A high threshold for integrity of science

Heather Douglas talks about “The integrity of science in the policy process” in Chapter 7. While she deals more with historical examples and risk analysis, I was inspired to think about how the threshold for scientific integrity varies, depending upon who you consult.

For example, the Governor of Illinois, Pat Quinn recently signed a law which abolishes the death penalty in his state. Since Illinois is the 4^th state to do so in the past 6 months, this appears to be a trend. A useful analogy is the old fable of the rabbit and the fox. If you’re a fox, then you’re running for your dinner, but if you’re the rabbit, you’re running for your life. The former has a lower immediate stake in the game, and thus a lower motivation to win the game, while the latter has a very high stake in the game and thus a high motivation to win.

It’s the same with some critical sciences like DNA testing. If a death row inmate wants to prove his or her innocence, then they can have a DNA test run. If the accuracy isn’t 100%, that’s okay, because it’s a fairly well established technology with accepted processes and a negative ruling would only maintain the status quo, while a positive ruling would set them free. Conversely, if someone has been indicted for murder and is to stand trial in a state where the death penalty exists, then their defense attorney might try to argue against the validity of DNA tests. Even if it’s just a fraction of a percent, that attorney might want to create a doubt in the minds of the jurors about whether this technology can be used to sentence people to death. The threshold, he might rightly argue, must be very high. Illinois governor Pat Quinn cited this very argument to support his decision to allow the death penalty to be abolished in his state.

This type of threshold for the integrity of science is definitely value-based and it basically says that the society values human life so much that it would rather allow a few criminals to remain alive or even unprosecuted, rather than see innocent people die under a flawed system. Other factors in the system such as corruption in the police force and shoddy DNA collection practices may have also played a part in Quinn’s decision. From a scientific perspective, when the experiment is not as controlled and there are severe negative consequences, then it is prudent to end the experiment and find another solution.