Incorporating Science into Decision-Making

Abstract

Alan Leshner's Editorial “Public engagement with science” (14 Feb., p. [977][1]) highlights a conundrum: Why is science often ignored in important societal decisions, even as the call for decisions based on sound science escalates? One reason is that decision-making is often driven by a variety of nonscientific, adversarial, and stakeholder dynamics ([1][2]). Thus, even though science helps inform choices, it is only one of many values and interests considered by each stakeholder. In response to this emerging challenge, scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) are exploring the problems of incorporating science into value-laden societal decisions. This research includes designing experiments that will assess the appropriateness of using the new and emerging approach of Joint Fact Finding ([2][3], [3][4]). This approach is a multistep participatory process, managed by a neutral facilitator, that is designed to (i) enhance the capacity of the lay public to express concerns in terms that scientists can readily incorporate, (ii) ensure participants an opportunity to advise on all the value judgments involved in any effort to analyze or assess impacts of decisions on ecosystem and natural resource management and environmental quality, (iii) incorporate local knowledge of stakeholders while giving appropriate weight to the scientific knowledge of experts, and (iv) avoid the delays and unnecessary costs that occur when legal battles develop over science-intensive policy decisions. This approach is intended to preserve the independence of the scientists, as well as their commitment to the best practices of scientific inquiry, while engaging them with citizens, thereby helping to ensure that science informs decisions and builds trust. Scientists and institutions must expand their capacity to work in collaborative problem-solving environments to ensure that new partnerships with citizens and decision-makers are meaningful and successful. To this end, the USGS has offered an internal course on Joint Fact Finding ([4][5]), has experimented with interactive learning tools, such as role-playing simulation ([5][6]), and is developing guidelines for scientists and managers as they engage with the public. 1. 1.[↵][7] 1. L. Susskind, 2. P. Field , Dealing with an Angry Public (The Free Press, New York, 1996). 2. 2.[↵][8] 1. C. J. Andrews , Humble Analysis—The Practice of Joint Fact-Finding (Praeger, Westport, CT, 2002). 3. 3.[↵][9] 1. L. Susskind 2. et al. , The Consensus Building Handbook (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1999). 4. 4.[↵][10] See . 5. 5.[↵][11] See [www.crowdingtherim.org/docs/ctr/rimsim.html][12]. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.299.5609.977 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #ref-3 [5]: #ref-4 [6]: #ref-5 [7]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1. in text [8]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2. in text [9]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3. in text [10]: #xref-ref-4-1 View reference 4. in text [11]: #xref-ref-5-1 View reference 5. in text [12]: http://www.crowdingtherim.org/docs/ctr/rimsim.html

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 6 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.