Professional environmental scientists are increasingly under pressure to inform and even shape policy. Scientists engage policy effectively when they act within the bounds of objectivity, credibility, and authority, yet significant portions of the scientific community condemn such acts as advocacy. They argue that it is nonobjective, that it risks damaging the credibility of science, and that it is an abuse of authority. This means objectivity, credibility, and authority deserve direct attention before the policy advocacy quagmire can be reasonably understood.
Download count: 0
- Partial requirement for: M.S., Arizona State University, 2012Note typethesis
- Includes bibliographical references (p. 106-113)Note typebibliography
- Field of study: Environmental social science