Comments on: Useable Information for Policy http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4032 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: LDilling http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4032&cpage=1#comment-7288 LDilling Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:09:32 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4032#comment-7288 Hi Roger- We have tried to introduce two key features into our CCSP assessment that STS scholars including yourself have said is necessary for assessment to be useful for decision makers: that the information include options and alternatives, and that the information be "credible, salient and legitimate" (sensu Clark et al.) We've deliberately tried to build the former into the report through the content we've required and the folks we have involved. We've attempted the latter through our stakeholder process. Like many pieces of legislation the "usable science" or "policy relevant" requirement is vague and open to interpretation (as you've written). I agree that it would be useful for the CCSP and/or Congress to define what policy relevance means to the CCSP as a whole-- in the meantime we're experimenting with some ways of trying to build it in to our task by applying what's been found through previous scholarship by those who study assessments and policy science. This has been certainly a challenge but one that we feel is important to meet the mandate of our particular report. This all being said I look forward to the results of the letter from Congress to CCSP (subject of your post) with interest. Hi Roger-
We have tried to introduce two key features into our CCSP assessment that STS scholars including yourself have said is necessary for assessment to be useful for decision makers: that the information include options and alternatives, and that the information be “credible, salient and legitimate” (sensu Clark et al.) We’ve deliberately tried to build the former into the report through the content we’ve required and the folks we have involved. We’ve attempted the latter through our stakeholder process. Like many pieces of legislation the “usable science” or “policy relevant” requirement is vague and open to interpretation (as you’ve written). I agree that it would be useful for the CCSP and/or Congress to define what policy relevance means to the CCSP as a whole– in the meantime we’re experimenting with some ways of trying to build it in to our task by applying what’s been found through previous scholarship by those who study assessments and policy science. This has been certainly a challenge but one that we feel is important to meet the mandate of our particular report. This all being said I look forward to the results of the letter from Congress to CCSP (subject of your post) with interest.

]]> By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4032&cpage=1#comment-7287 Roger Pielke, Jr. Sat, 16 Dec 2006 19:42:05 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4032#comment-7287 Hi Lisa- You ask: "I'm curious if you feel that the National Assessment provided 'usable science' for decision making?" As we've often discussed the real answer to this question comes from asking the decision makers who requested the assessment in the first place, which in this case is Congress -- i.e., as we discuss in SPARC, reconciling supply and demand. From where I sit, because the 2000 national assessment did not go far down the path of offering different policy options, it was of limited use from the standpoint of climate policy. That being said, it has proven to be very useful from a political standpoint, as I mentioned, for advocates on the left and the right. This probably wasn't what was intended for the assessment by its designers! You describe guidance on policy for the current 21 (or 20?) assessments underway as to be "policy relevant but not policy prescriptive." This is taken from the IPCC and is meaningless. What does it mean to be policy relevant but not policy prescriptive? This is a Rorschach blot of a statement that allows the assessors to assert policy relevance but to avoid it at the same time. Defining what policy relevance actually means is a necessary step to actually being relevant. For 16 years the climate science program has avoided this key step in making research more useful to decision makers. Hi Lisa-

You ask:

“I’m curious if you feel that the National Assessment provided ‘usable science’ for decision making?”

As we’ve often discussed the real answer to this question comes from asking the decision makers who requested the assessment in the first place, which in this case is Congress — i.e., as we discuss in SPARC, reconciling supply and demand.

From where I sit, because the 2000 national assessment did not go far down the path of offering different policy options, it was of limited use from the standpoint of climate policy. That being said, it has proven to be very useful from a political standpoint, as I mentioned, for advocates on the left and the right. This probably wasn’t what was intended for the assessment by its designers!

You describe guidance on policy for the current 21 (or 20?) assessments underway as to be “policy relevant but not policy prescriptive.” This is taken from the IPCC and is meaningless. What does it mean to be policy relevant but not policy prescriptive? This is a Rorschach blot of a statement that allows the assessors to assert policy relevance but to avoid it at the same time.

Defining what policy relevance actually means is a necessary step to actually being relevant. For 16 years the climate science program has avoided this key step in making research more useful to decision makers.

]]> By: LDilling http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4032&cpage=1#comment-7286 LDilling Fri, 15 Dec 2006 21:24:38 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4032#comment-7286 I'm curious if you feel that the National Assessment provided 'usable science' for decision making? For oversight, I think there are two separable issues here: the issue of producing a national assessment (what does that entail, do the 21 reports cover that role or not) and producing usable science. It would be highly useful for Congress to look at both. Incidentally, one of the 21 reports, having to do with carbon in North America, does discuss options. It is still in draft but available on the web having undergone public review at: http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap2-2/public-review-draft/default.htm [Disclaimer, I am a co-lead of this report]. The reports have been issued guidance to be policy relevant but not policy prescriptive. We have included options (policy and otherwise) throughout the report and worked with stakeholders throughout the process. It remains to be seen of course whether the report is usable or not. I’m curious if you feel that the National Assessment provided ‘usable science’ for decision making? For oversight, I think there are two separable issues here: the issue of producing a national assessment (what does that entail, do the 21 reports cover that role or not) and producing usable science. It would be highly useful for Congress to look at both. Incidentally, one of the 21 reports, having to do with carbon in North America, does discuss options. It is still in draft but available on the web having undergone public review at: http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap2-2/public-review-draft/default.htm
[Disclaimer, I am a co-lead of this report]. The reports have been issued guidance to be policy relevant but not policy prescriptive. We have included options (policy and otherwise) throughout the report and worked with stakeholders throughout the process. It remains to be seen of course whether the report is usable or not.

]]>