I've referred to David Goldston's column in Nature many times over the past few years. (Here's a link to a Google search that will bring up half a dozen links.) I've read every one of the 33 columns he's written. Every one of them was filled with insight and wisdom.
Unfortunately, this week's column was his last. He is becoming director of government affairs for the Natural Resources Defense Council. Nature is losing a valued contributor, but the NRDC is gaining a director of government affairs who will help them to become even more effective.
Goldston did leave us with a summary of the themes he's emphasized throughout his columns. I expect to return to this post periodically for a reminder of those themes. They summarize well the relationship between science and policy.
Click through for my summary of the four themes he identified.
Unfortunately, this week's column was his last. He is becoming director of government affairs for the Natural Resources Defense Council. Nature is losing a valued contributor, but the NRDC is gaining a director of government affairs who will help them to become even more effective.
Goldston did leave us with a summary of the themes he's emphasized throughout his columns. I expect to return to this post periodically for a reminder of those themes. They summarize well the relationship between science and policy.
Click through for my summary of the four themes he identified.
- Politics is not a dirty word. Politics is how decisions are made in a democracy. "[T]he only way a democracy can make choices or set priorities is through politics; there is hardly ever one 'right' answer...."
- The public respects scientists. Sure there are those who deny that humans are affecting the world's climate and others who don't accept the evidence that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor, but even those who refuse to accept the overwhelming scientific consensus on these issues try to cloak themselves in the mantle of science. It means that "scientists should not be quick to dismiss, say, ethical concerns about stem-cell research or queasiness about the implications of genetic or neuroscience findings as signs that the public is benighted or 'anti-science'."
- Science should influence policy, but it should not determine policy. I argued this point most recently a little over a month ago: "Science should inform the agenda for the future, but science alone can't set it," or as Goldston puts it, "science can never be the sole determinant of a policy decision, and both politicians and scientists need to distinguish between scientific disagreements and policy disagreements when debating issues." Making that distinction isn't easy, but we have to try.
What these themes add up to, I guess, is a plea to scientists both to engage in the policy making process and to approach the political process (if not all its participants) with respect. That process is open to scientific guidance, and over time science shapes policy. But it is always valuable to keep in mind a question that every civil servant and congressional staffer gets asked by his or her boss at one time or another: "Who elected you?"
Leave a comment