From Jeremy Tager
Helene Marsh writes about misrepresentation of her research on the dugong,
the threatened marine mammal
(Forum, 17 April, p 65).
Suggesting that environmental scientists broaden their advisory role by
providing a “menu of options” for action has merit. It will allow scientists to
participate in framing the nature of the political debate that occurs. It is a
major step from the current practice, which is to make no recommendations and to
take no advocacy position as to how the information contained in a scientific
study should be used.
Such an approach, however, will not prevent disagreements nor different
conclusions being drawn by those on opposing sides of the argument.
Environmental issues are not simply scientific but involve a whole gamut of
disciplines, perspectives and passions that will not go away no matter how
conclusive the science. Perhaps the PR training Marsh advocates should go beyond
media skills and include training in the nature and diversity of advocacy,
recognising that environmental science is necessarily a political and social
field as well as a scientific one.
The quality of the debate can only improve if scientists begin to assume some
responsibility for how their data are used.
Advertisement
Nelly Bay, Queensland
