Science Conjecture in Science policy

Science-based policy is pretty difficult to do, but I support the notion.

But when is science conjecture taking the place of science? I know that this guy is not being quoted directly, but paraphrased by a reporter. That has been done to me enough that I know this strips what a person actually says of any nuance… but still something about the following statement makes me very comfortable.

The response of the doctor in charge was paraphrased as:

He acknowledged that it was impossible to specify just how many cancers were environmentally caused, because not enough research had been done, but he said he was confident that when the research was done, it would confirm the panel’s assertion that the problem had been grossly underestimated.

Does this scare the heebie jeebies out of any one else?

A person in the role of scientist making a policy recommendations based on what science will “soon” find? What does that even mean? Don’t get me wrong, I think we should totally be on carcinogen patrol, be when do good intentions begin to betray the scientific process?

-FT

One thought on “Science Conjecture in Science policy”

  1. As a policy adviser, sure. But as a scientist, using abductive inference is very common. You see some data points, you have a theory, and you try to concoct an explanation. Then you test your new explanation repeatedly. You can’t find everything deductively – but probably policy should be based on it.

Comments are closed.