With the possible exception of judges, all conventional participants in statutory interpretation are serving their own interests, advocating for their preferred policies, or biased (Wilhere 2016). Scientists can play a unique role by informing the interpretative process with objective, policy-neutral information (Wilhere 2016). However, scientists may also act as advocates for their preferred interpretation of unclear statutory language (Wilhere 2016). Each expert may design investigations and deliver results in a way that advances their own field (Czech and Krausman 2001). The role of professional scientific societies in policy making or statutory interpretation should be quite different from that of an individual scientist (Wilhere 2016). Professional scientific societies are widely perceived by the public as unbiased sources of objective information and guidance (Wilhere 2016). Professional scientific societies can muster the top experts in their scientific field for conducting independent review of government agency reports, plans, or policies (Wilhere 2016). Consequently, professional scientific societies, such as the Society for Conservation Biology, could play a unique and invaluable role in statutory interpretation (Wilhere 2016).
Reference:
Czech, Brian, and Paul R. Krausman. 2001. The Endangered Species Act: History, Conservation, Biology, and Public Policy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Wilhere, G. F. 2016. The role of scientists in statutory interpretation of the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Conservation Biology, 31, No. 2, 252–260.
Comment by Fenton Kay:
That’s an interesting point, Mary. How do you think such societies can go about holding their take aside from the scientific neutrality (if it exists) of their member scientists? For instance, the Ecological Society of America frequently hands down opinions on matters of science and policy. Should they seek some sort of group agreement from the membership before issuing the statements?
My Comment:
Hi Fenton,
Great question.
Professional scientific societies are widely perceived by the public as unbiased sources of objective information and guidance (Wilhere 2016). Such societies have diversity in terms of its scientists focusing on various specialities. For example, the Ecological Society of America has a collection of subsectionsLinks to an external site.. The societies are unbiased relative to the government agency reports they review (Wilhere 2016). Consequently, professional scientific societies, such as the Society for Conservation Biology (SCB), could play a unique and invaluable role in statutory interpretation (Wilhere 2016). However, the societies definitely still do issue statements based upon opinions of their member scientists.
For example, scientists have played important roles in the ongoing controversy over the correct interpretation of significant portion of its range (SPOIR), a phrase in the Endangered Species Act (Wilhere 2016). In a letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, SCB chose to be an issue advocate on the SPOIR issue by offering a single interpretation of significant and single interpretation of range even though it had four different interpretations published in its own journal (Wilhere 2016). That said, they should seek some sort of group agreements from the membership before issuing the statements representing all of its constituents (Wilhere 2016). If there was a team assembled to review the letter, it would have represented a range of opinions, perhaps including the authors of the four different SPOIR interpretations (Wilhere 2016). Failing to have some sort of group agreement from the membership before issuing the statements undermines the contribution SCB could make to the development of future polices, regulations, or conservation plans (Wilhere 2016).
Reference:
Wilhere, G. F. 2016. The role of scientists in statutory interpretation of the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Conservation Biology, 31, No. 2, 252–260.
Reply by Fenton Kay:
Great point, Mary. A problem that faces scientific societies (or other groups) is a lack of agreement within the ranks regarding some positions. I think that, in the case you mention, trying to present a “unified” definition may have led to more confusion than not.
Reply by Eric Lanners:
Professor,
You raise an interesting point about achieving scientific consensus regarding a position. In terms of generating a consensus to achieve policy, Pearce et al. (2017, 726) argue that it is imprudent to assume that producing a consensus would influence public policy. Two reasons form the basis for Pearce et al.’s argument. First, scientific agreement about an issue often has little influence on policy action. Before negotiations on the Montreal Protocol occurred, expectations for an ambitious treaty were low despite scientific consensus on chlorofluorocarbons contributing to ozone depletion. It was the discovery of the ozone hole over Antarctica that moved policy toward an agreement. Second, missteps in policy occur when there is an undue focus on a scientific consensus because a consensus does not necessarily produce policy progress, and policy progress is not necessarily dependent on the acceptance of scientific consensus. Pearce et al. mention how leaders in Republican-led states will deny fossil fuel’s contribution to climate change, but in turn, install wind and solar power infrastructure because of its positive economic effects.
Reference:
Pearce, Warren. Reiner Grundmann, Mike Hulme, Sujatha Raman, Eleanor Hadley Kershaw, and Judith Tsouvalis. 2017. “Beyond Counting Climate Consensus.” Environmental Communication 11, no. 6 (July): 723-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1333965.
Comment by Lauren Winter:
HI Mary,
Great post. I think you looked at this through a bit of a different lens than myself and a lot of other people. I like that you distinguished between a professional scientific society and an individual scientist in terms of objectivity. I agree that one individual can be biased but a group of educated professionals have a much higher chance of being unbiased-especially if, as you said, they can pull in top experts in each relevant field.