The feature on Harry Collins (“Authoritative testimony”, 9 March) says: “Building on the role of government scientific advisers, Collins and [Robert] Evans propose a detailed set of mechanisms for communicating the scientific consensus – and the strength of that consensus – to policymakers.”
In my opinion, anyone who uses the term “scientific consensus” immediately disqualifies themselves from being taken seriously. Consensus does not matter at all to science. All that matters is how well a hypothesis accounts for observations. If 99 or even 999 “scientists” believe that some hypothesis is correct and just a single scientist presents a hypothesis that better accounts for the observations, there is no question in science who is correct.
As for scientists giving their opinions to policymakers, that’s a dangerous path. Pretty soon you have scientists distorting their work in order to align it to the views of policymakers in an effort to garner more funding.
JohnDM
Via timeshighereducation.com
Send to
Letters should be sent to: THE.Letters@tesglobal.com
Letters for publication in Times Higher Education should arrive by 9am Monday.
View terms and conditions.