Where do we draw the line between science and activism?

In the era of fake news, the truth is often described as malleable. However, the idea of truth as a contested concept is not an entirely novel notion, and there are perspectives beyond science which we need to reckon with as we imagine the role of science in modern society. Increasing environmental challenges have created a trend towards the politicisation of scientific evidence, polarising public spaces where environmental questions are increasingly seen as contentious political debates.

Even if science cannot always present absolute truths, it has a decisive power to challenge mistruths when they arise. Even if some issues are subjective or political at their core, conversations about them often rely on an understanding of the world, which can be misrepresented or misunderstood. Here, even in the most contentious conversations, there is a value in the power of science as a neutral and objective arbiter of what is – even if scientists decide that it is inappropriate to debate about how things ought to be.

How science plays that role can be as contentious a question as many of the issues themselves. Science can play the role of translation, bringing insights from technical understandings of the world into the language of policy makers, or articulating those insights for mass communication to wider society. Much as many environmental scientists work directly with policy makers to provide evidence which supports the design and implementation of policy, they also provide evidence that helps society to understand environmental challenges, which can inform activism and shape the way those activists seek to effect change.

There is no doubt that there are times when answers come easily. Sometimes, providing scientific evidence that informs the public is uncontroversial: while many do not like what they hear in the weather forecast, few would contend that the work of the Met Office to predict weather is not valuable. Similarly, there are clear lines which few environmental scientists would be willing to cross: most scientific organisations would not formally endorse political parties or candidates or claim that scientific research requires anyone to put their vote towards one end of the political spectrum.

At the same time, we cannot escape from the truth that there are inherently political questions at the heart of sustainability and environmental science. Modern environmental science is often challenge-led, driven by the recognition that the ways humanity interacts with the natural world will shape the state of the environment and the services it can provide. In response to those challenges, the prospect of sustainability often requires that we conceive of new visions for social and economic systems, so contentious and potentially political decisions can become inevitabilities.

Forfeiting all involvement in public discourse may leave scientific evidence out of critical decisions, leading to unintended consequences or disempowering communities from the ability to make truly informed decisions. Science is uniquely positioned to identify solutions or pathways which can actually be implemented in practice, reckoning with the challenges of policy delivery. 

To that end, environmental science should not be afraid to co-exist with politics, as long as engagement between science and activism reflects:

• Diverse and plural voices within both the scientific community and society more broadly;
• The evolving nature of scientific understanding in the context of the scientific process, inevitable uncertainties, and emerging knowledge; and
• That science can only ever provide one perspective on the complex social, economic, and natural systems within which we live – so we must work collaboratively to truly understand the world from a systems perspective.

Science plays three roles in translating our understandings of the natural world into the ways that they interact with activism and environmental policy:

• Offering insights and evidence which explain the state of nature and systems, how they are changing, and how they interact with human society;
• Demystifying misunderstood or complex concepts so that they can be made accessible to the wider public, such as through carbon literacy; and
• Providing evidence to support the creation of practical roadmaps or pathways, allowing communities to make decisions about the kind of future they want to create and how they can manage trade-offs posed by difficult policy questions.

Scientists can also be convening agents, using science as a platform for bringing different perspectives together, facilitating debates – and eventually decisions. When environmental science offers insights into different pathways that human society can adopt, it represents a natural invitation for discussion: communities and leaders can offer their perspectives on which approach they believe to be the right one.

When science does play the role of convenor, we must be mindful of ethical concerns. Statements which are presented in the name of science can affect the legitimacy of that science, so providing platforms for activists, politicians, or other contentious organisations must be subject to a degree of caution, with appropriate disclaimers in place to preserve the independence and integrity of the science that underpins those conversations. 

If science becomes seen as partial, it can compromise the ability for that science to empower communities, or even the ability to challenge misinformation to ensure constructive and informed debates can take place.

Whether science exists alongside activism, informs it by providing evidence, or facilitates its interactions with society by raising challenges or pathways, we should always hope that our work as scientists provides some means to present challenges to status quo thinking. The core principles of science are founded on the spirit of informed debate, and the ability to challenge established hypotheses is integral to ensuring a robust and long-lasting ethos of scientific intrigue.