, and call out industry interests muddying the field (e.g., the
tobacco, petrochemical, and agrochemical industries).

There are definitely other areas to be looking at. You mention GMO. As I
understand it, the push-back on GMO is not by industry and commercial
interests, but others, such as environmental and consumer groups. If you know
of evidence to the contrary, please let me know in a comment.

Also, they're concerned about damage that might be done due to ignoring the
science around climate change and endocrine disruptors. If they were concerned
that GMO was an issue in the same way (as some against GMO would argue), I
think they'd include that as well.

I agree that we'd all do well to try to separate our political ideologies from
science, which is hard to due, given human psychology. From my reading of the
piece, I don't think it's fair to accuse them of "clearly picking horses".

~~~
marcus_holmes
Where do we draw the line between push-back by industry and push-back by NGO?
If an NGO derives its entire income from creating public concern about an
issue, isn't that as much (or even more) of an incentive to disregard science
for commercial gain?

I don't see that there's much difference between Shell creating doubt about
climate change for profit and Greenpeace creating doubt about GMO food for
salaries. Same tactics, same goal.

~~~
grzm
Good points. I'll admit the distinction isn't completely black and white to
me. I do think that there is a distinction between NGOs and commercial
entities. One intuition for that is that we've got words to distinguish
between the two. And as you note, its the purpose of the NGO to pursue its
agenda. For the commercial entity, the science in these cases is often
accidental to their main purpose, which is to sell some other product.

Are you aware of NGO-funded science on the level of industry-funded science?

I don't think this NGO/industry distinction is the strongest argument in
showing the statement isn't "picking horses". If the scientists were being
political in, say, treating GMO separately, or creating FUD around GMO, I
think it's likely they would have specifically _included_ GMO in their
statement, as if they _were_ against GMO, it would align very well with the
climate change and endocrine disruptor positions they take.

Edit to add: I'll also come clean on my motivation for posting. There are so
many accusations of bias that I'm trying to examine statements as honestly as
I can, avoiding knee-jerk reactions as much as possible. For example, it would
be unfair of me to assume that because you bring up GMO that you're a "climate
change denier" or some other unfounded accusation. I see way too much of that
type of behavior, and it does nothing but deepen the divisions between people.
That's not useful if I actually want you to, in turn, treat me charitably.
After all, we're in a discussion forum, right? :)

~~~
marcus_holmes
It gets blurred because NGOs spend a lot of money lobbying governments, and
governments do spend a lot of money funding science. It would be hard to
believe that government science funding policy isn't at least influenced by
NGO lobbying.

And then there's the matter of scientists being members of NGOs. Again, I
would fully expect that a large number of (e.g.) environmental science
researchers would be members of (e.g.) Greenpeace because I would expect that
people passionate about the environment would want to study it, and also join
organisations that are also passionate about the environment. There's nothing
suspicious or conspiracy-engendering about this, but it does mean that there's
a good chance the NGO is going to be able to get a scientist to write a paper
saying something they want said.

I find it fascinating how the politics neatly align with the beliefs (right-
leaning people almost always deny climate change but believe in nuclear power
or GMO foods, for example). Then the arguments selectively invoke "it's the
science!" for the beliefs that are supported by the science, and conveniently
ignore the science for the beliefs that aren't.

As far as I'm aware, if the scientific community consensus is to be taken as
the correct course of action every time, we should (for example): stop using
fossil fuels and replace them with nuclear power plants. Almost nobody would
be happy with this, though!

