475 



3. Structuiing and deciding the issue. — The questions are: 



What alternative solutions liave been advanced ? 



"VVliat are the probable costs and undesirable side effects of each 

 alternative ? 



Wliat are the probable values and useful side effects of each 

 alternative ? 



What are the economic and teclinical considerations relative to 

 each alternative? 



Are the various alternatives feasible teclinically, economically, 

 politically ? 



Are all apparent alternatives politically or technically unac- 

 ceptable, thus requiring that additional alternatives should be 

 searched for? 



"Wliat are the implications of each alternative for the short and 

 long term? 



What contradictions are contained in the information as re- 

 ceived ? 



Wliat biases and indications of unreliability prejudice the in- 

 formation ? 



What are the relative weights of the technical conclusions and 

 the information about political values pertaining to the various 

 alternatives after bias and unreliability have been screened out? 



T\Tiat are the relative costs and benefits of adopting the pre- 

 ferred alternative or of not taking action ? 



Differences hetween scientific and political decisionmaking 



Scientific decisionmaking tends to be imposed by the method of 

 science — rather than arrived at by group dynamics. It is stnictured 

 in temis of the measurable data of experiment and obsei'vation. The 

 decision is delayed until a working or useful consensus is possible 

 from the available data. Until the consensus is firm, the method re- 

 quires that the information-gathering process continue. Decisiomnak- 

 ing by a political group, on the other hand, is structured more by 

 external considerations. The preferences of concerned groups are 

 often the most important consideration. If a political decision depends 

 upon a prior decision by a scientific group, the scientific group needs 

 time to achieve consensus. It takes longer to achieve consensus than 

 to obtain a majority vote. Urgency of the timing of the political deci- 

 sion process may require decision without the first achievement of 

 the scientific consensus. 



Differences hetween scientific and political information 



Scientific testimony tends to be factual, descriptive, quantitative, and 

 circumstantial; political testimony tends to be value-oriented and 

 group-preference-oriented. The strength of technical witnesses — the 

 validity of their testimony — is in the credence they command, by virtue 

 of reputation and past performance, within the scientific community. 

 Examples of scientific advice or testimony are: identification of al- 

 ternative courses, and estimated technical costs and benefits of each ; 

 the probabilities of various possible outcomes ; and the probable cost/ 

 benefit of each. 



The problem of witness bias is universal ; in evaluating testimony 

 by scientists it involves such considerations as the following: How sen- 

 ior and how authoritative is the witness within his own field? Is his 



