Sheila Colla, Ph.D

@savewildbees.bsky.social

Associate Professor #YorkU, York Research Chair in Interdisciplinary Conservation Science, #GND, #MarginSci, #Mesothelioma Survivor, #Ecology and conservation of wild #bumblebees www.savethebumblebees.ca

(This thread is commentary, not criticism!) The "anti-science" label is tricky, because the attacks on science are being framed in the rhetoric of good science: transparency, rigor, objectivity, open debate How can promoting these values be *anti* science? 1/

Peter Gleick@petergleick.bsky.social · last yr.

Just released. My Nature piece: "Never before has the USA seen such an anti-intellectual, anti-science assault... History tells us that there are times when the dangers of inaction become sufficiently threatening to individuals or the planet that scientists... rdcu.be/eo3Hb

If science is understood narrowly as the pursuit of truth, it's hard to explain what's wrong with any of these things, because they self-evidently promote the pursuit of truth In the jargon of #philsci, they're all clearly epistemic ("truth-promoting") values 2/

But notice that Gleick's science isn't aimed narrowly at the pursuit of truth. His aims are much broader, addressing important threats to human health and the environment. 3/

Screenshot from the original piece: For me, silence has never been a comfortable option. My work addresses climate change
and the extensive challenges associated with
freshwater resources, including the failure
to provide universal safe water and sanitation, the links between water and energy, the
human right to water, and the growing risks
of water-related violence

And members of the general public think so too! In my survey work (still under review), we've found that even political conservatives tend agree that a primary aim of science — along with truth — is to improve our understanding of threats to human health and the environment. 5/ osf.io/ks2ta_v1/

OSF

osf.io

Scientists have often been trained to adopt value-free, politically nonpartisan positions in social controversies. (See Marcia McNutt's comments this morning.) But this posture is itself anti-scientific, when it enables the weaponization of purported scientific values. 13/

Instead, I think scientists should be explicit about the values that motivate and influence their work. In my survey work on this — which has been published! — disclosing values like protecting human health seems to *increase* trust relative to value-freedom. 14/ www.frontiersin.org/articles/10....

Frontiers | Values disclosures and trust in science: A replication study

While philosophers of science generally agree that social, political, and ethical values can play legitimate roles in science, there is active debate over wh...

frontiersin.org

Take home message: Science and advocacy aren't mutually exclusive, because most science are *already* advocates. They just don't present themselves as *partisans*. Scientists should be explicit that their work is about making a better world. 15/15

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." - President Lyndon B. Johnson

Alt text to describe the image: Two children and an adult in a swimming pool. Above a child struggling to swim is the text “Native pollinators.” The adult has her back to him. The adult (“General public”) is instead focused on a happy, safe child who is identified as “Honeybees” for this meme.

Sheila Colla, Ph.D@savewildbees.bsky.social · last yr.

Happy #WorldWildlifeDay. A friendly reminder that livestock cannot replace native biodiversity, despite what you may have heard.

There are lots of issues debated in the political sphere that have a wide range of debatable facets and defensible positions. But we have to acknowledge that some issues are binary. Like racism. And oppression. There isn’t reasonable common ground somewhere in the middle of these issues.