I've been told that "scientists must maintain actual and perceived neutrality" in the context of disinformation-harms interventions work. The authors, below, present an interesting perspective that could apply more broadly than its intended context regarding climate action:
Challenging the neutrality myth in climate science and activism
Christel van Eck,
Dr Lydia Messling
Katharine Hayhoe
npj Climate Action, 2024
"...we argue that engaging in activism does not inevitably result in biased science, which we define as per Douglas & Elliott (2022 p.202) as “a systematic deviation from truth (or from accuracy).” Moreover, we contend that reaching a state of ‘neutral’ science (communication) is not only impossible but undesirable. Neutrality here refers to “science free from values,” which should not be confused with objectivity, which has been defined as “science free from personal biases of scientists” (e.g., Schroeder). ...
Indeed, scientists who deny the existence of the biases all humans are prone to, or fail to consciously and transparently acknowledge these biases, could be argued to be at risk of producing more biased research. Openly acknowledging their biases shows that scientists are aware of them and allows readers to judge for themselves the extent to which these biases may have influenced the outcomes, a practice known as reflexivity. Moreover, the scientific method and peer-review process, while imperfect and subject to error and misuse (e.g., submitting biased analyses to journals that are not topically relevant, where reviewers would not be familiar with the nuances of the science), is designed and constantly being refined to provide a system of checks to identify and filter out overt biases that overly influence the results of the study. For example, pre-registration and positionality statements are becoming more common in the social sciences as methods for acknowledging and minimizing biases.
So in conclusion, Büntgen’s argument that climate scientists should not become climate activists because to do so means they have “a priori interests in the outcome of their studies” is flawed in multiple ways: it assumes it is possible to conduct science with no a priori interest; it assumes such interest automatically creates biased science; and it disregards the role of the scientific method and peer-review in identifying and filtering biased science."
https://lnkd.in/enRN85E7
We are deeply grateful for your ongoing support. Foundational learning is the key to a brighter future for millions of children. Thank you!