Final Report (all chapters)

of scientists in these debates would likely put many positions advocated by scientific
organizations in perspective, and may show important differences between scientists and their
professional representatives. In addition, the data suggests that on several (but not all) hot-button
issues, the general public and scientists are largely in agreement. It is not entirely unrealistic to
imagine that a sustained dialogue between scientists and the public could actually produce an
acceptable political compromise even in those cases, like research cloning, where the public and
the scientists currently are at odds. A question that remains unanswered is whether scientists
would support in significant numbers a system of regulatory oversight. Anecdotal evidence
suggests that at this time, the scientific community may be very reluctant to accept additional
regulations, though reluctance in this case may be dictated largely by contingent political factors
and not by a fundamental rejection of societal demands.
The dominance of extreme political positions and the absence of more centrist views among
advocacy groups may be described as an instance of group polarization. 14 Within a group,
polarization refers to the often-observed phenomenon that deliberation among individuals with
similar views tends to radicalize their opinions. For example, after talking to each other,
individuals with a skeptical view of the United Nations may regard this international body as a
vehicle of conspiracy against the sovereignty of the United States. Environmentalists concerned
about global climate change, after debating the gravity of this phenomenon, may come to believe
that major environmental catastrophes are imminent. Pro-life groups are not simply concerned
about possible abuses of abortion procedures. In their view, embryos are indistinguishable from
full-grown individuals, and therefore abortion is tantamount to murder. Scientists, taken
individually, may feel that they are in a better position than the public to set research priorities. A
group of scientists discussing this matter may come to the conclusion that it is no one’s business
but theirs to make this determination.
Advocacy groups that tend to debate political priorities and weigh policy options in isolation
from each other are clearly exposed to the risk of polarization. The rather homogenous
membership of these groups (compared to the general public) further amplifies the tendency to
polarize. Another important factor contributing to polarization is the lack of accountability
typical of many advocacy groups. The group leadership rarely if ever consults with its members
as a means to broaden the legitimacy of their political strategies. Paradoxically, this is especially
true for public interest groups. Disgruntled members can and on occasion do vote with their
wallets – “exit” rather than “voice,” in Albert Hirschman’s terminology – but this is a rather
marginal phenomenon. The opposite is actually more common: Public interest groups, by
advocating radical agendas, manage to recruit many more members than they loose. A final
14
This phenomenon initially was documented by social psychologists. Cf. David G. Myers, "The Group
Polarization Phenomenon," Psychology Bulletin 83 (1976); David G. Myers and G.D. Bishop, "Enhancement of
Dominant Attitudes in Group Discussion," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 20 (1971). In the recent
past, group polarization has begun to receive considerable attention by legal scholars. Cass Sunstein,
"Deliberative Trouble? Why Groups Go to Extremes," Yale Law Journal 110 (2000); Cass Sunstein, Why
Societies Need Dissent (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003).
250