The Potential Problems of Actionable Science

by an anonymous early career scientist

Introduction

What is the role of science and scientists in society? It’s a question that’s millennia old. Plato and Aristotle argued the question, albeit in a different form, in ancient Greece. Generally, the view is that the role of scientists in society is to provide information and guidance for societal decision-making. In light of this general idea that science provides guidance for societal decision-making, another way of thinking about scientific research has emerged in the last 20-30 years. This is often referred to as actionable science (also community science, actionable knowledge, community-based participatory research, and participatory action research among other names). 

Actionable science has no standard definition, but one such definition to consider here (from Beier et al. 2016) is: “data, analyses, projections, or tools that can support decisions…it includes not only information but also guidance on the appropriate use of that information.” In addition, a researcher engaged in actionable science may also engage in another process termed co-production: “collaboration among managers, scientists, and other stakeholders, who, after identifying specific decisions to be informed by science, jointly define the scope and context of the problem, research questions, methods, and outputs, make scientific inferences, and develop strategies for the appropriate use of science.” It is similar to “postnormal” science which also focuses on decision-making in communities.

The difference between actionable science research and traditional science research is that actionable science research questions are directly tied to decisions made by policy-makers, managers, or really anyone in a decision-making role, not necessarily to the desire of the funding agency (if different from the stakeholder involved). For example, a funding agency, such as the National Science Foundation, may fund actionable science research in climate science or hydrology. Still, the exact research questions are drawn from the needs of stakeholders (be they policy-makers or decision makers such as emergency managers), not the scientists or the larger interests of either discipline. Actionable science is currently practiced in several disciplines including climate science.  

Traditional scientific research is often communicated to decision-makers in a “loading dock” approach. That is, research is done, written up, and published in a manuscript somewhere waiting for a decision-maker to pick up (Rogga 2021). Articles in journals may or may not have any useful information for the immediate needs of a decision-maker. Hence, the scientific research that results from a traditional approach is not always “useable” or “useful.” Taking an actionable science approach, focusing on the scientific needs of a stakeholder, could make the resulting research more useful for immediate decisions. Actionable science research requires building relationships between scientists and stakeholders. This has the distinct potential to build trust between stakeholders and scientists and perhaps rebuild confidence in scientists. Public trust in universities has fallen in the last few years, with a distinct belief that universities have a negative impact on society. Actionable science has the potential to rebuild confidence in the universities that house most scientists. 

While there are potential benefits to actionable science, there are also some distinct dangers. One of the key principles of scientific research is that of disinterestedness (Merton, 1942; Anderson et al. 2010), which simply states that scientific research must be uncorrupted by self-interested motivations. That is, in scientific research one must be focused on what the answer to a research question is, not on what the researcher wishes the answer to be. This principle and the detached scrutiny of research in terms of empirical and logical criteria (the principle of organized skepticism) aims to prevent biasing scientific research toward the desired aims of any group, be they small or large in number or influence.

Actionable science is a popular item for funders, as the idea is to produce research that is “societally relevant.” Multiple studies have pointed to a gap between knowledge production and action, which has been connected to the traditional approach to scientific research (Shaffer et al. 2021; Mach et al. 2020) and argued that young scientists should be trained to be “societally engaged” (Rozance et al. 2020). The push for actionable science and for scientists to be “societally engaged” inadvertently encourages scientists to bring their self-interests in society into their research. That is, there is a temptation to alter research to get a specific outcome in line with the societal interest of the researcher (or the stakeholders with which the researcher is working) rather than pursuing the truth in their research. 

My main concern with actionable science is the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives coming into STEM fields. DEI initiatives are based on Critical Theory and postmodern schools of thought and both directly incorporate activism. For example, in Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic write that “Unlike some academic disciplines, critical race theory contains an activist dimension. It tries not only to understand our social situation but to change it, setting out not only to ascertain how society organizes itself along racial lines and hierarchies but to transform it for the better” (Critical Race Theory being one portion of Critical Theory). 

The influence of postmodern thought has grown increasingly evident in literature and talks regarding actionable science. For example, in a webinar presented on May 25, 2022, as part of the American Geophysical Union’s (AGU) Leadership Academy and Network for Diversity and Inclusion in the Geosciences (LANDInG) Inclusive Webinar Series, Raj Pandya (Vice President of AGU’s Thriving Earth Exchange) claims “the goal of our work as scientists, as climate scientists, and as earth and space scientists, is not just a resilient future. It’s a resilient future that is also just. We’re working together towards a world where all people, and actually all of our living relatives can thrive. And community science is about contributing to that goal; offering science as part of something bigger; being part of a bigger project of building that just and resilient future together.”  This combined with the later discussion of roles and the amount of power given to one group over another demonstrates the postmodern influence. Note that there is no mention of the pursuit of truth, but an emphasis on building a world with a specific vision. This is mirrored by the literature which describes actionable science as seeking “...to understand and improve the world by changing it.” This is deeply disturbing and a blatant activist statement as opposed to a statement seeking the truth. 

Consider this example of how postmodernism would have a negative influence. If a researcher engaged in actionable science research finds a disparity between groups of people based on race, sex, gender, or otherwise, the postmodern Critical Theory basis would push the researcher into assuming the reason for the disparity is systemic discrimination rather than carefully probing the reason why, or allowing the stakeholders involved to explore the issue. Operating under such an assumption in research would satisfy the worldview of a postmodernist DEI initiative, but would violate the principle of disinterestedness. Additionally, a researcher publishing the work with such an assumption would be committing the single cause fallacy, or, as Coleman Hughes put it, the disparity fallacy. While this may seem a far-fetched scenario, consider that several studies published in Nature have committed this fallacy when discussing the disparities in STEM fields (for example here and here). Indeed, some STEM researchers, adopting the label of QuantCrit, openly claim this fallacious assumption as fact for all their research efforts. Therefore, it is plausible that a young scientist invested in actionable science would be pushed toward making such an assumption. This is disheartening for the many young scientists, myself included, who are interested in pursuing the truth.

At this point, it is pertinent to note the two primary principles of postmodernism to the reader (paraphrasing from Pluckrose and Lindsay, 2020). First, the postmodernist holds that objective knowledge or truth is unobtainable or perhaps even undesirable. Second, the postmodernist also believes that society is formed of systems of power and hierarchies, which decide what can be known and how. In short, to a postmodernist, it’s all about power, never about the truth. If actionable science chooses to embrace and be guided by such a worldview, denying that the truth exists and focusing on activism, this presents two problems. A stakeholder, knowing that a scientist did not do their due diligence to provide an answer to a question but rather made assumptions that suit the researchers’ liking, may well distrust the scientist doing actionable science research. Alternatively, a stakeholder taking up recommendations from the scientist without knowing these recommendations are not based on the truth, but rather on the preferential vision of the scientist will likely make a maladaptive decision, ultimately causing harm to those that rely on that stakeholder.

There is an additional problem with postmodern influence. Most academics share a similar worldview, but academics doing actionable science will likely work with people outside academia who do not share their worldview. In most cases, these differences are manageable and part of the required relationship building. However, the activist dimensions of Critical Theory and postmodernist DEI initiatives do not allow for debate and discussion. Many postmodern scholars assume that any disagreement is the result of moral/intellectual failings and, for that reason, no such disagreement can be allowed (Pluckrose and Lindsay, 2020). Such intolerance of disagreement was made evident to STEM researchers in the case of Dorian Abbot’s canceled Carlson Lecture and the latest case of Stuart Reges and the University of Washington. Scientists engaged in pushing a narrative on stakeholders rather than simply providing the truth about a relevant question will likely sow tension and distrust. As such, scientists operating with a postmodern worldview will struggle to conduct actionable science in a manner that honors the principle of disinterestedness. 

Much of the literature on actionable science focuses on the benefits of actionable science. To my knowledge, no literature has discussed the concerns I have described here, let alone the potential problems with incorporating postmodern initiatives (such as DEI) in STEM. Even my own assessment here is based on reasoning rather than an empirical assessment. At this point in my career, I am considered an early career scientist (having received my Ph.D. in 2016). However, I was never taught the normative principles of science or the philosophy/history of science in either my undergraduate or graduate programs. I suspect the same is true for other early career scientists. It is disturbing that we are training many young scientists without teaching why things such as the principle of disinterestedness are essential. During their education, they are bombarded by the postmodernist thinking that power dynamics are all that matter. It is critically important that this changes. Degree programs in STEM need to teach science history and philosophy of science to their students, particularly at the graduate level. This is particularly needed now, with the advent of actionable science, where it becomes more likely that the dueling goals of activism and scholarly research will collide.

In summary, actionable science does offer potential benefits by helping scientific research find and address societal needs. However, it also presents a potential danger that must be addressed. The influence of postmodernist thought and the emphasis on advocacy will push more young scientists into ideologically-driven activism rather than the pursuit of the truth.  This may damage relationships between colleagues when disagreements arise, or it may cause maladaptive decision-making. Actionable science may indeed prove useful to aid decision-making, but it cannot be so if scientists lose sight of their purpose; the pursuit of the truth without regard to societal narratives. Learning the truth about what things are and why they occur provides the bedrock foundation for societal decision-making. To forget about the truth when doing any type of scientific research is to shift the sand under our feet, leading to worse decisions that do not solve the problems society wishes to solve.