In his 1960 book “Science and Government,” C P Snow raised the concern that the most important decisions in society will increasingly be made in government circles, in secret, based on information so complex that the average citizen could not understand it even if he were allowed to see it–and worried about the impact of this on democracy. (He took as his examples the secret British debate over air defense technology in the late 1930s, and mid-1940s debate, also secret, over city-killing bombing strategies.) Snow was especially concerned with military affairs, and I doubt that he could have envisaged the level of concealment that seems now to be taking place in a civil sphere like climate studies.
One remedy Snow suggested is better science education for the citizenry at large; another was the need to have more scientists involved in policy-making positions.
I think the as a society we have largely failed at his first point, despite the fact that huge increases in educational expenditures were driven in part by the assertion that “we’re now living in a scientific and technological society.” In particular, the elimination of actual lab science, with the substitution of computer simulation, seems to me to be a malign thing. “It’s true because the computer says so” isn’t structurally difficult from the medieval “It’s true because Aristotle says so.”
Re Snow’s second point, scientists as a class turn out to be a lot more conformist than even this experienced civil servant seemed to recognize. Part of the tendency toward conformity is I think explained by the lust for what C S Lewis called The Inner Ring; more thoughts on this here.
I’m with David on scientists; the problem is that once an area of science becomes a career with the potential for serious money and power behind it, it becomes a business–whether those in the business admit it or not. Prior to, oh, the 1970s or so, the overwhelming majority of scientists worked in what you might call a “genteel shabbiness”; money wasn’t really in it for them, and it wasn’t something most of them concerned themselves with. Now it’s more often a career than anything else, with those at the top getting the most money and the most power, just like in most careers.
The head of the IPCC has major investments that will pay him very well if we see the kind of international policy changes his group advocates. It doesn’t matter if everything he says is 100% accurate or not; his conflict-of-interest STILL can and should be the subject of full disclosure and discussion. He is no longer a disinterested party, period.
This, unfortunately, is what too much of the entire “peer review” system has wrought for us; what started as a way for people with little to no financial incentive to check each others’ work has become a network for like-minded people to secure funding for each other. That doesn’t make them all corrupt, it doesn’t make more than a small percentage of them corrupt, but corruption will be there regardless because it involves human beings and corruption will always be there, especially when money and power are at stake.
As for the protestors at Copenhagen: Do the protestors get anything out of it or accomplish anything other than the thrill of playing rebel?
We don’t let Generals decide whether to go to war. That decision is made by our civilian leadership, accountable to a free electorate. The generals don’t make policy, they implement it.
The same should apply to this global warming nonsense, AIDS nonsense, Swine Flu nonsense. The scientists should not be making policy. They should be used as tools by our civilian leadership. But, instead, the civilians abdicate responsibily, rubber stamp whatever scientific fad is in vogue, and the country careens from one scientific snipe hunt to another.
Dean, I’d agree that the increase in “serious money & power” involved in science has increased the temptation toward conformity and corruption. For many scientists, the chance of flying with Al Gore on his jet…sipping champagne and eating caviar with national leaders…mingling with hot babes (or hot guys)…is surely a serious if sometimes subconscious pull toward coming up with the “right” answers.
Lewis argues, though, that even *absent* these material and sensory temptations, the desire to be a member of the Inner Ring is a very strong one. Even if climate studies had remained an obscure science paying genteel-poverty wages and of no interest to anyone other than specialists, there would *still* be a strong desire among participants to be published in the best journals and patted on the back by the acknowledged leaders of the field.
Lewis identifies the remedy to lust for the Inner Ring as a strong sense of craftsmanship–in doing good work for its own sake. In science, craftsmanship should imply respect for the truth.
David: I agree with you. The fact is that the scientific method had to be invented precisely to circumvent ALL those flaws in human nature. The peer review system, less perfect but still very good, was also invented to get around those very same human failings that we *all* have.
The problem is that at some point in the (fairly) recent past peer review got–very badly–tangled up with funding. It no longer became a matter of your disinterested peers looking over your work in anonymity, pointing out your errors, pointing out things you needed to correct, pointing at flaws, etc. and became also what your salary was based on. This introduced a level of corruption at least an order of magnitude greater than what peer review was originally designed to circumvent. All by itself, peer review (as currently constructed) is nearly powerless before it. The fact is that “peer review” is now, often, what determines WHETHER YOU’LL GET A PAYCHECK OR NOT, and in some cases, determines WHETHER YOU WILL BE WEALTHY OR NOT. It is all supposed to be anonymous, but in fact in too many cases, especially at the higher levels, that’s a fig leaf. People fly to conferences, talk about each others’ work, recognize each others’ writing, and as a result almost invariably know whose work they’re funding and whose they’re not.
Reform of the peer review system for funding could make a massive difference, and many quite distinguished scientists have called for it. But there is massive inertia and some outright resistance–some justifiable and some not, in my view.
Anyway, as I say, I agree with you. All of those factors you identify have always been there. I merely note that once serious money (and by “serious” I mean no more than a regular paycheck for many, but for a few it’s waaaaay more than that) and power gets involved, you’ve created a force multiplier there that truly overwhelms. In my view anyway.
{ 5 comments }
In his 1960 book “Science and Government,” C P Snow raised the concern that the most important decisions in society will increasingly be made in government circles, in secret, based on information so complex that the average citizen could not understand it even if he were allowed to see it–and worried about the impact of this on democracy. (He took as his examples the secret British debate over air defense technology in the late 1930s, and mid-1940s debate, also secret, over city-killing bombing strategies.) Snow was especially concerned with military affairs, and I doubt that he could have envisaged the level of concealment that seems now to be taking place in a civil sphere like climate studies.
One remedy Snow suggested is better science education for the citizenry at large; another was the need to have more scientists involved in policy-making positions.
I think the as a society we have largely failed at his first point, despite the fact that huge increases in educational expenditures were driven in part by the assertion that “we’re now living in a scientific and technological society.” In particular, the elimination of actual lab science, with the substitution of computer simulation, seems to me to be a malign thing. “It’s true because the computer says so” isn’t structurally difficult from the medieval “It’s true because Aristotle says so.”
Re Snow’s second point, scientists as a class turn out to be a lot more conformist than even this experienced civil servant seemed to recognize. Part of the tendency toward conformity is I think explained by the lust for what C S Lewis called The Inner Ring; more thoughts on this here.
I’m with David on scientists; the problem is that once an area of science becomes a career with the potential for serious money and power behind it, it becomes a business–whether those in the business admit it or not. Prior to, oh, the 1970s or so, the overwhelming majority of scientists worked in what you might call a “genteel shabbiness”; money wasn’t really in it for them, and it wasn’t something most of them concerned themselves with. Now it’s more often a career than anything else, with those at the top getting the most money and the most power, just like in most careers.
The head of the IPCC has major investments that will pay him very well if we see the kind of international policy changes his group advocates. It doesn’t matter if everything he says is 100% accurate or not; his conflict-of-interest STILL can and should be the subject of full disclosure and discussion. He is no longer a disinterested party, period.
This, unfortunately, is what too much of the entire “peer review” system has wrought for us; what started as a way for people with little to no financial incentive to check each others’ work has become a network for like-minded people to secure funding for each other. That doesn’t make them all corrupt, it doesn’t make more than a small percentage of them corrupt, but corruption will be there regardless because it involves human beings and corruption will always be there, especially when money and power are at stake.
As for the protestors at Copenhagen: Do the protestors get anything out of it or accomplish anything other than the thrill of playing rebel?
Great insight, David Foster.
Look at the military in our country, for example.
We don’t let Generals decide whether to go to war. That decision is made by our civilian leadership, accountable to a free electorate. The generals don’t make policy, they implement it.
The same should apply to this global warming nonsense, AIDS nonsense, Swine Flu nonsense. The scientists should not be making policy. They should be used as tools by our civilian leadership. But, instead, the civilians abdicate responsibily, rubber stamp whatever scientific fad is in vogue, and the country careens from one scientific snipe hunt to another.
–HB
Dean, I’d agree that the increase in “serious money & power” involved in science has increased the temptation toward conformity and corruption. For many scientists, the chance of flying with Al Gore on his jet…sipping champagne and eating caviar with national leaders…mingling with hot babes (or hot guys)…is surely a serious if sometimes subconscious pull toward coming up with the “right” answers.
Lewis argues, though, that even *absent* these material and sensory temptations, the desire to be a member of the Inner Ring is a very strong one. Even if climate studies had remained an obscure science paying genteel-poverty wages and of no interest to anyone other than specialists, there would *still* be a strong desire among participants to be published in the best journals and patted on the back by the acknowledged leaders of the field.
Lewis identifies the remedy to lust for the Inner Ring as a strong sense of craftsmanship–in doing good work for its own sake. In science, craftsmanship should imply respect for the truth.
David: I agree with you. The fact is that the scientific method had to be invented precisely to circumvent ALL those flaws in human nature. The peer review system, less perfect but still very good, was also invented to get around those very same human failings that we *all* have.
The problem is that at some point in the (fairly) recent past peer review got–very badly–tangled up with funding. It no longer became a matter of your disinterested peers looking over your work in anonymity, pointing out your errors, pointing out things you needed to correct, pointing at flaws, etc. and became also what your salary was based on. This introduced a level of corruption at least an order of magnitude greater than what peer review was originally designed to circumvent. All by itself, peer review (as currently constructed) is nearly powerless before it. The fact is that “peer review” is now, often, what determines WHETHER YOU’LL GET A PAYCHECK OR NOT, and in some cases, determines WHETHER YOU WILL BE WEALTHY OR NOT. It is all supposed to be anonymous, but in fact in too many cases, especially at the higher levels, that’s a fig leaf. People fly to conferences, talk about each others’ work, recognize each others’ writing, and as a result almost invariably know whose work they’re funding and whose they’re not.
Reform of the peer review system for funding could make a massive difference, and many quite distinguished scientists have called for it. But there is massive inertia and some outright resistance–some justifiable and some not, in my view.
Anyway, as I say, I agree with you. All of those factors you identify have always been there. I merely note that once serious money (and by “serious” I mean no more than a regular paycheck for many, but for a few it’s waaaaay more than that) and power gets involved, you’ve created a force multiplier there that truly overwhelms. In my view anyway.
Comments on this entry are closed.