Search results

English
A deep philosophical divide exists between 'strictly objective' scientists, who believe that engaging in civic debates undermines objectivity, and 'citizen scientists', who believe scientists can – and at times should – help decision makers incorporate sound scientific knowledge. Here we suggest that the threat posed to scientific objectivity by the escalating politicisation of science provides a limited bridge between these competing philosophical views: a commitment to scientific objectivity requires a greater civic presence.

Recent events in the U.S. have spurred us (the undersigned editors of Biogeochemistry) to make this statement in support of science and, in particular, environmental science. Media attention over "alternative facts" and "truthful hyperbole," not to mention the tenor of the discussion over climate change, suggests that the very nature of science and its role in American society is under attack. We believe that well-established scientific consensus in these areas is being ignored in policy-making, and funding for scientific inquiry that runs counter to political interests is under threat. This political stance favoring ignorance over inquiry fundamentally would, if it is allowed to perpetuate, threaten not only our quality of life but also our future as a species. ; Lajtha, K, E Bai, T Baisden, AA Berhe, B Bowden, J Brookshire, E Brzostek, S Crow, C Driscoll, C Evans, J Finlay, M Fisk, S Grandy, L Hamdan, J Harrison, C Hawkes, K Kalbitz, S Kaushal, M Kramer, E Matzner, J Melack, J Mulder, S Porder, J Sanderman, E Stanley, J Tank, M Vile, M Voss, K Wieder, S Ziegler. 2017. Brave New World, Biogeochemistry, DOI 10.1007/s10533-017-0316-y.