In his New York Times column last Friday, Paul Krugman makes the case that in recent decades conservative think tanks have focused on “a strategy of creating doubt about inconvenient research results.” This interpretation is not quite right, and in fact actually legitimizes the strategies used by conservative think tanks to advance their agenda.

Krugman reinforces the idea that facts compel certain political perspectives, his in fact. He writes that conservative think tanks have “created a sort of parallel intellectual universe, a world of “scholars” whose careers are based on toeing an ideological line, rather than on doing research that stands up to scrutiny by their peers.” This is self-serving and implies that peer-reviewed research supports only – surprise – the ideological agenda that Krugman himself espouses.

The approach taken by conservative think tanks, well described in a prescient 1986 essay by Gregg Easterbrook in The Atlantic Monthly (“Ideas Move Nations” available to subscribers here), was indeed focused on creating research that toed an ideological line but in many cases could also stand up to scholarly peer review. Easterbrook emphasized both of these points in his essay, “But now that conservatism is the fashion, the overlap of names and places suggests a society of like-minded people reinforcing one another’s preconceived notions and rejecting any thinking that does not fit the mold–practicing what consultants call the art of “directed conclusions.” … [Conservatives] have created an intellectual competitor for the university system, which is good, and rendered it dependent on not offending corporate patrons, which is bad. They have produced a substantial body of worthwhile commentary but few true thunderbolts, considering the sums of money and time invested.”

(more…)

Earlier this year I wrote several essays (here and here) that discussed whether or not, and to what degree, climate change (human caused or not) was responsible for the growing costs of disasters around the world. Here is what I concluded:

“1. Anyone making assertions that changes in climate (whether human caused or not) are responsible for any part of the global trend of increasing disaster losses had better provide some new scientific evidence to back up such claims. Future research may tell a different story, but my reading of the current state of science is that, today, such claims are groundless.

2. This series should be viewed as an intellectual challenge to the IPCC WG2 and the climate impacts community. I propose that we in this community first begin with a hypothesis, namely, “All trends observed in recent decades indicating growing damage related to weather and climate can be explained through the growth of societal vulnerability to those trends.” Then, the second step is to conduct research that seeks to falsify this hypothesis.”

A May paper in the Journal of Climate adds considerable more support for these conclusions, focused on floods. Specifically, the paper by the International Ad Hoc Detection and Attribution Group (Detecting and Attributing External Influences on the Climate System: A Review of Recent Advances, Journal of Climate: Vol. 18, No. 9, pp. 1291_1314, available to subscribers here) is unable to attribute changes in precipitation to a human cause (though they do attribute other changes to the Earth system to a human cause). They write, “because of poor signal-to-noise ratios and model uncertainty, anthropogenic rainfall changes cannot presently be detected even on a global scale.”

(more…)

The Boston Globe reported last Sunday weekend that science and political advocacy are becoming increasingly conflated — “This dual role of advocate/researcher is becoming more common, especially as advocacy groups realize they can sway more opinions by asserting that their research is based on science, rather than simply on personal belief.”

Readers of this blog will know that this is a subject that we’ve been concerned with for some time now. The Globe article focuses on a few conservative advocacy groups that “use scientific research to justify their opposition to abortion, the morning-after birth control pill and homosexuality,” but using science to advance political agendas knows no ideological boundaries. It seems to me that while it is entirely appropriate to watchdog special interest advocacy groups that hide behind science, the area where we should have the most concern is when organizations supposedly working for common interests start advancing special interest agendas behind the fig leaf of science.

Two organizations that we have highlighted in this regard are the President’s Council on Bioethics and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Interestingly enough, the reactions I’ve received to our discussions of these subjects fall pretty much into predictable political categories, with just a few exceptions (Iain Murray at TCS is one such exception, and here.). Those whose political leanings are in the same direction of the advocacy agendas put forward by the Council or the IPCC find little wrong with the advocacy stances taken by these institutions, and those opposed to their advocacy agendas find it improper. So it appears that not only are one’s views on science a function of politics, but one’s views on science in politics are also a function of political expediency. Too few proponents of action on climate change are willing to engage in discussion on the role of the IPCC in climate policy, and too few supporters of a conservative agenda on bioethics issues are willing to do the same with respect to the Bioethics Council. The result? Unprincipled relativism on science policy, and a general message from experts to the public and policy makers that, in the end, all that really matters is politics, not science, which opens the door for a continued politicization of science.

Media Matters (MM) has an interesting analysis of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s (R-TN) flip-flopping views on federal funding for stem cell research. Here is an excerpt:

“In recent days, the media have left unchallenged Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s (R-TN) July 29 announcement of support for expanding federal funding for embryonic stem cell research beyond the restrictions currently imposed by the Bush administration, even though the justifications Frist provided for shifting his position have been publicly known for years.”

One letter to the New York Times on Senator Frist’s change in support comes from a supporter of federal funding for stem cell research and expresses hope that it is scientific knowledge that has changed the Senator’s political calculus: ” let’s give Senator Bill Frist the benefit of the doubt; maybe he’s been persuaded by the evidence and his heart to change his political stance, not by the need to widen his political base.” MM quashes this possibility when they observe,

“The principal reason he gave for the change was that it had become increasingly apparent that there is a smaller number of stem cell lines available for federally funded research than first thought. He emphasized that Bush’s policy should be “modified” because “unexpectedly, after several generations” the cell lines have become “less stable and less replicative,” and the existing federally funded cell lines are “also grown on mouse feeder cells, which we have learned since will likely limit their future potential for clinical therapy in humans.” … Major news outlets have largely failed to challenge Frist’s purported reasons for now supporting the bill. For example, while Frist noted that “Today, only 22 lines are eligible,” this number has been publicly known since at least August 24, 2004, when it was reported by The New York Times. Similarly, Frist described the findings regarding problems with the existing stem cell lines as “unexpected” and said those findings differed from what was “initially thought.” In fact, stem cell experts have voiced those concerns for years.”

(more…)

Yesterday I wondered about NASA risk-taking by comparing asteroid risk to discovery risks, and wondered how these high risk – high cost choices get made. I guessed that most science policy people consider the current shuttle risk of about 1 in 100 (proven at 1 in 57) to be absurdly high for such a pricey program, and I wondered what level of risk might be acceptable for the next generation of launch vehicles.

Well, here’s the first lick at the answer: 1 – 1000. William Broad reported in the NY Times today about NASA’s preliminary plans for orbit entry redesign – or at least the plans that industry is pushing and NASA is listening to closely. Here are some quotes:

Just as important, officials and private experts say, the small rocket for astronauts would be at least 10 times as safe as the shuttle, whose odds of disaster are estimated at roughly 1 in 100. The crew capsule atop the rocket would rendezvous in orbit with gear and spaceships that the bigger rocket ferried aloft, or with the International Space Station.

“It’s safe, simple and soon,” said Dr. Horowitz, an industry executive since he left the astronaut corps in October. “And it should cost less money” than the shuttles. Their reusability over 100 missions was originally meant to slash expenses but the cost per flight ended up being roughly $1 billion.

(more…)

Here we have often made the claim that discussion of climate policy suffers from a poverty of options. And debate over competing bad options leads only to one place. A wonderful example of this impoverished debate can be found in discussion over hybrid vehicles. Yesterday’s New York Times had a forthright and eye-opening article on the new Lexus 400 RXh:

“ONE question lingers after driving the 2006 Lexus RX 400h: How did it come to this, that Toyota is now selling a hybrid gas-electric vehicle with no tangible fuel economy benefits? In my test-driving, the Lexus hybrid, which is based on the gasoline-only RX 330, did not achieve better mileage than the 2005 RX 330 that I drove for comparison. My hybrid tester’s window sticker did boast a federal mileage rating of 31 miles per gallon in the city and 27 on the highway, compared with just 18 and 24 for the RX without the hybrid drivetrain. But the government’s testing procedure has a habit – one that seems to be exaggerated with hybrids – of rendering fuel economy numbers as relevant to the real world as national energy policies have been to actually reducing dependence on foreign oil. Speaking of which, isn’t that what hybrids are all about: conservation, improved fuel economy, weaning the nation off its oil habit? Perhaps not any longer.”

This comes on the heels of an incongruous partnership between the Sierra Club and Ford to promote – yes, promote – sales of Ford’s new hybrid Escape SUV. Here is an excerpt from a Sierra Club press release:

(more…)

This month’s issue of Foreign Policy has a very interesting set of exchanges between Carl Pope, Executive Director of the Sierra Club, and Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist. It is an interesting exchange because Foreign Policy has them going back and forth a number of times.

The differences between Pope and Lomborg are not over facts or science, even though they both invoke facts to support their positions. At its core their dispute is over values – which values should be prioritized in our society and through what means. Their debate is a political one and may be just as much about rallying the faithful as it is to swaying the undecides.

Here is an excerpt:

Pope: … True, we need priorities. And safe drinking water ought to be at the very top of the list. I agree. We also share distress that air pollution is killing so many Americans each year – but that doesn’t mean mercury might not be a bigger problem. After all, neurological damage to kids is a very big deal. Having priorities doesn’t always mean Sophie’s choice. If we clean up coal-fired power plants, we solve both air pollution and mercury with one investment. We don’t have to make an all-or-nothing choice between environmental responsibility and economic progress. If we can afford F-16 fighter jets for Pakistan, we can afford clean water and better schools in Karachi …

(more…)

In the long run, for the intersection of politics and policy in climate change, the defining problem will likely be balancing energy needs with climate change mitigation needs. In the short term this is already happening in the Pacific Northwest, with endangered salmon standing in for climate change. I’ve introduced the problem in these posts (link, link, link and link).

The crux of the issue is continuing to return cheap power on a major investment in hydroelectric infrastructure, while protecting and restoring endangered salmon – species that have been severely impacted by building that hydroelectric infrastructure. Both facets of this intersection have broad impacts on the regional economy, with jobs-intensive industries reliant on cheap power (e.g.: story) and a burgeoning fishing industry (sport and food) reliant on healthy fish stocks. But lurking just beyond the competing economics, which smells like the fight between farmers and the gold mining industry in late 19th century California, is the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and its disregard for the economics of species protection. Illustrative of just one aspect of this convoluted game, the complication of managing the power system under the influence of protecting endangered species is summed up well in this article.

(more…)