We encourage you to republish this article online and in print, it’s free under our creative commons attribution license, but please follow some simple guidelines:
  1. You have to credit our authors.
  2. You have to credit SciDev.Net — where possible include our logo with a link back to the original article.
  3. You can simply run the first few lines of the article and then add: “Read the full article on SciDev.Net” containing a link back to the original article.
  4. If you want to also take images published in this story you will need to confirm with the original source if you're licensed to use them.
  5. The easiest way to get the article on your site is to embed the code below.
For more information view our media page and republishing guidelines.

The full article is available here as HTML.

Press Ctrl-C to copy

[WARSAW] According to Albert Einstein, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. This raises the question of whether this 20th century giant would see the scientific community’s current approach to the climate change conversation as collective madness.
I say this not to detract from the huge achievements of scientists to further our understanding of climate change — the 2,000-page tome that is the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report is testament to this success.

“Scientists are first and foremost citizens, and so should be able to advocate for climate action without feeling they are undermining their professional objectivity.”

Jan Piotrowski

But the tendency of scientists to remain impartial with the belief that it is necessary to protect the objective integrity of their work is misguided and clearly not working.
To expect that more evidence will be enough to convince policymakers to take action, is naïve when you consider the limited change that has occurred in the six years since the previous fact-packed IPPC report made a compelling case for the need for urgent action.
If this did little to change politicians’ minds, then a new report with similar conclusions is unlikely to either.
With this in mind, scientists, as those with the greatest understanding of the consequences of climate change, must get better at communicating not just the results of their studies, but their recommendations for action.
I must agree with an attendee of the climate summit in Warsaw, Poland, who believed the idea that a scientist’s job ends at the laboratory bench is a dangerous one. Scientists are first and foremost citizens, and so should be able to advocate for climate action without feeling they are undermining their professional objectivity.
Critics of this approach will point to the dangers of scientists eroding the public’s trust in science by using their privileged platform to enter a policy environment that they often have little understanding of.
This is a valid concern, but with science even less present in climate negotiations than before, is it safer to continue along Einstein’s path towards insanity, or to try something different?