The amazing 2005 hurricane season continues with Wilma bearing down on Florida, currently as a S/S category 5 storm. I noticed an interesting difference in presentation between the AP and the NHC discussions of Wilma’s intensity. Here is what the AP reported:

“Hurricane Wilma doesn’t stop making history: It is the strongest, most intense Atlantic hurricane in terms of barometric pressure and the most rapidly strengthening on record. A hurricane hunter plane flying through the Category 5 storm’s eye found a minimum central pressure of 882 millibars, National Hurricane Center forecasters said Wednesday.”

Here is what the NHC said,

(more…)

The CIRES Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado-Boulder will collaborate on a new National Science Foundation (NSF) project exploring the societal implications of nanotechnology. NSF recently awarded Arizona State University a 5-year, $6.2 million grant under its Nanoscale Science and Engineering Program to create a Center for Nanotechnology in Society. The CIRES Policy Center will contribute to this project by organizing a National Consensus Conference panel in Colorado to identify values intended to guide policymakers and then develop specific policy recommendations for the future development of nanotechnology. It will also help conduct exploratory research aimed at assessing the implementation of federal policies on the societal dimensions of nanotechnology at local university lab settings. To read more about the project see this news item.

**Post submitted by Bobbie Klein

At the AJOB blog, David Magnus takes Nature to task for hyping a recent study about obtaining stem cells from mice. In a short entry Magnus writes,

“Shame on Nature for publishing two papers that do not deserve to be in such a prestigious journal. The research that was announced yesterday showing the possibility of supposedly more ethical alternatives to stem cell research is a lot less substance than hype. Neither result is really very surprising (at least in mice). The knockout mouse experiment demonstrates that a gene does pretty much what we thought it does (in mice). And the other experiment shows that cells separated at an early stage of development can do pretty much what we already knew they could do. So why is anyone paying attention to this research? It seems to get its cache not from its scientific merit, but from its political and ethical import. But the ethics behind this are actually far weaker than people realize. Thoughtful opponents of stem cell research are just as likely to oppose this research as they are to oppose somatic cell nuclear transfer. All produce embryos or embryo-like constructs that are extremely unlikely to develop even if we attempted to create a baby. However, for none is it impossible (at least for future technologies if not present ones) that a child might (however improbably) be produced. If ectogenesis became a possibility, the fact that a genetically engineered embryo does not produce placental tissue could in principle be overcome as an obstacle. We do not yet know for certain if a cell broken off from the blastocyst could sometimes become a “twin”. These are actually bad arguments and it is dangerous for science to go down this road—what is the principle? If the goal becomes pursuing science that is unopposed by a minority, then no embryonic stem cell research should be conducted. If we reject that principle (which we should) then this research really doesn’t do much for the research. – David Magnus”

The Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes (CSPO) at Arizona State University (ASU) seeks to fill one or more open rank faculty positions in the general field of science, technology, and society, available for August 2006. CSPO is a dynamic interdisciplinary center that conducts research, cultivates public discourse, and fosters policies aimed at enhancing society’s capacity to grapple with the immense power and importance of science and technology. CSPO is also the home of a newly awarded NSF Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center/Center for Nanotechnology in Society. CSPO and ASU offer an innovative environment for developing and testing research and teaching ideas related to the governance and conduct of science and technology in the public interest. The focus of the recruitment is at the level of Assistant or Associate Professor, however, candidates for Full Professor will be considered. The successful candidate will teach graduate and undergraduate courses, do research and publish in areas of expertise, participate in university, professional and community service activities.

(more…)

The UCSD Science Studies Program invites applications for a one-year postdoctoral fellowship as part of an NSF Research and Training Grant in “Proof, Persuasion and Policy.” We welcome candidates in any historical period and any field represented in our program (history, philosophy, sociology, communication) whose research is relevant to the theme of the grant, particularly those whose work falls in the area of disease and health. The fellow will participate in the Program’s weekly colloquium, teach or co-teach one course, help organize a workshop at the end of the year, and contribute to the intellectual life and activities of the program. Applicants must have completed Ph.D. before beginning their fellowship. The stipend is $41,400, plus health and other fringe benefits. For information on the UCSD Science Studies Program, and the “Proof, Persuasion, and Policy” initiative, visit this site. UCSD is an AA/EOE. Scholars who are women, minorities, veterans, and/or people with disabilities are especially encouraged to apply. Applicants who are not United States citizens should state their immigration status at the time of their application. Please send a detailed letter of application, c.v., and placement file or three letters of reference, to Dawn Murphy, Science Studies Program, MC 0104, University of California-San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0104. Review of applications will begin January 1, 2006 and continue until the position is filled.

And now, back to your regularly scheduled programming … A colleague of mine here at CIRES, geologist Roger Billham, has an excellent web site on the South Asia earthquake. Roger observes,

“How bad was it? If reports from the Kashmir epicentral region are confirmed, the number of fatalities exceeds 40,000 making it the most fatal earthquake ever to occur in the Indian subcontinent. The number of fatalities in an earthquake is linked to the vulnerability of local buildings, population density, and shaking intensity. In 1935 a Richter magnitude M7.5 strike-slip earthquake near the city of Quetta, the only large settlement in an otherwise sparsely populated region of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Baluchistan, resulted in an estimated 35,000 dead. The M7.8 Kangra earthquake in 1905 caused 20,000 fatalities, and the Mw=7.6 Bhuj 2001 earthquake 18,500.”

This figure which shows deaths versus earthquake magnitude is very interesting. Of it Roger notes,

(more…)

The discussion continues over at TPM Cafe; check it out here.

I do have a few other “down in the weeds” reactions to Mooney’s response to my first post.

First, Mooney is caught up on passing a judgment on which political party is better or worse at the politicization of science. He writes, “just because science is always to some extent politicized, that doesn’t mean that today’s Republicans and Democrats are equally guilty.” On this point we seem to be talking past each other. If the issue was campaign finance reform, Mooney would be talking about which party exploited the rules to a greater degree while I’d be talking about how to reform the system so that it works better for all participants. But to get past this, lets just postulate that Republicans have been more effective at exploiting science to achieve political ends. I have discussed this before here.

Second, Mooney’s better/worse tendency results in his mischaracterizing my perspective. He writes, “Pielke suggests that I am just as bad on this issue as Senate Environment and Public Works committee chair James Inhofe.” I suggested no such thing. Here is what I wrote, “Mooney’s argument adopts the exact same tactics of cherry picking and relying on convenient experts as does Senator Inhofe”. Mooney’s cherrypicking is not as significant as Senator Inhofe’s, clearly, given that Mooney is a pundit and the Senator is a policy maker. Without a doubt cherrypicking is endemic (even here at Prometheus!).

(more…)

A discussion with Chris Mooney is underwway at TPM Cafe. Check it out here.

Debbie Cenziper has written a very interesting series of investigative articles in the Miami Herald on hurricane research and operations. There is a four-part series with numerous sidebars and accompanying vignettes (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4 is forthcoming). The overarching thesis of the series is that the performance of NOAA’s National Hurricane Center (NHC) and the Hurricane Research Division (HRD) has suffered because of funding limitations, and that this performance has had material effects on real-world outcomes such as forecasts and warnings. Here are a few interesting excerpts accompanied by my commentary:

“Buoys, weather balloons, radars, ground sensors and hurricane hunter planes, all part of a multibillion-dollar weather-tracking system run by the federal government, have failed forecasters during nearly half of the 45 hurricanes that struck land since 1992.”

Interestingly, the hurricane research community has not (to my knowledge) conducted the research that would indicate, quantitatively, the effects of the lack of data or observations on forecast skill. Such information would seem to be essential to argue effectively for more resources.

There is a clear, long-term and highly troubling pattern of the stifling of discussion on this subject among NOAA employees. According to the Herald,

(more…)

Thanks to Chris Mooney for inviting me to participate in a discussion of his book “The Republican War on Science” next week over at TPMCafe. We’ll provide links to the discussion as it develops next week (though it is safe to say that there will be more incoming than outgoing traffic to out site!) I am pleased to see that there is interest in an open discussion of the issues raised by Mooney’s book, even though he and I disagree on its central thesis.