The March for Convenient Science
This Saturday is the March for Science, which purports to promote the use of science in public policy. The web page proclaims, “Evidence-based policy is critical to protecting our present and future, yet anti-science sentiment is a growing challenge in the current political environment.”
I have a few questions about what that means, and I invite those attending the march and the organizers to offer their answers.
1. If there are two projects that restore salmon habitat, should I choose the one with the best environmental results, or the one that provides jobs to marginalized communities to achieve “environmental justice”?
2. To make progress on rapidly reducing CO2 emissions and reducing the risk of climate change, should we prioritize projects that yield the most CO2 reduction for every dollar spent, or projects that yield smaller reductions in CO2 but create union jobs?
3. Can you claim to support science if you worry about climate change but oppose vaccines or biotechnology crops?
4. When dealing with scientific uncertainty, should we be precautionary or take risks for progress?
5. How can we create public policy that adjusts to changes in the scientific consensus, for example, new data demonstrating that corn-based ethanol is harmful to the environment?
These are not idle questions. During my time at the Washington State Department of Natural Resources and now as a member of the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council, we worked to make policy that is informed by science. Ironically, some who claim to support that approach, then argue that vague and unscientific notions like “environmental justice” should override scientific prioritization. Fundamentally, this means they support science only when it yields the proper policy justification, which isn’t actually support for science.
So, does the March for Science support “evidence-based policy,” or do they believe certain values trump the evidence?