Climate Change: Should Scientists Engage in Activism or not? if yes, then why?
Dear Readers,
Every day, we hear about climate change increasing the frequency and intensity of wildfires, extremely heavy rainfall, hurricanes, and heatwave events across the world.
This situation is going to get worse as per the predictions of climate scientists. Yet governments around the world are facing criticism for not acting quickly and adequately.
In this context, what should climate scientists do? Should they focus on their work as researchers and wait for policymakers to act on their research, or should they actively engage with policymakers & the people to nudge them towards action?
I recently read an article which showed how sharply the scientific community is divided on this issue.
In this piece, I explore why some argue that scientists belong in the lab, while others believe they must go beyond publishing papers.
Does Science Activism Lose More Than It Gain?
The first explainer I did on this substack channel was about why we can’t and shouldn’t ignore Hurricane Beryl as just another category-five hurricane.
It is because it was the earliest category-five hurricane in so many decades.
America is now facing Hurricane Helene which is a category 4 hurricane that has claimed more than 160 lives so far.
As per a recent study, published in the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, more hurricanes are lingering for days which increases the damage they can cause.
These events are indeed connected with climate change yet the governments are falling short in cutting carbon emissions.
It begs the question - what can a scientist do in such a scenario?
Exploring this question reminded me of the meaningful conversations I had with scientists during the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to stories published by the BBC.
It was a time when scientists were trying their level best to find a vaccine for the novel coronavirus. At the same time, there was more misinformation than facts.
Some people claimed that drinking cow urine can boost immunity while others sprayed disinfectants on migrant workers, returning home from big cities.
Some of these claims were even made by individuals posing as scientists, researchers, or doctors. And, they were believed by not just common folk but by senior government officials because it is human nature.
People tend to believe weird pieces of information like conspiracy theories more when they get to hear them from individuals they trust, like friends or family (Katherine Ognyanova, et al., 2024).
So, the scientists were faced with a similar dilemma - leave their labs to debunk these false claims on their own or leave this responsibility on the shoulders of health reporters.
Many chose the latter and explained the complex science of coronavirus infection and the vaccine development process during their tea breaks and weekends.
This begs the question: should climate scientists prioritize engaging with policymakers and the public or keep doing their research to find novel solutions to novel problems put forth by climate change?
Is Climate Change Being Ignored?
Unfortunately, climate change is not receiving the same level of attention from the media or industry, at least the talk is not matching the walk.
One reason for this could be its inability to halt the global economy in the same way the coronavirus pandemic did.
This leads to inaction from policymakers which further frustrates scientists who find themselves helpless in seeing the world changing irreparably in their own lifetimes.
You might understand it clearly with this illustrative example: I don’t know if you have heard about it or not but the Great Indian Bustard, a giant bird, is nearing its extinction for a variety of reasons.
One of the major reasons is their in-flight collision with high-tension wires that leads to their untimely deaths.
There are only 120 to 150 GIBs left in the world. They may go extinct within a few years.
This fact alone can motivate common folks as well as scientists to do something to save these birds from extinction.
This is certainly a worthy cause like any other cause that demands doing ‘something’ if not much.
This ‘something’ can even be a tweet which can be done without even stepping out of your room.
The Imaginary Line
But as scientists do something even if it is making a tweet they cross the imaginary line dividing science from advocacy.
According to a paper published in the journal Nature, scientists who believe they must speak out, face an ideological dilemma; balancing the traditional values of objectivity and impartiality with the urgency of the climate and ecological crises.
However, some critics argue that this activism may stem from a culture where the good must fight the evil in public, in order to balance the scales of justice.
One such critic is David Sedlak, an engineering professor and Water Center Director at the University of California, Berkeley.
In his essay, he writes:
"The act of speaking out against a corrupt or incompetent system may be the product of a culture where idealism, personal responsibility, and Hollywood’s dramatic sensibilities conspire to create a narrative about the noble individual fighting injustice.
Outside of the United States, researchers still care about the environment, but they rarely pursue their solutions in the public eye. That does not mean they lack commitment. In countries with weaker traditions of independent media, the seemingly innocent act of studying a polluted river or raising questions about the health effects of an industrial practice can derail a career and expose a researcher to reprisals from powerful political interests."
Sedlak highlights the potential reprisals scientists face, such as budget cuts and layoffs, for taking an aggressive stance on certain issues.
So, the question is this - are these risks worth taking?
I believe that scientists taking or avoiding such risks can answer this question in a more comprehensible manner.
The Value of Scientific Research in Activism
However, the inadequate responses from governments question the value of scientific research.
The question is this - if scientific research is not solving urgent issues like climate change then what’s the meaning if it at all? and if it has some meaning then why shouldn’t scientists leave the labs for the streets?
Robert S. Young, a professor of coastal geology at Western Carolina University, addresses this question in his New York Times piece, written in the context of the Scientists’ March in Washington:
Among scientists, understandably, there is a growing fear that fact-based decision-making is losing its seat at the policy-making table. There’s also overwhelming frustration with the politicization of science by climate change sceptics and others who see it as threatening to their interests or beliefs."
But trying to recreate the pointedly political Women’s March will serve only to reinforce the narrative from sceptical conservatives that scientists are an interest group and politicize their data, research, and findings for their own ends.
Young argues that a march by scientists, though well-intentioned, risks trivializing and politicizing the science they hold dear, further driving a wedge between scientists and a segment of the American electorate.
Rather than marching, he suggests that scientists engage with local civic groups, schools, and elected officials to put a face to the debate and build understanding.
This idea aligns with the views of Roxy Mathew Koll, a climate scientist at the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology, who says:
Society at large, even the media, cannot decipher the complex science part of climate research. But scientists can, if they put some effort, put it in simple words – give some scientific solutions on how to work around a crisis, what kind of adaptation we can do, and how we can assess the impacts in a particular region.
Koll emphasizes that publishing research should be the starting point, not the end, of scientific engagement.
The Case of Flint: An Example of Effective Activism?
So, should one assume that this imaginary line between science and advocacy is something which can’t be crossed?
Well, it depends and sometimes crossing this line has brought results which worth taking the risk of angering governments: The Flint water crisis is a point in case.
Marc Edwards and his colleagues at Virginia Tech uncovered a public health crisis in Flint by exposing that residents were consuming excessive amounts of lead through their tap water.
Their work showed the costs of doing good science, including burning bridges to potential funding and damaging their professional reputations.
The question remains: Could climate science activism achieve similar results?
Because even sending a tweet is a form of stepping out of the lab and into the realm of activism, doing whatever like marching alongside like-minded people is just going further beyond the line.
Scientists who crossed this line in Flint delivered a real and meaningful change.
Now, the scientists doing ‘something’ may have to answer: at what point do their actions, however small, have the same impact, or will they just blend into the noise?
By subscribing to my newsletter, you’ll stay informed about pressing issues like climate change that affect us all. Together, we can learn from each other, support sustainable practices, and better prepare for the intensifying impacts of climate change. Join us and be part of the conversation!
Further Readings -
The value—and risk—of activism
We helped uncover a public health crisis in Flint, but learned there are costs to doing good science
Science activism is surging – which marks a culture shift among scientists
Pathways for diversifying and enhancing science advocacy