Panel Discussion, continued...
CRAIGHEAD: I don't have very much to add to that except to say that I think the answers that you got, that you'd be curious, considering that the very concept of an endangered species right now in our country and our society is a political concept. It is a legislative category and regardless of the scientific underpinnings of exactly what an endangered is, the idea only carries as much weight as is legislated to it. And it is a political concept and I think I agree with Eleanor, to think that you can work in this field and not be something of an advocate. Perhaps idealistic. There's nothing wrong with being idealistic but don't be too surprised when your ideals are at a cross purpose in the end.
MORITZ: I think I'd like to add a couple of things to that. I'm someone that's worked, not as a scientist but worked with scientists for over 25 years now. I know that one of the reactions, one of the ways to explain that kind of reaction that you're reporting is that some scientists are very concerned that they maintain appropriate distance and objectivity in their studies and that is extended to incorporate sort of--I want to be delicate--I think, at least, a dispassionate approach. And I think that's a dilemma, it can also become kind of a tunnel vision that can almost become amoral, if you will. Scientists within the profession are very oftenŠ People can be criticized for becoming or violating those professional, scientific strictures. Nevertheless, when we're facing these really critical issues in the world, I think, as our panel says, that there is no choice. We have to take position on these things.
One other notion, I had an interesting conversation just this past week or the week before with my boss who's the Vice President of the Museum, Mike Novacek, and he was talking about the importance of understanding controversy in science. Controversy is a part of the scientific process. There are times, for example, within the endangered species discussion, when in fact there have been debates still are as Eleanor noted -- and the controversies have been used by politicians as evidence that scientists don't know what they're talking about and therefore this whole issue is not valid.
Far from being the case, controversy has always been a part of science. It doesn't invalidate the base data or the scientific theory. But controversy, even in the case that Eleanor discussed, has always been important, the Spotted Owls, it's always been a part of science. I think it's important to teach students and parents and others that that's the case, that science is always involved with controversies.
|
BioForum Index
