Advocacy by Scientists —a Federal Scientist's Viewby Frederick J. Swanson

f.■

"Science Advocacy is Inevitable: Dealwith It." This provocative title of an articleby Margaret Shannon and others catches theessence of the struggle for objectivity incontentious issues where science plays apart. Environmental issues present apowerful battleground for this struggle, aswe have experienced in the spotted owl andold-growth wars over the past decade inthe Pacific Northwest.

T

he context of a scientist's job isvery important in addressingthe question of appropriate and

inappropriate advocacy in environmentalissues. My personal perspective (and that'sall this short essay amounts to) is that of aUSDA Forest Service scientist working onforest and watershed questions in thePacific Northwest in the late 20th century.This exciting, challenging time and placestimulates frequent discussion of advocacyby scientists. With federal taxpayersupport—principally through the ForestService and National Science Foundation—I conduct studies aimed at understandinghow forests and watersheds function underthe influence of natural disturbanceprocesses and land use practices. I considerit a great privilege to do this interestingwork, and an important reward has beenthe sense that findings from these studiescan have immediate usefulness to society.These feelings strongly shape my attitudesabout advocacy.

Advocacy in science ranges across abroad spectrum of types, objectives, andpotential outcomes. In the simplest case onemight advocate that science should be partof the process of addressing naturalresource issues, regardless of potentialoutcomes. At the other extreme of advocacyscientists may vigorously support aparticular outcome of a natural resourcedispute. Intermediate forms of advocacyinclude promoting particular approachesfor dealing with issues, such asemphasizing species protection using aconservation biology approach or adoptinga commodity production perspectivemodified with selective practices to reduceenvironmental effects. Even the studytopics a scientist chooses to pursue may be

considered a form of advocacy—e.g., studyof a rare, old-growth-dependent speciesmay be viewed as supporting conservationinitiatives whereas development oftechniques to suppress vegetationcompeting with crop trees could be viewedas advocating commodity production fromcontested forest lands. Scientists andscience organizations may adopt certainpositions along this continuum of advocacyand then claim objectivity with respect tomore extreme" levels of advocacy.

I believe that scientists shouldadvocate use of their science in environ-mental issues, and that science findingsshould be framed in a way that informsdecision makers and the general public,who ultimately are responsible for settingthe course of action. A scientist can havetwo roles—one as a scientist providingscience-based information that is mergedwith other information to make decisions,the other as a citizen who has a voice in thepublic's role in the process. If the scientist'svoice as a citizen is loud and on one side ofan issue, the objectivity of the science maybe called into question. Science voices withhigh levels of objectivity are relatively few,so scientists should guard and cultivatethem. However, objectivity can be elusive,given the complexity of environmentalissues and of advocacy itself. Consequently,I believe that scientists should strive forobjectivity, be clear about the subjective andthe advocacy aspects of their work, andavoid bias in their science.

A

n important contribution ofscientists can be to developtheir science and to

communicate findings in ways thatpromote recognition of a broad perspectivewithout ardently supporting a particularoutcome. This can have the effect ofreducing prospects for advocacy, whilehelping policy makers understand thecontext of an issue. Having worked for 30years on histories and consequences ofwildfire and landslides, for example, I haveseen dramatically broadened under-standing of these processes and their rolesin ecosystems. When fire and landslides areconsidered in a very narrow time frame and

under strictly utilitarian objectives, theseprocesses are seen as having only negativeeffects on ecosystems and watersheds. Ona longer time frame considering historicaldisturbance regimes and a diverse mixtureof objectives for managing ecosystems, fireand landslides are viewed as integral partsof the ecosystem. Our previous concernwith how best to suppress fire andlandslides has shifted to asking how tomanage landscapes to retain desirableinfluences of these processes, tailored tomeeting the management objectives for theparticular area. In this case I advocate thatscience play a role in identifying thehistories and implications of theseprocesses and in developing newapproaches to management thatincorporate this understanding.

irn the Pacific Northwest we are bothblessed and cursed withcontentious, protracted, highly

public natural resource issues in whichmany scientists play diverse roles. Thiscontext and my job as a research scientistwith a Federal agency strongly shape mybelief in trying to provide sound, science-based information and broad perspectiveto the public and to decision makers.

I trust that in the long-term oursociety's decision-making processes andpublic respect for ecosystems andwatersheds will lead to good conclusions.

Fred Swanson is a research geologistand long-term leader of the EcosystemProcesses Program, Pacific NorthwestResearch Station, USDA Forest Service,Corvallis, OR. He is a co-principalinvestigator of the Long Tenn EcologicalResearch Program at the H.J. AndrewsExperimental Forest in Blue River, OR, andholds Courtesy Professorships in the ForestScience and Geosciences departments atOregon State University. His research andpublications are in landscape ecology,where he focuses on the interactionsbetween physical, ecological, and biologicalprocesses in forested landscapes.

12

Program for Ethics, Science, and the EnvironmentDepartment of PhilosophyHovland 101Oregon State UniversityCorvallis, OR 97331-3902

This newsletter is printed on recycled recyclable paper.

© by the Program for Ethics, Science, and the Environment. For permission to reprintarticles, please contact the Program for Ethics, Science, and the Environment at 541/737-5648 or email PESE@orst.edu .

Program for Ethics, Science,and the Environment

The Program for Ethics, Science, and theEnvironment, based in the PhilosophyDepartment at Oregon State University, supportsmultidisciplinary education and scholarship toassist the University and its community inrecognizing, understanding, and resolving valueconflicts raised by advances in scientificknowledge, biotechnology, and natural resourceuse.

Staff:Kathleen Dean Moore, DirectorKaren Russ, Assistant

Steering Committee:Marcus J. Borg Michelle BothwellCourtney Campbell Erik FritzellPeter List Steve RadosevichLani Roberts

ReflectionsEditor: Peter ListProduction Assistant: Karen Russ

OREGON STATEUNIVERSITY

24