Sunita Narain, editor of the Indian magazine Down to Earth, writes a provocative editorial on challenges of science in politics and policy in India.

“In the West, scientific issues are at least publicly debated and even George Bush and his ‘sound science’ caucus will get a run for their money as more and more citizens (including) scientists engage with and put public pressure on policy systems to deliver. But not in India, where scientists have taken silence to be their best insurance. And worse, arrogance, as their best cover….

But in all this we must also realise that science is not the ultimate truth. Scientific uncertainty can never really be eliminated, even in the best of sound science. All conclusions involve some uncertainty and are creatures of the nuances of interpretation. Therefore, science must guide policy, but ultimately, societal values and ethics must underwrite that policy code. That is what we could call ‘sound science’.”

It’s titled “Sounds of Self-Interested Science” and worth a read.

In a speech today Chairman of the House Science Committee Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) raises some tough and important questions about the future of human space exploration and NASA. An excerpt from his speech:

“I should note that many of the tough questions that need answers relate to the current human space flight programs, which account for about half of NASA’s budget…. I think it’s fair to say that most Members of Congress have not begun to wrestle with these questions, or even to take the space initiative seriously, or to ponder what alternatives there are to the President’s proposal – and in broad terms there aren’t a lot of palatable alternatives if you want to continue the human space flight program.”

Robert Mueller, in an essay in Technology Review, presents a perspective on climate policy refreshingly outside of the Manichean “Kyoto: Yes or No?” framing of the climate debate.

“… scientific discussion on this issue has become rude and nasty. Ad hominem accusations abound. Is global warming real? Are humans responsible? One side says, ‘Yes, and if you don’t believe that, you are not a non-scientific troglodyte.’ The other side says, ‘It isn’t proven, and if you act prematurely you’ll kill our economy, you liberal communist tree-hugger.’ A symbolic word in this argument is ‘Kyoto.’ … People are categorized by their stand on this treaty—for it or against it—even though the issue is subtle and complex. I hold an unusual position. I believe carbon dioxide emissions should be brought under control—not because they are the scientifically proven cause of global warming, but because they could be responsible. Yet I dislike the Kyoto approach, since I believe it does not address the real issue. In fact, complying with the Kyoto treaty might lull us into thinking we had taken a valuable step, when in fact a substantially different direction is needed.”

Of course, I highlight this article because for a while now we’ve also been “unusual” in making a case for a third way on climate policy. But perhaps the realities of the climate debate are turning the unusual third (and fourth, etc. ..) ways into options at least worth discussing.

Joke Waller-Hunter, Executive Secretary, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change writes in the OECD observer, “I must admit to being surprised at some experts and leaders – including at the OECD – who argue that we should focus more on adaptation, because the Kyoto Protocol would not solve the climate change problem. Yet, no one has ever claimed that the Kyoto Protocol would achieve that.” But isn’t this exactly why adaptation is needed to complement mitigation policies on climate change? Waller-Hunter even notes, “Helping countries to adapt to climate change has become a key component of overall climate change policy, but much remains to be done to implement it, in such areas as infrastructure development and land management.” As economist William Nordhaus once said, “mitigate we might, adapt we must.”

A new Rand report
relates that Univeristies, and their medical schools in particular, have been doing quite well in recent years in raising research funds:

” … between FY 1996 and FY 2002, total federal R&D funds going to universities and colleges grew from $12.8 billion to $21.4 billion, for an overall increase of 45.7 percent in constant 1996 dollars. The level of increase in federal R&D funds going to universities and colleges between FY 1996 and FY 2002 was more than double the overall increase in total federal R&D funds during the same period in constant 1996 dollars (i.e., 45.7 percent versus 20.9 percent).

(more…)

Imagine this — you pull up to a gas station and you see labels on each pump identifying where the gasoline originated: “100% Saudi Arabian” or “50% Venezuelan, 50% Gulf of Mexico” or “100% Alaskan.” Such labels would allow consumers to express their preferences with their wallets and would allow different oil companies to differentiate their products by country-of-origin.

(more…)

The U.S. Climate Change Science Program Coordination Office in Washington, DC, seeks an individual to work directly with senior Federal officials to plan and implement program communications efforts and to promote and staff a Communications Interagency Working Group (CIWG). Via CIWG, the candidate will set and define both short- and long-term communications and outreach goals and objectives by framing, drafting, and executing a Communications Implementation Plan. The individual will have significant editorial license to maintain and improve the Global Change Research and Information Office web site (gcrio.org) content and services. Expertise with both digital and print media required. Professional writing sample to be requested of interviewees.

Requires Master’s degree in relevant disciplines(s) and at least 6 years of relevant experience, or an equivalent combination of education and experience. Requires at least 2 years of experience in climate and global change and environmental policy issues. Must have ability to communicate effectively with both technical and lay audiences. Requires ability and willingness to travel occasionally.

View detailed job description here.

Initial consideration will be given to applications received prior to 5/21/2004. Thereafter, applications will be reviewed on an as-needed basis. Apply online or send a scannable resume to 3065 Center Green Drive, Boulder, CO 80301. (Reference job #4134). We value diversity.

From a forthcoming essay of mine in Issues in Science and Technology:

“Believe it or not, the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), focused on international policy, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), focused on scientific assessments in support of the FCCC, use different definitions of climate change. The two definitions are not compatible, certainly not politically and perhaps not even scientifically. This lack of coherence has contributed to the current international stalemate on climate policy, a stalemate that matters because climate change is real and actions are needed to improve energy policies and to reduce the vulnerability of people and ecosystems to climate effects.”

Read the whole thing.

In 2000, a colleague of ours, Dan Sarewitz, wrote an essay titled “Science and Environmental Policy: An Excess of Objectivity” in which he argued,

“Science is sufficiently rich, diverse, and Balkanized to provide comfort and support for a range of subjective, political positions on complex issues such as climate change, nuclear waste disposal, acid rain, or endangered species.”

(more…)

An interesting article about the limitations to regional climate predictions and corresponding irreducible uncertainty:

Nature 428, 593 (08 April 2004); doi:10.1038/428593a
Modellers deplore ’short-termism’ on climate
By QUIRIN SCHIERMEIER

“Projections of climate change in, say, Florida or the Alps carry more political weight than vague warnings about global warming. And for almost two decades, specialists in regional climate assessment have sought to make such projections.

(more…)