In his review of my book Science as a Contact Sport — a personal retrospective account of the development of climate science and policy covering 40 years — Roger Pielke Jr misrepresents my position on advocacy (Nature 464, 352–353; 2010).
Pielke fairly represents my decades-old argument that scientists should avoid policy prescriptions. But he omits my frequently stated context: policy advocacy by scientists is inappropriate in formal assessments, such as those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or of the US National Academy of Sciences.
As citizens, scientists may have personal-value positions on policy. But when involved in public advocacy, they must clearly lay out their world views and separate the more objective scientific issue of risk assessment from the value-laden risk-management part. Contrary to Pielke's implication, I am aware of this 'paradox'.
Understanding science does not in itself lead to effective policy. In fact, my book demonstrates that special interest or ideological chicanery is more responsible than scientific ignorance for blocking policy. However, as Pielke notes, I did say that if people better understood what is at stake, they'd be likely to make better risk-management decisions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
See also Climate policy: dissent over moral as well as factual issues.
Contributions may be submitted to correspondence@nature.com.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schneider, S. Climate policy: role of scientists in public advocacy. Nature 464, 1125 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/4641125a
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/4641125a