Archive for June, 2005

The Linear Model Consensus Redux

June 8th, 2005

Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Not too long ago we wrote about the role of the so-called ‘linear model’ of science and policy: “The linear model is “based on first getting the science “right” as a necessary, if not sufficient, basis for decision making… “. The linear model places science at the center of political debates.” On the climate issue at least political opponents share a consensus that the political battle on climate change should be fought through science, which probably explains why the debate continues to focus on science and not policy.

On the one hand, The Royal Society announces its role in the academies’ statement with this headline: “Clear science demands prompt action on climate change say G8 science academies”. Science does not demand action. People with values demand action. As we’ve suggested here before, to suggest that science compels a particular action is a mischaracterization of the role of science in policy and politics, and sets the stage for waging politics through science.

On the other hand, George Bush agrees with The Royal Society on the role of science in decision making stating yesterday, “we lead the world when it comes to dollars spent, millions of dollars spent on research about climate change. We want to know more about it. It’s easier to solve a problem when you know a lot about it. And if you look at the statistics, you’ll find the United States has taken the lead on this research.”

Advocates of action on climate change seem to expect that if they can get George Bush to admit certain statements about the science of climate change, then certain actions will necessarily follow. This is exactly how Lord May, President of The Royal Society, characterized the issue:

(more…)

Science Academies as Issue Advocates

June 7th, 2005

Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Last week we asked about the role that science academies should play in policy making. Today national science academies from Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States provided one answer to this question in the form of a jointly signed letter (PDF) to “world leaders, including those meeting at the Gleneagles G8 Summit in July 2005.” The letter advocates the following actions:

- Acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clear and increasing.
- Launch an international study to explore scientifically informed targets for atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and their associated emissions scenarios, that will enable nations to avoid impacts deemed unacceptable.
- Identify cost-effective steps that can be taken now to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions. Recognise that delayed action will increase the risk of adverse environmental effects and will likely incur a greater cost.
- Work with developing nations to build a scientific and technological capacity best suited to their circumstances, enabling them to develop innovative solutions to mitigate and adapt to the adverse effects of climate change, while explicitly recognising their legitimate development rights.
- Show leadership in developing and deploying clean energy technologies and approaches to energy efficiency, and share this knowledge with all other nations.
- Mobilise the science and technology community to enhance research and development efforts, which can better inform climate change decisions.

There are several issues to be raised here:

(more…)

Is Persuasion Dead?

June 6th, 2005

Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.

In yesterday’s New York Times Matt Miller has a very thoughtful column, in which has asks, “Is persuasion dead?”

“Speaking just between us – between one who writes columns and those who read them – I’ve had this nagging question about the whole enterprise we’re engaged in. Is persuasion dead? And if so, does it matter? The significance of this query goes beyond the feelings of futility I’ll suffer if it turns out I’ve wasted my life on work that is useless. This is bigger than one writer’s insecurities. Is it possible in America today to convince anyone of anything he doesn’t already believe? If so, are there enough places where this mingling of minds occurs to sustain a democracy? The signs are not good. Ninety percent of political conversation amounts to dueling “talking points.” Best-selling books reinforce what folks thought when they bought them. Talk radio and opinion journals preach to the converted. Let’s face it: the purpose of most political speech is not to persuade but to win, be it power, ratings, celebrity or even cash. By contrast, marshaling a case to persuade those who start from a different position is a lost art. Honoring what’s right in the other side’s argument seems a superfluous thing that can only cause trouble, like an appendix. Politicos huddle with like-minded souls in opinion cocoons that seem impervious to facts.”

Read the whole this here.

I am very sympathetic to his concerns.

When the Cherries Don’t Cooperate

June 6th, 2005

Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Two recent cases, one on stem cells and one on global warming, suggest reasons for caution when cherry picking science to support a political agenda. Quite apart from the misuse of science, from the standpoint of political expediency, cherry picking can backfire.

Wired News had a story on Friday that illustrates some of the dynamics of politicizing science: whether a misuse actually occurs or not, cherry picking can be bad politics. Wired reports, “A spinal-cord patient has charged that Rep. Dave Weldon (R-Florida) used her image without permission and misled Congress and the public by suggesting that her case offers evidence that adult stem cells can help severely injured people walk again. Susan Fajt, who suffered a spinal-cord injury in a car accident in November 2001 that left her with little sensation from her chest down, e-mailed Weldon, who is also a physician, on Wednesday detailing her complaints and requesting an apology.” For its part, Rep. Weldon’s office says that its use of Ms. Fajt’s testimony and image are consistent with Senate testimony she gave recently. Fajt obviously disagrees. Weldon is the big loser politically in this instance, even if, as his spokes person notes, “Rep. Weldon’s one-sentence statement regarding Ms. Fajt’s treatment was completely consistent with Ms. Fajt’s July 14, 2004, testimony before the U.S. Senate.” Cherry pick with caution because sometimes the cherries talk back.

In another instance of cherry picking backfiring, two activists seeking to highlight the perils of global warming via a trip to the North Pole abandoned their trip because of “deep snow and drifting pack ice” (as well as polar bears). In this case the activist appeared to be seeking to exploit benign weather as an example of the effects of global warming. The fact that weather conditions are extreme in the arctic is of course not proof that global warming is a hoax, but nor would a successful trip to the North Pole prove the opposite. Some advocates opposed to action on global warming have already sought to use the failed expedition to further their own political agenda. For the explorers, their failed stunt provides some symbolic ammunition for their political opponents, even as both sides are playing fast and loose with the science.

Cherry picking is a tried and true approach to politicizing science, because, in many instances advancing a political agenda does not dependent upon getting the science “right.” But be careful, sometimes people and nature fail to cooperate.

Outstanding Article on Politicization of Science

June 3rd, 2005

Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Philipp Steger, editor of bridges — a publication of Office of Science & Technology at the Embassy of Austria in Washington, D.C. that I have only just recently learned of – has published by far the best analysis I’ve seen (and I’ve seen a lot) of the debate over “scientific integrity” in the Bush Administration. Not only is the analysis nuanced, balanced and sound, but the article introduces some new information from main players in the debate. Below are some extended excerpts from the lengthy article.

[Note – For anyone interested in science and technology policy, I highly recommend bookmarking bridges. It is a high quality publication.]

On the future of this debate: “The persistence of the criticism, the continuous emergence of new cases, the introduction of legislation to “restore scientific integrity,” a growing consensus within the most vocal parts of the scientific community that the administration is misusing science, and some prominent Republicans joining the chorus of critical voices, all make it likely that this issue will continue to pursue the administration throughout the President’s second term. “I expect the concept of a conspiracy to undermine science’s integrity in the Bush administration – whether right or wrong – to persist,” says John Marburger.”

On the persistence of the debate: “The persistence of the debate and the publicity it has received is also a result of how the debate was framed. From very early on, the debate focused not so much on the validity of the individual allegations, as on the overarching claim that the number of cases justifies speaking of a pattern of abuse of science in the administration’s policymaking. This has created an obvious impasse, because such a claim is as hard to refute as it is to prove, unless both sides sit down, agree on a methodology, and spend considerable time and effort at conducting a study that lives up to their agreed-upon methodology and the rigors of scientific inquiry. In this situation, the critics find themselves in the more advantageous position: they have the prima facie evidence in their support: no matter how many claims the administration sets out to refute, a question like why, if the allegations aren’t true, so many accomplished scientists have signed the UCS statement or why the criticism doesn’t abate, will stop the best-intentioned efforts at refutation in their track.”

(more…)

What Role for National Science Academies in Policy?

June 2nd, 2005

Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.

A few weeks ago Richard Horton, the editor of the British medical journal Lancet, caused a stir when he published an editorial lambasting the Royal Society. Here is how it was reported in the Telegraph:

“In the latest issue, published today, under the headline “What is the Royal Society for?” Dr Horton argues that the eminent body has produced little of public value in medicine and public health in recent times, and calls for an immediate and radical review of its role. “The Royal Society began as a radical idea – a place to discuss the subversive subject of science and to witness remarkable experiments. “Today [it] is a lazy institution, resting on its historical laurels. Instead of being the intellectual hub of European scientific culture, it has reinvented itself as something far more self-serving and parochial. It is little more than a shrill and superficial cheerleader for British science. “Its modern mission is about domestic image rather than international substance.”"

The Royal Society issued a response and Horton a rejoinder, and I would encourage interested readers to have a look. The exchange between The Lancet and The Royal Society raises some important and uncomfortable questions about the role of national science academies in democratic processes.

At Prometheus we have frequently commented on the role of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and its role in policy and politics. For example:

(more…)