Science and Public Policy

I would like to predict that the fire season of 2000 is one that Idahoans will not soon forget. Last summer, nearly 1,300,000 acres of public and private forest and rangeland burned in the state, destroying (or revitalizing, depending on your perspective) billions of board feet of timber, millions of tons of forage, hundreds of valuable structures, and uncalculated square miles of critical wildlife habitat.

In a society full of computers and data that could be used to forecast the events of this past summer, we choose to make public policy based on emotion and conjecture. Our scientists are able to model the weather and the fuel loads that dictate fire conditions. They can predict the rate of fire spread, accounting for accessibility by fire fighting equipment. They also know how to manage those same fuel loads and to optimize roads and landing strips necessary for suppression. But this information is not incorporated into forest policy.

Why does the public ignore scientific evidence when policies are formulated? I have three theories. First, the scientific community in general, and universities in particular, have a credibility problem. Second, information (and misinformation) is so easily available that anyone can be an expert. Third, public issues (especially those related to public land use) are increasingly influenced by voices of the uninformed.

The university and the scientific community are partially responsible for declining credibility with the public. Examples include adversarial or advocacy science used to prove whatever the benefactor needs to prove and scandals over billing for nonresearch purchases. And, finally, scientists have not found it necessary to translate their findings so that the public can readily understand the implications. Research about pesticide safety, for example, has been unconditionally rejected by much of the public.

Information technology must also share some of the blame for our situation. It is easier to do research on the Internet than at the library, but this medium seldom allows us to verify the authenticity or reliability of what we read. Remember the adage, "a little knowledge is dangerous." As our entire society becomes more educated, we become dangerously misinformed on a growing number of subjects.

What are the costs of policy decisions made without careful consideration of the best science available? Wildfires are one example, but the real threat is more likely related to human health and welfare. Our culture has rejected use of irradiation to protect us from foodborne illness and disease. Current debates about modern plant breeding and genetic manipulation are heading in the same direction. Will our policy makers reject the tremendous potential offered by modern science to feed the world’s population because vocal skeptics do not trust the scientists? The scientific community has a responsibility to become more involved in these debates.

The university’s role is to add to our knowledge base and to put this information in the hands of those who need it. This is fundamental to our continued well-being. The university must remain on the cutting edge of innovative thinking and problem-solving. To fulfill our role in an increasingly complex society, we must enhance our credibility and influence. To do this, we must ask questions and reveal answers from a position of neutrality— what is good for agriculture is not necessarily good for everyone. We need to take a systems approach to science: investigations that consider whole systems, biological and human, whole watersheds.

The university must become more completely engaged in public policy debates, not as an advocate of a decision, but as an advocate of informed decision making. At the local level, in Boise, and in Washington, D.C., the scientific community needs to weigh in on policy debates. If we fail to sit down at the table with special interests and decision makers, we cannot expect others to carry our messages for us.

I would like to say that we will not forget last summer. But, I fear that we will forget, and the ensuing fires will eclipse the inferno of summer 2000. If we are to enter the summer of 2000 into the record books to stay, the public will demand, and universities will provide, knowledge-based input for the development of sound public policy.