Scientific research that is intended for use in a policy-making sphere is increasingly subject to the whims of the relevant political environment. This is especially true in the environmental space. Many national/global environmental debates are framed as moral choices; an obligation of society to mitigate climate change or industry's supposed malevolent intent to pollute the environment are two examples. I argue that framing the debate in this way puts the scientific research in this space at a disadvantage, and ultimately undermines its efficacy as a mediator of truth in controversial debates. Scientists who claim their research results mandate a particular outcome will very likely find themselves marginalized as political actors in a political debate, rather than as mediators of truth. This paper will discuss the political realities of the environmental debate, and identify a paradigm through which scientists can provide value to political debates.

Facts vs values: Political choices in environmental policy debates

248th National Meeting (2014)

The official archive and repository for all ACS Meetings & Expositions abstracts and select posters or presentations.