Inspired by the book “Geloof niet alles…” by Jules de Waart, particularly the chapter on “Climate Change in the Mirrors of Science and Politics,” this article explores the evolving role of science in addressing complex global challenges. De Waart highlights how science, once rooted in rationality, verification of facts, and falsification of theories, now finds itself under immense pressure. This shift, driven by political agendas, societal values, and financial stakes, has led to the emergence of what some call “post-normal science.” This concept, which values consensus over critical debate, is shaping fields like climate science and the ongoing nitrogen debate in the Netherlands.

The Traditional Role of Science

In the past, scientific exploration was primarily curiosity-driven. Researchers sought to uncover truths about the world, often without the influence of political or financial interests. As De Waart notes in Chapter 6 (pages 101–103), science was based on principles of rationality—questions were answered through empirical verification, and theories were discarded when disproved. Scientific progress relied on a culture of debate, skepticism, and constant reassessment of theories. In essence, disagreement and doubt were integral parts of the process, ensuring that the pursuit of knowledge remained robust and impartial.

Science in Crisis: The Rise of Consensus

However, the landscape of science has drastically changed. De Waart points out that scientists now face nearly insurmountable problems—global crises like climate change, biodiversity loss, and environmental degradation—where solutions require massive financial investments and touch on various value systems. With the stakes so high, the practice of science has become entangled with politics, economics, and societal expectations. As a result, scientists are increasingly pressured to produce results that align with specific agendas, both political and financial.

In this environment, consensus has emerged as a new form of validation. De Waart describes how political correctness and consensus are often substituted for empirical evidence. In fields like climate science, consensus—such as the IPCC reports—has become the cornerstone of scientific authority. The narrative of impending environmental catastrophe, propagated by alarmists, often clashes with the voices of skeptics who argue for more nuanced or alternative interpretations of the data. But as De Waart warns, dissent is increasingly met with resistance. Deviating from consensus is no longer seen as healthy skepticism but as “sowing doubt.” As political agendas demand swift action, scientific uncertainty is less tolerated, and groupthink can take over.

The Parallel with the Nitrogen Debate in the Netherlands

The pressure science faces in the climate debate mirrors the current nitrogen debate in the Netherlands. As someone involved in this issue, I have seen firsthand how science can become politicized. Nitrogen, an essential element for all life on Earth, is at the center of fierce discussions about agriculture, food production, and environmental protection. Human activities, especially farming, have dramatically altered the nitrogen cycle, stimulating food production while overloading ecosystems.

The debate centers around balancing these two forces: the necessity of nitrogen for food security versus the negative impacts of nitrogen emissions on nature. This complex issue involves competing interests, from farmers to environmentalists to policymakers, each with their own agendas. As in the climate debate, scientific research on nitrogen emissions and their impacts is scrutinized through the lens of political and economic interests. The consensus on nitrogen reduction policies is often portrayed as the only valid course of action, while dissenting voices are sometimes labeled as obstructionists or deniers of science.

Post-Normal Science and Its Consequences

De Waart’s book introduces the idea of “post-normal science,” a term that describes the current state of scientific inquiry when issues are fraught with high stakes and deep uncertainties. In such scenarios, science becomes less about uncovering objective truths and more about managing risks and achieving consensus. The consequence is that political and societal pressures can override the traditional scientific method.

In both the climate and nitrogen debates, the focus on consensus has significant implications. In the climate sphere, the urgency to act on global warming has led to a reliance on models and predictions that, while scientifically grounded, are still subject to uncertainties. The nitrogen debate similarly relies on models, such as the Aerius system in the Netherlands, which estimates nitrogen deposition and guides environmental policies. These models, however, are not infallible, and their assumptions and outcomes are sometimes contested by scientists who challenge the prevailing consensus.

The challenge of post-normal science is that it often discourages open debate, as the desire for agreement can overshadow the need for skepticism and critical thinking. As De Waart suggests, this creates a dangerous environment where political correctness is valued over scientific integrity. Scientists may find themselves aligning with mainstream narratives, not because they fully agree with them, but because the social and financial pressures to conform are too great.

Conclusion: Reclaiming the Integrity of Science

The evolving role of science in today’s world is a cause for concern. As Jules de Waart highlights, the pressure to conform to political correctness and consensus has placed a strain on the scientific method. In fields like climate change and nitrogen policy, the need for immediate action has led to a reduction in scientific debate and a rise in groupthink. While consensus is valuable in guiding policy decisions, it should not come at the cost of stifling dissent and skepticism—the very tools that drive scientific progress.

If we are to address global challenges like climate change and nitrogen pollution effectively, we must allow space for scientific inquiry that questions prevailing narratives. Science must remain a tool for uncovering truths, not validating political agendas. As the nitrogen debate in the Netherlands continues to unfold, it serves as a reminder that science, politics, and society must find a balance that respects the complexity of the issues at hand while maintaining the integrity of the scientific process.