Science and Advocacy

Over the last decade I think the professional risks of advocacy have significantly diminished for many areas of scientific research. I call this the “twitter-effect”! (image source).

On a more serious note, here are a few examples from disparate areas of science... IMHO only 1 of which is based on the "objective judgements" of science, and others are basically advocacy (though there is one other I am not sure it fits neatly into this categorization).

I will leave it to my readers to discern which they think are based in science and which are based in advocacy (hint: ask yourself if the claim is motivated by changing people's current behaviour in some way, that's typically a clue!)

Claim #1. Limiting alcohol intake to less than 2 drinks per week will increase your longevity.

Claim #2. Unless drastic, unprecedented and untested measures are taken, millions of humans (including children and otherwise healthy persons) will (unnecessarily) die in the next few months from a new infectious disease.

Claim #3. The vast majority of humans living today will survive long enough to die from one of the chronic diseases of aging.

Claim #4. Climate change poses an existential risk to humanity.

Claim #5. Artificial intelligence poses an existential risk to humanity.

One further question to consider: How many of the 5 claims above have you encountered in a recent media story over the past 5 years?

Cheers,

Colin