EU-turn: Greenpeace pressure WON'T mean axing of Chief Scientist After months of mixed signals and confusion it appears that the European Commission will make a U-turn and keep the role of Chief Science Advisor. Last November, Chief Scientific Advisor (CSA) Anne Glover revealed that the Commish planned to scrap the role, which is “to provide independent expert advice on any aspect of …
So says Doug Parr, Chief Scientist ... of Greenpeace. Unabolished I presume.
His pitch is that Ann Glover was giving her personal opinion - he gives in his Grauniad opinion piece. But he has evidence. She doesn't include the views of agended non-scientific groups. Shocking. Absolutely shocking.
and that's the problem isn't it? How can one person really represent all scientific thought on a subject? Perhaps in rare cases on a particularly specialised subject but in general it seems unlikely.
We are also in danger of falling into the trap of assuming that all "scientific" thought is infallible whereas the evidence is that this is not the case.
There are often European societies representing bodies of scientists in a particular field, so surly it would be better to just consult them. This can then be balanced with opinions from other sources as appropriate.
Science has nothing to do with being balanced. In science, the test of truth is an experiment. If someone claims a particular genetically modified plant is poisonous, and someone else claims it isn't, then it is time to get a flock of rats, put the genetically modified plant in the food of half of them, and the unmodified plant in the food of the others. After a couple of generations, the experiment will show if the modified plant is more poisonous... to rats. After the experiment, at least one side is proved wrong, and a balance or consensus view is for people who cannot face reality.
I would not expect one scientist to know absolutely everything, but I would expect one scientist to be able to find another scientist who does understand whatever issue politicians want advice about. I would also expect that a competent scientist can tell the difference between a scientist and a trick cyclist far more easily than the average politician.
I would also expect that a competent scientist can tell the difference between a scientist and a trick cyclist far more easily than the average politician.
Not necessarily. Those in a specialized field are often fooled by someone from another specialized field. Much like it's easier to scam a shady shady sales droid than normal customer.
"I would not expect one scientist to know absolutely everything, but I would expect one scientist to be able to find another scientist who does understand whatever issue politicians want advice about. I would also expect that a competent scientist can tell the difference between a scientist and a trick cyclist far more easily than the average politician."
This bears repeating!
See icon
His job isn't to know everything about the subject. His job is to provide useful policy advice. That requires knowing about the subject, but it doesn't require to know *everything*. For example, part of his job would be to consult with the European societies you mention, balance their opinions, and figure out which ones are reliable.
It doesn't require infallibility either. Part of his job would be to figure out what's the consensus and whether it looks solid enough to base policy on.
Basically, his job is to be in the middle between the actual scientists and the actual politicians, two groups that don't share any common language, and make communication possible. It's a job that a small group headed by one person can do.
This isn't about science, it is about politics. Even science isn't about science, not once political decisions became based on science. That should be obvious given the public corruption of science in the name of politics over the last few decades.
Which means this position, the CSA, is a political position and will answer to politics.
As for determining the real "science" or facts we will have to look at real results. In the case of GMO we can look at GMO's throughout history. We have been genetically modifying organisms since before the agricultural revolution and after that point in history we based our food supply on GMO's.
So we know that Genetically Modifying something, does not always have to be bad. When groups say it is we are given reason to doubt their version of science.
But of course modern GMO's do not have to deal with the risks of life and reproduction and can be created more directly. We have only a limited history with them but anyone who says that doesn't come with new or different risks is giving us reason to doubt their version of science.
No one said freedom from being under direct unquestionable authority would be easy.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
