Editing Scientific consensus (section)

== Politicization of science ==
{{Main article|Politicization of science}}

In public policy debates, the assertion that there exists a consensus of scientists in a particular field is often used as an argument for the validity of a theory. Similarly arguments for a ''lack'' of scientific consensus are often used to support doubt about the theory. {{citation needed|date=February 2018}}

For example, the [[Scientific consensus on climate change|scientific consensus on the causes of global warming]] is that [[global surface temperature]]s have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced [[Greenhouse gas emissions|emissions of greenhouse gases]].<ref name="OreskesBeyondTheIvoryTower">{{Cite journal| last = Oreskes| first = Naomi| author-link = Naomi Oreskes| title = Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change| journal = Science| volume = 306| page = 1686| date = December 2004| doi = 10.1126/science.1103618| pmid = 15576594| issue = 5702| doi-access = free}}</ref><ref name = "AmericasClimateChoices-2010-SciPanel">{{Cite book| publisher=The National Academies Press| isbn = 978-0-309-14588-6| title = Advancing the Science of Climate Change| location = Washington, D.C.| year = 2010| url = http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12782| doi = 10.17226/12782}}</ref><ref name="USNAS-2008-ClimateChoices">{{cite web|title=Understanding and Responding to Climate Change|url=http://dels-old.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf|publisher=[[United States National Academy of Sciences]]|access-date=30 May 2010|year=2008|archive-date=23 April 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130423073539/http://dels-old.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref> The [[history of science and technology|historian of science]] [[Naomi Oreskes]] published an article in ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'' reporting that a survey of the abstracts of 928 science articles published between 1993 and 2003 showed none which disagreed explicitly with the notion of [[anthropogenic global warming]].<ref name="OreskesBeyondTheIvoryTower"/> In an editorial published in ''[[The Washington Post]]'', Oreskes stated that those who opposed these scientific findings are amplifying the normal range of scientific uncertainty about any facts into an appearance that there is a great scientific disagreement, or a lack of scientific consensus.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Oreskes |first1=Naomi |author-link=Naomi Oreskes|title=Undeniable Global Warming |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26065-2004Dec25.html |access-date=26 December 2004 |newspaper=The Washington Post |ref=B07 |date= December 26, 2004 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080511222144/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26065-2004Dec25.html |archive-date=11 May 2008}}</ref> Oreskes's findings were replicated by other methods that require no interpretation.<ref name="Shwed and Bearman 2010" />

The theory of [[evolution|evolution through natural selection]] is also supported by an overwhelming scientific consensus; it is one of the most reliable and empirically tested theories in science.<ref name="NAS">{{cite journal | author=National Academy of Science Institute of Medicine | title=Science, Evolution, and Creationism | journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | pages=[https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780309105866/page/3 3–4] | publisher=National Academy Press | year=2008 | volume=105 | issue=1 | isbn=978-0-309-10586-6 | url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780309105866/page/3 |doi-access=free | doi=10.17226/11876 | pmid=18178613 | pmc=2224205 | url-access=registration }}</ref><ref>"That this controversy is one largely manufactured by the proponents of creationism and intelligent design may not matter, and as long as the controversy is taught in classes on current affairs, politics, or religion, and not in science classes, neither scientists nor citizens should be concerned." [http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/21/2277 Intelligent Judging – Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom] George J. Annas, [[New England Journal of Medicine]], Volume 354:2277–81  May 25, 2006</ref> Opponents of evolution claim that there is significant dissent on evolution within the scientific community.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Gould |first1=Stephen Jay |author-link1=Stephen Jay Gould |title=Evolution as Fact and Theory |url=http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html |website=Stephen Jay Gould Archive |access-date=1 January 2019 |archive-date=17 March 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190317103915/http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html |url-status=dead }} in ''Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes.'' New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994: 253–62.</ref> The [[wedge strategy]], a plan to promote [[intelligent design]], depended greatly on seeding and building on public perceptions of absence of consensus on evolution.<ref>{{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20070422235718/http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf "The Wedge Document"]}} Discovery Institute, ''www.antievolution.org'' 1999.</ref>

The inherent [[uncertainty in science]], where theories are never ''proven'' but can only be ''disproven'' (see [[falsifiability]]), poses a problem for politicians, policymakers, lawyers, and business professionals. Where scientific or philosophical questions can often languish in uncertainty for decades within their disciplinary settings, policymakers are faced with the problems of making sound decisions based on the currently available data, even if it is likely not a final form of the "truth". The tricky part is discerning what is close enough to "final truth". For example, social action against smoking probably came too long after science was 'pretty consensual'.<ref name="Shwed and Bearman 2010" />

Certain domains, such as the approval of certain technologies for public consumption, can have vast and far-reaching political, economic, and human effects should things run awry with the predictions of scientists. However, insofar as there is an expectation that policy in a given field reflect knowable and pertinent data and well-accepted models of the relationships between observable phenomena, there is little good alternative for policy makers than to rely on so much of what may fairly be called 'the scientific consensus' in guiding policy design and implementation, at least in circumstances where the need for policy intervention is compelling. While science cannot supply 'absolute truth' (or even its complement 'absolute error') its utility is bound up with the capacity to guide policy in the direction of increased public good and away from public harm. Seen in this way, the demand that policy rely only on what is proven to be "scientific truth" would be a prescription for policy paralysis and amount in practice to advocacy of acceptance of all of the quantified and unquantified costs and risks associated with policy inaction.<ref name="Shwed and Bearman 2010" />

No part of policy formation on the basis of the ostensible scientific consensus precludes persistent review either of the relevant scientific consensus or the tangible results of policy. Indeed, the same reasons that drove reliance upon the consensus drives the continued evaluation of this reliance over time – and adjusting policy as needed.{{citation needed|date=February 2018}}