Should scientists have a say in public policy? Don't they already have a major impact? What exactly IS scientific consensus?
Boy is this a subject we could take a lot of time talking about, but our job is to find what we feel are the best of the best news stories out there that effect our lives directly. Since we're anglers and have been anglers and will be anglers until the day we leave the deck, stuff that effects people fishing is something interesting to us.
Scientists are always right, because they personally check the validity of everything their fellow scientists have said, right? Right. This is not an anti-scientist article - to the contrary - the article we suggest you read here is from The Scientist. The squid? We just thought it was absolutely the coolest science-related image we found.
So to, is scientific knowledge. Science is important. We understand that. But science is as science is funded, and in our lifetimes we've seen science change from a region of knowledge where people had to personally prove that something worked or it didn't work. They did not join a 'consensus' participation in which was required blood for getting a dime from the federal government. Shut off that flow of gold, and you shut down any research or work or parties you want to attend.
This is a story about including scientists in policy making. We can already tell what half of you are saying: "OF COURSE we need scientists involved in policy making"
We think we need them involved in science. And when too many scientists agree and vilify anybody who does not, they should not be in positions of power. But that's just us.
Here's a story about the role science should take in policy making. It's from The Scientist. Guess where they stand?