He expressed to me his view that the project involved good science aimed at an important problem characterizing sources of nitrogen loading to the Neuse. His question was framed from a scientific perspective. Scientists are interested in information, and, from their perspective, research that is well designed and can be expected to produce information that expands scientific understanding deserves public support. This view is quite valid for basic research. However, lawmakers and environmental managers are interested in decision processes.
Scientific information is only grist for their decision mill.
Because public funding for environmental management research is intended to support decision-making, I contend that scientists proposing such research have an obligation to give public officials in addition to good science some idea of how likely it is they will produce information useful for the intended purpose. I m willing to pay for investment advice, but I want some way to judge how likely it is the advice will help me earn a good return. I interview two brokers with the intention of purchasing their market expertise. One broker displays an impressive knowledge of the stock market and makes investment recommendations but is unwilling or unable to state the accuracy of his market forecast. The second broker provides investment recommendations along with a detailed accounting of his forecast accuracy over the past five years.