The question of which expert communities the public and the policy sector ought to trust seems to me to be the central issue of our time. Bob Park flips the question around in the most recent issue of his excellent newsletter where he has interesting things to say about energy legislation pending in the US Congress.
The flip side, and really the central issue of this blog, is how legitimate science, not the institution but the body of legitimate knowledge that the institution produces, can establish trust in the political community, in competition with the cherry-picking that private interests are so good at spinning into a skewed story.
The bit that seems most interesting to me follows. These four short sentences, which I understand to be true from conversations with Department of Energy experts on the matter, are especially telling about our quandary.
Finally, both bills call for more ethanol from corn. That's just crazy! For all its good intentions, ethanol from corn doesn't balance. Why can't scientists make themselves heard on a simple question of energy?
2 comments:
If you really want to know, just go read Carl Safina's post about a trip to Alaska to look at climate change impacts.
Don’t know if you’ll be interested, but I thought to send it along…
Here’s an answer to your dilema, and BTW, it's an example of framing science done well. I blogged about it and challenged those who hate framing to look at the example.
http://blogfishx.blogspot.com/2007/09/framing-science-done-by-master.html
Post a Comment