Is There Objective Science?

Many of my ecologist colleagues are practically wearing out their computer keyboards emailing sign-on letters to President-elect Barack Obama encouraging him to stop the demeaning of science.  Implied in the contents of the letter is that the current Administration has somehow denigrated science.  Also implied in the letter is a belief that there is an ability to have objective science.  That somehow, science, this amorphous "discipline" consisting of everything from the study of nature to the examination of esoteric principles of physics, is neutral from the scientist performing the research.  

Whenever I hear a scientist say they are objective, I'm sorry, but I laugh.  It's as if they somehow perceive of their work outside of themselves.

And what, you wonder, started this train of thought?

Ever since I was in graduate school, I have been on a number of list servs.  One of them is related to all thing ecological.  It's managed by a professor of ecology in Maryland.  Most of the postings have to do with job announcements.  But occasionally, the group (and I don't know how many people are served by this list) engages in lively debates on topics such as the teaching of evolution (they are overwhelmingly for it), steady state economic theory (always interesting, trust me), research methodology, and abuse of graduate assistants (mostly led by abused graduate assistants).  Now, this list is of academic ecologists, wildlife biologists, oceanographers, fisheries people, foresters, zoologists, you get the picture.  They take offense at people who may refer to them as environmentalists, because they perceive of themselves as scientists not advocates.  

But today, someone innocently sent an email announcing the publication of Courting the Wild: Love Affairs With the Land.  And in response to this email, which also included a sound bite review by Paul Ehrlich, someone emailed back saying he thinks this kind of book, rhapsodizing about wondrous places, does a disservice to objective science.  His critique boils down to a sense that place based or charismatic mega-fauna oriented (think big bears, mountain lions, wolves) literature detracts from other, far less glamourous species that provide enormous "service" to ecosystems.  Now, I happen to think that the mychrorrizel  that attaches to the roots of Douglas fir (pseudotsuga menziesii) is pretty darn sexy, but apparently I am in a minority.  

What is more interesting about this critique is it stimulated an interesting debate about science.  The writer finished his rant about the book by saying he was a scientist and engages in objective based science.  There should be no love involved.

I smiled when I read his email.  I wondered what exactly he does every day to remove himself from his work.  In other words, how can he be objective?  Every single one of us bring our histories, our lives, our emotions with us when we begin our days.  Try as we might to subordinate feelings, we are human.   I thought about the wonderful idea that scientists bring poetry to what we see and poets bring science to what we read.

But really, what this debate is about is defining terms like "best available science," or "good science."  These are terms that are bandied about particularly among the environmental advocacy community.  Or the quasi-advocacy community.  Or even sometimes among the regulatory communities.  And I always wonder who is deciding what is "good science" or "the best available science."  Of course, as someone trained in research methodology, I understand things like peer review, hypothesis driven, replicable experiments.  But it seems to me when you use terms like "best available" or "good" objectivity is thrown out the window.  In other words, to get to that point, subjective decisions had to have been made.

Which leads me to two points.  First, in my opinion place or charismatic fauna based literature is not over looking all the flora and fauna that make a spot or animal tick.  While there may not be amazing pictures of worms or ugly slugs, I believe we are generally aware that there is more to the picture than meets the eye.  I think about my friend Dave.  He is a fly fisherman who has an amazing ability to fish places that are not the see and be seen rivers, but rather small, tiny streams probably not on any GPS systems.  Yet, for every moment Dave is on the stream, he is aware of the magic of the ecology, from large animals to the oxygen and hydrogen molecules in the water.  And while he may photograph the scenic, he is always thankful for the minute, the small, unseen magic that composes the picture.  Scientists must not think the rest of the world is dumb and does not appreciate what is not before them.

Second, when we talk about "good" or "best available" science, let's be real, as they say.  What we really mean is science that agrees with the conclusion we are looking for.  Whether it is showing pesticide risk to salmon, diminishing populations of Black footed ferrets, or impacts of global climate change on Polar bears, frequently what is considered good or best available is that science which demonstrates our own prejudices.  Remember, science is about variables.  What was "proven" in ecology as recently as a decade ago, has been challenged last week.  There were many decisions made by this current Administration that were based on science: the attempted de-listing of the Northern Rockies wolves off the endangered species list for example, which wildlife advocates derided as not "good" science.  While I may have disagreed with many decisions made by this Administration, I, frankly, did so based on policy reasons, not denigrating their science.  Who am I to say my science is better?

So while I join in encouraging the new President to emphasize science, particularly the ecological sciences, let's also encourage this Administration to enjoy sunsets over the Grand Tetons, howling wolves in the Lamar Valley, the deep blue water of Lake Tahoe, icicles hanging off of bare maples and oaks in the Shawangunks, a hulking Bison in the Badlands, and the full moon off the snow in Bosque del Apache.  Then they will hopefully understand the delightful mix of love and science.