DROUGHT AND WATER SCARCITY MANAGEMENT: HOW CAN SCIENTISTS BETTER MEET THE NEEDS OF POLICY MAKERS?

Both operational decisions and policy decisions are made on the basis of diverse input, including scientific information, economic factors, political considerations, legal or regulatory requirements, and other factors such as ethics, public opinion, or international relations. Scientific information is rarely the only, or even the dominant, factor in many decisions. Scientists may think that they possess information that would provide a compelling case for a particular decision, but may fail to understand the other forces acting on decision makers; the scientific case may not seem compelling at all to a decision maker if it is not communicated effectively. In other situations, the scientific community may possess truly compelling information, but scientists may be reluctant to express a point of view for fear of losing credibility or their image of scientific objectivity. On many important and contentious issues, scientists with conflicting political views line up on opposite sides and attempt to use their scientific expertise to persuade decision makers. This is a perfectly normal part of an open political debate, but it is difficult for non-scientist decision makers to separate personal views from scientific evidence. Each sector of the scientific community must become well informed about how political decisions are made and how to serve as advocates for objective science without shrinking in the face of subjective opposition. Useful skills for effective participation in the political process include (1) the ability to communicate technical issues in layman's terms, (2) the ability to communicate the uncertainty inherent in scientific information without sending the message that there is no “right answer”, (3) the ability to effectively communicate possible consequences or outcomes of decisions using scenarios, (4) the ability to understand how scientific information might be used (or misused) by proponents of either side of an issue, and (5) the ability to actively participate in a highly confrontational or contentious policy debate without losing sight of the objective scientific evidence. An increasing number of operational and political decisions are highly technical in nature, and members of the scientific community must improve their ability to inform policy.