How Does Society Value Science? David Boerner January 28, 2010

Policy = Decisions: Where are the scientists? “Pure” Scientist No interest in the situation, only interested in generating information Advocate Makes the case for one policy direction Arbiter Factually answers posed scientific questions Honest broker Objectively generates and/or analyzes scientific knowledge for policy alternatives 2

How does society value science? To every man is given the key to the gates of heaven. The same key opens the gates of hell. Buddhist Proverb quoted by Richard Feynman 3

Framing any problem is a key cognitive challenge DF37 Hypothesis: If D then 3 Which two cards would you check to test the Hypothesis? One card is trivial, and one other could be definitive. Imagine a deck of cards with numbers on one side and letters on the other 4

Reframing the problem may make it trivial BeerCoke3514 Imagine enforcing the legal drinking age in a bar by when you know either a patron’s age or beverage 5

Behaviour is predictably irrational “A Conflict of Visions” (1987) “Tragic” versus “Utopian” Language Decision Making Knowledge Freedom Equality Justice and Law War, Crime and Punishment Moral Duty Control Twin, family and adoption studies imply political attitudes are 60% heritable! 6 Thomas Sowell (1930 – )

The Utopian Vision George Bernard Shaw “There is nothing that can be changed more completely than human nature when the job is taken in hand early enough.” On the Rocks (1933) You see things as they are and ask, "Why?" I dream things as they never were and ask, "Why not?" Back to Methuselah (1921) 7 George Bernard Shaw (1856 – 1950)

The Tragic Vision Walt Kelly (1913–1973) 8 Human selfishness and cognitive biases are intrinsic, universal traits Our ability to change human nature is fundamentally limited 1971

Perfectible: communication can be improved through refined use of precise, explicit articulation Evolved social process, with a complex, consistent inner logic, but not designed by any one person Utopian Tragic Language 9

Utopian Elite & Ideological Universities tend to rust explicitly articulated propositions from “experts” Tragic Inclusive & Experiential Think Tanks tend to trust knowledge that is distributed through society Informing Decision Making 10

Utopian Articulated reason of experts – deliberate and ideological rationality - “age of reason” Social experience of many from past events - recounted verbatim until systemically inculcated Trusted Knowledge Sources 11 Tragic

Utopian One is able to achieve their goals – impediments can all be overcome Tragic One is able to pursue their goals – but caveat emptor Freedom 12

Utopian Equalized probability of achieving the result Tragic Equalized opportunity for achieving the result Equality 13

Utopian Fairness of results - for the individual Earl Warren – “But is it right? Is it good?” Tragic Fairness of process - to preserve precedent and tradition Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. - “The life of law has not been logic: it has been experience.” Justice and Law

Utopian Inconceivable, the actor must not understand their actions. Since deterrence is useless, punishment is retribution that needs to be managed by the elite. Tragic Individuals will always put their own interests above those of others. Punishment is a deterrent to be demonstrated publicly. War, Crime & Punishment 15

Utopian Sincerity, one should aspire for higher ethical behaviour. Disingenuous behaviour is intentional and must indicate corruption or prejudice Tragic Fidelity, whether one understands why or not. Advocacy must represent knowing disloyalty Moral Duty 16

Utopian Power should be concentrated for efficient central planning, stability and collective benefit Tragic Although inefficient and unstable, power should be distributed to prevent abuse Control 17

Tragic Adherents are “common” people, unable to understand how the world can be improved and unwilling to listen to experts Utopians are an “elite” operating in an extremely narrow reality, unable to recognize grave consequences or incredible costs of pursuing their goals Perceptions of the other vision 18

Tragic adherents... must be stuck in the past, focused on understanding the trade-offs and avoiding the costs of change, rather than implementing attainable improvements. Utopians... must be naïve to not recognize their goals are unattainable and would require excessive social and economic costs with inconsequential benefits. Perceptions of the other vision 19

Could the two visions be partially heritable? 20 The dopamine receptor gene (DRD2), A2 allele is significantly associated with political partisanship (much more than the A1 allele which results in a 30% reduction in D2 receptor density) – Dawes and Fowler (2009). Genes associated with serotonin have been correlated with voter turnout Dopaminergic and serotonergic neurotransmitter systems play a vital role in the regulation of emotion and mood. Dopamine is associated with human reward systems, social attachments and cognitive function (attention, planning, visual processing and working memory)

Utopian Science and technology can solve any problem Training an S&T elite is essential for creating leaders Human behaviour can be overcome and perfected Why not change/improve? Progress at any price The “best” is the only thing worth having “Improve it, even if it breaks” Tragic Human nature makes ideal application of S&T impossible Too much training narrows focus and blinds one to other issues Human behaviour is immutable and flawed It always worked this way before Change is too difficult & expensive The “best” gets in the way of “what works” “If it isn’t broken, leave it alone” Two extreme views of science 21

How do Tragic adherents perceive science? 22 Because science was deemed instrumental in winning WWII, Roosevelt asked Vannevar Bush for a science plan “Science, The Endless Frontier” was rejected (by Truman’s administration), but did result in the creation of NSF (which was meant to be the “National Research Foundation”), but Bush’s underlying ideology was widely adopted… Vannevar Bush (1890–1974) & Francis Bacon ( ) Basic > Development > Applied > Wealth > Technology

Benefits are predictable (linear) Any research funding results in wealth Research makes contributions to an “information reservoir” that accumulates over time Research Applications Information Reservoir What does the reservoir model mean? 23 Francis Bacon ( )

“Plausible Deniability” o Leaves no evidence of wrongdoing or abuse “Buyers” and “Sellers” have different knowledge (asymmetrical information) leading to – “Adverse Selection” o Sellers could be motivated to sell their “bad” products – “Moral Hazard” o Isolation from consequences could induce excessive risk-taking Science is “Self-regulating” (expert review guides decision-making) Yet a reservoir could have negative implications 24

And we don't know what we don't know “As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know.” Donald Rumsfeld, Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense briefing

26 Booz-Allen-Hamilton (October 2005) found 1000 largest R&D investors globally who spent 384B $US 80-90% of corporate, 60% of all R&D globally “No relationship between R&D spending and the primary measures of economic or corporate success.” Does research deliver the promised benefits?

Are the reservoir contents truly accessible? 27

And how much of the reservoir is “scientific”? Positive experimental testing outcomes can NOT confirm a scientific theory A single genuine counter-instance is logically decisive in showing the theory to be false Popper proposed a theory should be accounted scientific if, and only if, it is falsifiable. "Our knowledge can only be finite, while our ignorance must necessarily be infinite." Karl Popper (1902 – 1994) 28

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Science is punctuated by “Paradigm Shifts” Observed there is little evidence that scientists use Popperian falsification. Rather they tolerate contrary data until a ‘crisis’ ensues. “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." Max Planck Thomas Kuhn (1922 – 1996) And the reservoir could be “contaminated” 29

Are we promoting Utopian myths? The myth of infinite benefit: More science and more technology will lead automatically to more public good. The myth of unfettered research: Any scientifically reasonable line of research is as likely to yield societal benefit as any other. The myth of accountability: Peer review and reproducibility of results are the principal ethical responsibilities of the research community. The myth of authoritativeness: Scientific information provides an objective basis for resolving political disputes. The myth of the endless frontier: New knowledge generated at the frontiers of science is autonomous from its moral and practical consequences in society. 30

Pasteur’s Quadrant - Donald Stokes, 1997 Can science be better described? ? Research inspired by end use? Yes No Research inspired by the quest for fundamental understanding? No Louis Pasteur “Use- Inspired” Niels Bohr “Basic” Thomas Edison “Applied” 31

Is science best described by “motivations”? Peter Nicholson, INVESTIGATOR-DIRECTED APPLIEDBASIC FUNDER-DIRECTED Heterogeneous / Serendipitous Orientation Benefits Appropriated by Particular Groups Benefits Shared Widely Strategic / Mission Orientation UNIVERSITIES COLLEGES GOVERNMENT LABS PRIVATE SECTOR

Understanding –Narrow/Deep versus Broad/Shallow Communication styles and needs –Factual/Direct versus Perceptual/Nuanced Preferred information sources –Experts (Peers) versus Society at large Time constraints –Long Term versus Immediate Dealing with uncertainties and conflict –Additional work versus Compromise and implement Measures of success –Knowledge/Peers versus Societal acceptance/Political Masters Two Worlds, two Value Systems: Science and Policy 33

Will conflict always arise over science? Conflict, yes but over visions, not science. At the interface of Policy and Science I am trying to: Understand, acknowledge and address the concerns of both visions, both want science... Communicate to satisfy both audiences' information needs (difficult!) Counter a Utopian tendency to revert to education and reasoning when they (I) “don’t understand” Remember that these descriptions represent extremes – real people generally accept elements of both visions... 34

Thank you! For your attention and your willingness to listen Please remember – Statistics apply! Individuals generally display elements of both visions and We need both visions... 35