Prominent climate scientist argues it's time to ditch the 'myth of neutrality'

Quirks and Quarks20:15A climate researcher makes the case for scientist-activists

Scientists should stop trying to be neutral and instead embrace their values, says a group of top climate scientists.

Canadian climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe was among the group behind a paper recently published in the Nature journal Climate Action, which argued that scientists are living, feeling, caring humans, and not just "brains in a jar."

They say the myth of "neutrality in science" is actually harming the reputation of science right when we need it most.

Katharine Hayhoe is the Global Chief Scientist of Nature United, and Distinguished Professor at Texas Tech University. Here is part of her conversation with Quirks & Quarks host Bob McDonald.

What made you want to write this paper?

As a scientist, we often hear from other scientists saying, "Oh, you shouldn't really speak out about why what you do matters." But I'm a climate scientist. I study how climate change is affecting our lives today in the places where we live, how it's impacting our homes, our health, our kids and more. And I see our role as more akin to that of a physician, a physician of the planet, warning about how our actions are affecting our future.

In your paper you use the term "the misleading myth of neutrality." What do you mean by that?

The idea that people, individuals, humans could be completely impartial and neutral is exactly that, a myth. We are all people who have experience, backgrounds, opinions and values, and so rather than attempting to pretend that we do not bring these perspectives to our work, my co-authors and I think it's much more important to be transparent about why we're studying what we're studying, why we care about it, why we think it matters. And that enables people to actually interpret our science better, I think, than assuming or pretending that we are simply that brain in a jar, so to speak.

So to you, what is the difference between objectivity and neutrality?

There is a really important difference because in climate science, what I've also seen many times is people who come in with a predetermined conclusion and just cherry pick the data to quote prove their predetermined conclusion. In the past, people have done that by only picking certain years worth of data to attempt to argue that the temperature of the planet is going down rather than going up. Or cherry picking pieces of data to say that hurricanes aren't getting worse when they absolutely are. So being objective in terms of looking at all the information, all the data we can, all the possible explanations, all the possible implications —  that is at the heart of science.

Being open with our biases, I think, helps people understand why it is that we're doing what we're doing. When I say that I care about climate change because I'm a mother, not just a scientist, it helps people say, "Oh, well, I'm a mother and if she's a mother, then maybe this is the reason why I would care about it too."

But at the same time, some personal beliefs might also get in the way of doing good science. So where do you draw the line?

It's really difficult to say because there's so many different scientists and types of science around the world. But what we all agree on in science is the data is the data, and if something changes, then we have to change our minds about it. That's at the core of the science that evidence is key. But once the evidence has been established, then the question is: What do we do about it?

I could have the best science in the world and that is not enough. People need to understand that there are solutions in order to act.- Katharine Hayhoe

And if we're studying dark matter, whether we're arguing over whether dark matter is weakly interacting massive particles, axioms, or even as a recent study suggested — that dark matter doesn't even exist at all, there's no immediate human or societal response to that.

The same thing will happen with many aspects of science, and that is really at the core of science. But then when that science interacts with societal well-being, that is the point on the spectrum at which discussions of our values and our biases, I think become so essential, so valuable, and the need to articulate those and be transparent about those is so important.

We seem to be living in a world where science is becoming more and more polarizing to some people. Where do you think that's coming from?

It is becoming more polarized, but only the science that has societal implications and requires action is becoming polarized. I have not noticed that dark matter candidates or the social behaviour of ants has been getting more polarized, but vaccine science and climate change have.

A thermometer doesn't give us a different answer depending on how we vote, though. Even climate science itself was not politically polarized for the first almost 150 years. We've known since the 1850s that digging up and burning coal, gas and oil produce heat trapping gases that are wrapping an extra blanket around the planet causing it to warm.

When did climate change become political? That inflection point began in the 1990s. When climate change moved from a comfortably future issue to an issue that we had to do something about now, that is when the political polarization began. It's when science implies societal action that people begin to try to reject the science in order to avoid the need for action. 

How then are you going to convince those people to actually believe in it again?

I actually don't like using the word belief because, you know, you could say, I don't believe in gravity, but if you step off the cliff, you're still going down. And when people say, "I don't agree with the science," well, it's the same science that explains how stoves and fridges work, and I have never met a single person who believed that stoves and fridges were a myth.

So they aren't actually rejecting the science. What they're doing is they're rejecting the need for solutions. It's something called "solution aversion." People don't want to take the action because they truly believe that the proposed actions will leave them worse off than they were before. They believe the cure, so to speak, is worse than the disease.

We need to help people understand that clean energy is more affordable and better for our health than the old ways of energy, that sustainable food and water systems are better for us and give us a better future, that a better world is possible and that these changes are not just changes for the climate, they're changes for us, our health, our families, our safety and our well-being.

What are you hoping your colleagues and the general public take away from your essay?

We scientists are humans. Even in my case, I study climate change not because I'm a brain in a jar, but because when I was planning to become an astrophysicist, I took a climate change class to complete my requirements, and I was shocked to find out that not only is climate change no longer a future issue, it was already there today.

It affects us all, but it doesn't affect us equally. People who are the poorest and most marginalized, as well as the youngest in our society, have done the least to contribute to the problem, yet they're bearing the brunt of the impacts. And that's not fair. And what told me it's not fair is not my science. What told me it's not fair is my heart.

I care because I'm a Canadian. I care because I'm a person of faith. I care because I'm a parent. I care because of where I'm from and what I do and the people and places I love. I think that will help other people see how you might not be a scientist, but you're a person who cares. You have people you love, places you love, things you love, and if you're a human being living on this planet, that means you have everything you need to care about climate change and to use your voice with mine to advocate for climate action.