Today the New York Times perpetuated two myths in a single sentence of an editorial on the Flexibility in Rebuilding American Fisheries Act. Here is the sentence:
The bill would allow the government to consider the economic consequences of fishing restrictions, and prolong the deadlines for rebuilding fish stocks. It’s an understandable response to the frustration of fishing interests, like the Long Island charter and party-boat captains who say they are seeing more fluke than ever and who accuse rigid bureaucrats and misguided scientists of unfairly limiting their catch.
But the fluke fishery — to name one of many — has not yet been rebuilt. It’s getting there, but needs to complete the journey. The point of strengthening Magnuson-Stevens was to give impartial scientists, not self-interested fishermen, a greater say in deciding how many fish to take from the sea and to tighten catch limits that historically have been much too generous. The health of the oceans has never benefited from putting short-term profits ahead of long-term, sustainable fishing.
The offending sentence is highlighted.
The first myth is that scientists are impartial or disinterested parties. Science is a human activity; scientists are human beings. Consequently, they have beliefs, agenda, causes, and interests. Any given scientist may have a theory on which he or she has staked her or his reputation and career. Or a cause to which he or she is committed. For each instance of scientists’ impartiality in matters of policy, I can produce a dozen counter-examples.
The partiality may simply take the form of recommending actions that ensure that the scientist’s job continues.
The cliche of the coldly impartial scientist is a stereotype and I think an offensive one, although no doubt comforting to prospective technocrats who see themselves as philosopher-kings in waiting.
Specifically, in this case where are the assurances that the allegedly impartial scientists have any interest in a resumption in fishing at all? They may well be radical environmental activists who want to ban fishing entirely rather than manage it.
The second myth is that interested parties are unable to arrive at prudent solutions to problems, a profoundly undemocratic view. Interest does not ipso facto disqualify one from wise judgments or prudent stewardship. And I can think of a half dozen ways right off the top of my head that interested parties could arrive at a good policy in this area. Indeed, I would suggest that the problem is that the interested parties aren’t interested enough rather than that they are interested at all.
So? That’s why science is a social enterprise – they check each other and rip others’ false conceits apart on theories.
Are you seriously saying that you would rather trust a fishermen who has a vested interest in being able to fish to the maximum degree possible, over a scientist who has studied the fish populations, who has submitted papers for peer review, and so forth?
Tell me, if you had a major outbreak of termites in your house and were trying to figure out how and where the infestation would progress, would you trust your neighbor, a wood salesmen who has every incentive to sell as much wood as possible as soon as possible, over the insectologist who has studied such things?
Nobody has been saying that scientists are somehow immune to the human issues that the rest of us are – that’s a strawman. However, they have the advantage in that their theories have to withstand testing by their peers.
They presumably filed reports analyzing this type of stuff, in the form of looking at the history of the fish breeding population, the effects of catch, etc.
For that matter, what assurance do we have that the opening of the fish populations will result in anything but the decimation of the fish stock at this point? Particularly when there is a history of over-fishing areas to the point of collapse – like the Grand Banks.
No, it doesn’t.
I’m understandably skeptical, considering the history of over-fishing fisheries.
It’s a classic Tragedy of the Commons, Brett. Nobody owns the fishing rights or has an incentive to maximize their take over time. There’s no guarantee that “impartial scientists” would have that motive, either.
My position on this is that scientists or authorities, generally, are useful in providing information that can be used in the political process to arrive at a decision that will gain support from those involved. The role of scientists is not to render verdicts or make policy which are then carried out by the rest of us poor shlubs.
Brett, scientific regulators generally don’t operate in the field of published peer reviewed findings. I’m not familiar with the fisheries act, but most of the time you have environmental regulators making findings to support rulemaking and then interested parties sue agencies so the court can decide.
The “scientific” regulators are generally delegated responsibility to enact protective standards that weigh costs and benefits, i.e. they make policy. This can work just as often against environmental concerns. For example, I was once told by a regulator that strictly following the law would close the businesses being regulated and “put me out of a job.”