Why it’s time we change the way we debate science
New study suggests three ways to change how researchers interact in order to increase science’s capacity to inform sustainable decisions
- The way scientists develop scientific understanding can lead to problems with environmental science’s capacity to inform decision making
- Polarized views and locked-in debates that compromise shared goals are common, but often unnecessary
- Better awareness of differences of perspectives, the expert’s roles and the consequences of unavoidable uncertainty would improve researcher interactions and scientific impact in environmental policy-making
AGREE TO DISAGREE: “Failures to disagree" are essential for environmental science to effectively influence policy development”. This is the main conclusion and title of a new article published in the journal Ecology Letters.
It is also a reference to a paper by American scholars David Kahneman and Garry Klein who in the early 2000s lowered their guards and turned what seemed to be a locked-in debate into a collaboration that improved their discipline. The two even became good friends.
Scientific debates, controversies and conflicts are needed, useful and even fun, but locked-in debates can stall progress and significantly reduce the usefulness of science for societal decision making.
Thorsten Blenckner, co-author
Heated debate on tipping points
Many scientists in the fields of ecology and environment are working to provide better understanding and inform more sustainable decisions in society. Unfortunately, the scientific process itself often leads to locked-in debates that are unnecessarily polarized.
As an example, the new paper looks into the often heated tipping point debate which discusses whether or not it is common for ecosystems to switch abruptly to an alternative stable state, e.g. from a closed canopy rainforest to a dry savannah ecosystem.
Very different kinds of sustainability policy would would need to be developed depending on which theories and observational evidence about tipping points are fed into decision-making processes.
The authors then describe three other similar debates and draw the conclusion that “ecology and environmental sciences as a whole are especially vulnerable to locked-in debates”.
One reason for this, they write, is the dominant role in research of single hypothesis testing, often focusing on theory demonstration instead of investigation.
Other reasons include the structure of academic funding and publishing systems and the urgent demands for science to inform policy.
No time for personal bias and gains
To change this tendency and increase the effectiveness of the scientific advice provided for environmental management and governance, the authors have three main suggestions to ecologists and other environmental scientists:
1. Be aware of the different perspectives and discipline-based contexts that researchers work in
2. Understand the sequence of theory development and one's own role in it
3. Be aware of the consequences of unavoidable uncertainty in scientific predictions and estimates.
“When environmental challenges are intensifying everywhere we look, we cannot afford for human biases and personal gains and status to weaken science and stand in the way of efforts to improve our common understanding and decision making,” the authors conclude.
Norberg, J., Blenckner, T., Cornell, S.E., Petchey, O.L. & Hillebrand, H. (2022) Failures to disagree are essential for environmental science to effectively influence policy development. Ecology Letters, 00, 1– 19. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13984
Questions? Contact lead author Jon Norberg, Department of Ecology, Environment and Plant Sciences. Stockholm University
News & events
Research news | 2023-06-02
More freshwater experts needed in the IPBES biodiversity panel
Centre researcher Jan Kuiper lists why and how more freshwater experts could contribute to the Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
General news | 2023-06-01
Centre researcher Juan Rocha elected into Young Academy of Sweden
Centre researcher Juan Rocha joins the Young Academy of Sweden, a junior version of the prestigious Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, for a five-year term
Research news | 2023-05-31
Groundbreaking study quantifies safe and just Earth system boundaries
International commission proposes new safe and just boundaries for maintaining a healthy planet and protecting people from significant harm
Research news | 2023-05-25
AI could create a perfect storm of climate misinformation
The speed and the way misinformation about climate change and sustainability issues moves around the world is rapidly changing. Now, the Centre presents a new synthesis on AI and climate misinformation in connection to the Nobel Prize Summit 2023, "Truth, Trust and Hope"
Research news | 2023-05-22
Financial actors and academia join forces to build back biodiversity
Today is International Biodiversity Day! This year with the theme “From agreement to action: build back biodiversity”, and for us, that is a good reason to highlight the potential of the finance sector in reviving biodiversity
General news | 2023-05-17
Maria Tengö appointed special professor at Wageningen University
Maria Tengö is the most recently appointed professor at the Stockholm Resilience Centre