Prof Roger Pielke Jr.: Promises and paradoxes of scientific authority

Summary

The speaker discusses the complex relationship between experts and decision-makers, emphasizing the need for strong institutions to preserve the authority of expert advice. They highlight historical and contemporary cases where experts have faced difficulties when their advice intersects with politics. The speaker advocates for the roles of science arbiter, issue advocate, and honest broker in policy decisions, stressing the importance of experts asserting their roles within these frameworks to maintain their authority and integrity.

Takeaways

• 💡 Expert advice holds significant authority in decision-making, making strong institutions crucial to preserve that authority for better guidance.
• 📊 The relationship between experts and decision-makers can be complicated and sometimes misused, as shown in historical and recent examples across various fields.
• ⏳ The conflict between science and politics is not new and spans cultures, political parties, and disciplines, often complicating policy decisions.
• 🌧️ An example from the U.S. Civil War shows that decision-makers have long struggled with relying on expert advice, as seen in Lincoln's skepticism toward weather forecasts.
• ⚖️ Issues arise when experts are held accountable for the outcomes of political decisions, such as the case of the Greek Statistical Authority and the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake scientists.
• 🇺🇸 The influence of politics on scientific decisions was evident in both Bush and Obama administrations, showing that political interference is not limited to one party or administration.
• 🌍 Conflicts between science and politics are systemic and cross national boundaries, with examples ranging from birth control debates in the U.S. to drug policy controversies in the U.K.
• 📉 Experts often struggle with how to present uncertainty in their advice, as seen in the 1997 Red River flood forecast, where decision-makers misinterpreted a small margin of error.
• 🔄 Decision-makers may seek to shift accountability to experts, as illustrated by politicians like Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who requested fixed targets and figures despite inherent uncertainty in scientific data.
• 🤔 Different roles for scientists—science arbiters, issue advocates, and honest brokers—highlight the tension between presenting empirical facts and influencing policy decisions.

Q & A

What is the main theme of the speaker's presentation?

The speaker discusses the relationship between expert advice and decision-making, particularly the tension that arises when experts' authority is both essential and vulnerable to misuse, especially in the political realm.

What point does the speaker make about expert authority in decision-making?

The speaker argues that expert authority is crucial for good decision-making but can be seductive and prone to misuse by both experts and decision-makers, highlighting the need for strong institutions to protect and maintain this authority.

Why does the speaker mention Abraham Lincoln's interaction with a weather forecaster?

The anecdote illustrates how decision-makers have historically had complex relationships with experts, emphasizing that expert advice is often questioned or dismissed when it doesn't align with immediate needs or expectations, as seen when Lincoln disregarded the forecaster after incorrect predictions.

How does the speaker address the issue of scientists and accountability?

The speaker emphasizes that decision-makers often want clear answers from experts to shift accountability, as seen in examples like the mayor of East Grand Forks wanting a single number to base decisions on, rather than dealing with uncertainties.

What does the speaker mean by 'pre-distortion' of scientific advice?

Pre-distortion refers to the idea that scientists may deliberately adjust their messages to account for the expected distortion in the political process, aiming to make the final interpretation closer to reality.

What are the three roles the speaker outlines for experts in decision-making?

The speaker describes three roles: the science arbiter, who provides answers to empirical questions; the issue advocate, who seeks to narrow the range of choices; and the honest broker, who offers a broader array of options for decision-makers.

Why does the speaker believe that strong institutions are necessary for expert advice?

Strong institutions are necessary to ensure that expert advice is preserved and used appropriately when needed. These institutions mediate the relationship between experts and decision-makers, ensuring accountability and maintaining the integrity of advice.

What example does the speaker give regarding the misuse of scientific advice in Italy?

The speaker refers to the L'Aquila earthquake case, where six scientists and one government official were convicted for giving inaccurate risk assessments before a 2009 earthquake, underscoring the high stakes and challenges of expert advice in public safety.

What does the speaker suggest is a common problem with the interaction between experts and politics?

The speaker highlights that the tension between science and politics is systemic and spans national boundaries and political parties. Politicians often want definitive answers, while science deals with uncertainties, creating conflicts in how advice is used or interpreted.

How does the speaker conclude the talk?

The speaker concludes by reiterating the importance of expert advice and the need for strong institutions to manage the balance between arbitration, advocacy, and honest brokering. The expert community must recognize the limits of each role and work to strengthen these institutions to ensure effective decision-making.