Science and Politics: Can't We All Just Get Along?

Science and Politics go hand-in-hand...right? Well, here’s the rub...the politics may sometimes impede the message of the underlying science. For example, if science identifies developing trends that may ultimately degrade water quality in a given area, such useful information (after scientific vetting) should seemingly be made front and center to the public. The political dogma that follows the reality of such revelations, however, may prevent the public from weighing in with full information or minimally, may severely downplay the importance of the data or its source. This is not news, but it is a potentially perilous way to lead.

When fresh water supplies are diminished by policies driven by economic development dollars without being tempered by true reporting of environmental opportunity costs, no one wins. Sure the politician gets re-elected for brining in more economic development now, but what happens down the road when the real costs of development become more evident? The tax payers are the ultimate losers unless the politicians allow sometimes unpopular science to be considered with a dose of future reality...including the associated economic burden for everything from infrastructure improvements to emergency preparation/preparedness. 

Ironically, however, if the science is kept quiet, then the politicians are first in line to cry foul when disaster strikes without “adequate warning”. Why must science and politics battle it out for an all-or-nothing approach? A more meaningful dialog would include stakeholders, such as those identified in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. The potentially impacted taxpayers are empowered by such policies to hold legal standing as a group recognized in Federal court. Unfortunately, NEPA and similarly well-intended policies cannot account for “window-dressing” of the facts or even possible exclusion of the science altogether through loopholes in oversight.

So what is the solution? Do Science and Politics have to be at odds? Clearly there are degrees to which they may agree to disagree, but if they work in tandem toward the same goal, with full transparency of the potential long-term impacts of decisions made now, then more cost-effective and even more sustainable outcomes may result. The greatest difficulty seems to lie with finding a balance between establishing voter confidence in a political leader and creating the political will to inform the public of potential opportunity costs, particularly environmental costs with very long lag times before they are evident.

The onus of potentially undesirable outcomes might be borne more easily by revamping the political process itself- such as by creating policies that reward well-informed, bold and transparent leaders. If, conversely, we reward ineptness, dishonesty and/or short-term economics-only based decision-making, then we might deserve the politicians we get, but the much larger bill associated with correcting (rather than preventing) mistakes, will still come due to the taxpayers. Can’t we be smart enough to see a little bit ahead (with the help of our Scientific community and stakeholders) and make the tough choices now, while there are still choices to be made?

There are too many questions with too few answers here, but at least if we create more informed dialog, we can begin to shift our thinking to a more long-term and measured approach. A proliferation of "knee-jerk" political actions in response to well-foreseen events could be avoided, if we embrace transparency and the scientific value of stakeholders. We can all be members of the Sustainability Party, but such membership requires us to exhibit discerning taste in the selection of leaders with long-range vision, political flexibility and a healthy appreciation/understanding of science-based policy.