Science and Politics.

Abstract

Science and politics are like two partially miscible liquids—they tend to stay separate—but some inherent mixing occurs. That mixing must be monitored to ensure legitimate interactions. As scientists and citizens, we must be vigilant to make sure one does not encroach unduly on the other. What do I mean? Scientific data collection and analysis must not be influenced by political agendas, personal beliefs, politicians, or administrators. Although multiple working hypotheses are encouraged in the scientific process, there cannot be alternate facts. Data integrity is fundamental to scientific advancement. Scientists and research institutions live in a world in which their priorities and often their livelihoods are controlled to some extent by others—the funding sources. For many (if not most) sources of funding, that means general control is ultimately held by politicians who, as representatives of the people, decide how much tax-based financial support should be devoted to science and research. Of course, this does not give politicians the right to dictate or even influence the scientific process or scientific results. They are entitled to direct funds into areas of scientific inquiry they deem most critical to society based on where new research is needed to help answer policy questions, help formulate sound new policies, and help support certain industries or societal goals. However, selection of research proposals based on political views should not be allowed. No one is entitled to “cherry-pick” data or misrepresent data or scientific principles to promote a political agenda; nor should politicians disregard science when it might conflict with their political positions or beliefs. Scientists must object if they witness this. So what are scientists, or editors, to do when political positions are thrust upon them in the guise of science? Scientists are people who have political leanings and beliefs, but those should not influence their scientific reasoning or data collection. Scientists must remain as objective as possible. In scientific manuscripts, it is hoped that editors and reviewers will catch inappropriate material and require their removal from a manuscript that might otherwise be acceptable to a journal. One specific example is the inclusion of location maps or study area maps that show territorial boundaries that are not internationally accepted and are widely disputed, especially at-sea boundaries that are irrelevant to the hydrogeologic study being presented. Publication of such maps can give an air of legitimacy and an impression of acceptance of such disputed boundaries, and that is not appropriate for a scientific journal to do. Hydrogeology Journal (sponsored by the International Association of Hydrogeologists) has addressed this issue in its instructions to authors, and Groundwater generally follows the policy as well. We certainly want to remain neutral on political issues and focus on science issues. This does not mean Groundwater will avoid all policy issues—but policy opinions must be clearly indicated as such; Editorials, Issue Papers, Book Reviews, and Letters to the Editor can include opinion-based content (clearly indicated just by their labeled paper type). All research articles should avoid these. Likewise, it is acceptable for a groundwater scientist or engineer to advocate for a change in local, national, or international water policy on the basis of scientific knowledge or new research results. This is best done in a political or water management framework or in an Editorial, Letter, or Comment, or by running for elected office. For example, groundwater sustainability—however one might define that—is a widely supported principle. However, if an entity that has managerial oversight of the resource weighs groundwater sustainability (with restricted pumping) against economic benefits arising from more pumping (with depletion of the resource) and decides to allow what we might call “overexploitation,” is that necessarily unethical? That judgment might depend on your belief system or politics. As hydrologists, we can assess and elucidate the consequences of overexploitation on the environment, but we are not elected to legislate or make policy decisions. It is, however, within the scope of our duties to provide scientific input and perspective to politicians, regulators, and managers. Also, as citizens, scientists have as much right as anyone to advocate and lobby for policies they feel would benefit society. But they should not represent their advocacy and opinions as scientific facts. Editorial decisions that involve political elements are not simple, and they are not taken lightly. We aim to make Groundwater, first and foremost, a vehicle to support the continued growth of groundwater-related science. But we also recognize that our science plays a vital role in balancing competing uses for a shared resource. To that end, we welcome thoughtful, even passionate, applications of our science. The judgment of when those passions outweigh the scientific merit lie with the Editorial Board. The wall between science and politics should be a strong one, but it is not impermeable. Groundwater scientists and engineers should strive to help assure that what infiltrates through that wall is appropriate and ethical.