We often hear that we should make decisions based on science, which seems to be the logical and smart approach.
Science is a strong tool that provides a rigorous way of answering questions and can identify correlations and sometimes cause and effect.
However, like all tools, science has its limitations.
Science cannot answer questions such as, “what should we do?”
Science can identify some of the possible consequences of our options, but then we must determine which options, and which potential consequences, we choose. This is a decision based on our values, whether we express it that way or not.
Read Also
Growing garlic by the thousands in Manitoba
Grower holds a planting party day every fall as a crowd gathers to help put 28,000 plants, and sometimes more, into theground
Science provides answers that depend directly on the questions we ask. There is never enough time or money to answer all possible questions, so our values determine which direction our questions take and which answers we are willing to seek.
Our values also determine how much we question and how long we look for answers.
Deciding to make science-based policies does not take our values out of the decision making.
I teach an online organic weed management course. Each year, my students study classical biocontrol, in which insects may be released to attack specific weeds and reduce the weed’s numbers.
This involves a great expense because rigorous testing is required to assure that potential control agents don’t harm other species and are adapted to local environments.
It offers the potential to reduce the level of the weed to the point where no further controls are required.
Each year, I ask my students if they feel this expense is justified, and why.
Students usually reply that they either feel it is justified because there is a one time investment for a fairly permanent solution, or they don’t feel it is justified because other methods are simpler, there is too much risk in the agent causing unanticipated damage or the weed is being replaced by other, bigger problems.
A couple of years ago, I had a particularly entrepreneurial group, who generally felt that the cost of investing in biocontrol was not justified because its efficacy would assure that there would be no ongoing sales of the control agents.
In each of these examples, the science remains the same. The decision making is based on values.
We need to consider the underlying values when science based decisions are made.
For instance, who benefits, and who pays the price, when specific technologies, such as genetic modification, are introduced?
Must science-based decisions approve biotechnology because biotech companies use science to develop it?
Of course not. We still need to consider how the technology fits with our values and how well we trust the science behind it.
There is concern in pharmaceutical and biotech research that corporate agendas may determine which studies are reported and which questions are asked.
Some biotech companies have been accused of restricting research on the potential risks of their products by refusing or restricting scientists’ access to their seeds and data.
Preventing research that indicates potential risks does not reduce those risks.
There can be significant risks in biotechnology, food safety or environmental sciences. If our values include human health and environmental health, our science should include risk assessments in these areas.
We should also oppose attempts by government and industry to gag, harass and fire scientists whose work suggests that some technologies present risks that haven’t been fully considered or that might run contrary to current political or corporate philosophies.
The organic community has been described as anti-science, as holding on to outdated notions from a time before science brought us “better living through chemistry” and GM. Although the organic community does reject GM, and most synthetic plant/insect/fungus killers, is that really anti-science? Of course not.
These are policy decisions based on values about what creates and maintains the health of the environment, of farm workers, and of eaters and that place the wellbeing of family farms above that of larger-scale agribusinesses.
The organic community does favour science that identifies and mimics natural processes and develops minimally invasive technology.
