Abstract
In their Forum piece in the April 9 issue of Eos, Kaula and Anderson paint an unrealistically stark choice for the roles AGU might play in policy debates that substantially involve geophysical science. On the one hand is the antiseptic model of AGU‐above‐the‐policy‐fray: the aloof provider of geophysical facts from the literature. On the other hand is the model of AGU‐as‐policy‐advocate: blending geophysical knowledge with value judgements in order to argue for specific policy actions in the political trenches.The problem with the first model is that the form assumed by most geophysical facts in the literature is rather distant from the needs of policy makers. Thus, the facts are easily overlooked in the face of pressing short‐term political agendas. The problem with the second model is that AGU is a professional society comprised of scientists who hold many different value orientations. Any particular set of values adopted in a piece of political advocacy is likely to be at odds with many AGU members.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
