Johns Hopkins Magazine has a lengthy and excellent article on recent debate on politics and science and its impact on researchers at Johns Hopkins. The article includes a very interesting description of the effort of a few members of Congress and a conservative advocacy group to strip NIH funding for a few research projects focused on topics that they disagreed with. Here are few excerpts from the article and my commentary:

“For more than two years, NIH has been under serious political pressure to justify, and in some cases discontinue, its support of research in areas problematic to social and religious conservatives, pressure that is unprecedented, according to many scientists and science advocates”

The article then suggests that the process of peer-review of individual proposals is guided only by science:

“Central to the process [of allocating NIH research funds] is objective evaluation solely on a proposal’s scientific merit. Politics, philosophy, religious doctrine – none are supposed to sway the selection of approved applications. Scientists, not politicians or political appointees or advocacy groups or lobbyists, decide who gets funded.”

This statement may well be true at the panel evaluation level, but up the food chain the processes of allocating research funds to NIH and across different programs in NIH is very political, and this is as it should be. People with diseases and their representatives advocate for more research to their cause, and NIH itself argues for more funds in the budget process based on the societal benefits expected from the research. To suggest that NIH decision making is “objective” or guided only by scientists is to play right into the hands of those who say that societal values should play a larger role in decisions about science.

This point is clear in a few quotes in the article from floor debate in the House in 2003:

(more…)

Science & Technology in Society:
An Interdisciplinary Graduate Student Conference

Sponsored by:
The National Science Foundation George Mason University
The George Washington University
Virginia Polytechnic Institute

When: April 23rd – 24th, 2005
Where: American Association for the Advancement of Science Headquarters, Washington, DC
Abstract Deadline: January 31st, 2005

This annual conference provides a forum for ideas on theory and application of science and technology (S&T) as components of global society. Graduate students from a variety of disciplinary and interdisciplinary programs are invited to present their research on S&T in contexts ranging from local to global, public to private, micro- to macro-scale, speculative to legal, and history to future. In addition to presenting papers, students will have the opportunity to interact with each other and prominent scholars and professionals related to their field(s) of interest. Previous speakers have included Daniel Kleinman, Sandra Harding, and Al Tiech, just to name a few. We expect to draw scholars of similar caliber for the upcoming conference.

The conference organizing committee welcomes submissions of abstracts (up to 250 words) for a 10-15 minute presentation. Abstracts need to be submitted via email to stglobal@vt.edu by January 31st, 2005. Acceptance of abstracts will be given by March 1st, 2005. Final papers will potentially be included on the conference website. We seek submissions from graduate students studying topics related, but not limited to the role of S&T in the following thematic areas:

(more…)

Recently we discussed actions of the director of the IPCC and political advocacy, “If the IPCC’s role is indeed to act as an honest broker, then it would seem to make sense that its leadership ought not blur that role by endorsing, tacitly or otherwise, the agendas of particular groups. There are plenty of appropriate places for political advocacy on climate change, but the IPCC does not seem to me to be among those places.”

Well a recent story from the Environmental News Network suggests that R. K. Pachauri, Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has continued to engage in political advocacy. Here is an except from the story:

“Although saved recently with Russian help, the Kyoto pact on global warming offers too little to arrest climate change and governments should adopt more radical solutions, the top U.N. climate expert said. “My feeling is that we will probably need to do more than most people are talking about” to combat climate change, said Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He welcomed ratification of the Kyoto pact by Russia’s lower house of parliament, paving the way for the long-delayed 1997 accord to enter into force in the 126 nations that approved it, even though the world’s greatest polluter, the United States, pulled out in 2001. “This mustn’t lull us into thinking that the problem is solved,” Pachauri said. “Kyoto is not enough. We now have to look at the problem afresh.” Kyoto is a first step towards curbing emissions of gases like carbon dioxide, mainly from burning fossil fuels, that scientists blame for trapping heat in the atmosphere like the panes of glass in a greenhouse. Rising concentrations could melt icecaps, swamp low-lying coastal regions, and trigger catastrophic changes to the planet’s climate with more volatile weather from typhoons to droughts. Pachauri urged the world to shift strategy from Kyoto’s reduction targets for greenhouse gases to long-term global targets on how much of the gases the atmosphere should contain.”

Perhaps most troubling is that Dr. Pachauri explicitly linked his work under the IPCC to efforts in support of political advocacy:

“Pachauri leads work to produce a 2007 U.N. climate report based on research by more than 2,000 scientists, updating a 2001 assessment that concluded there was “new and stronger evidence” that human activities were to blame for rising temperatures. “My hope is that this (2007 report) will be able to fill gaps, reduce uncertainties, and produce a much stronger message,” said Pachauri, who is based in New Delhi.”

These statements echo similar comments made by Dr. Pachauri in 2002 following his appointment as IPCC Director:

“There was a need for a dialogue on what commitments nations should make in a second wave after Kyoto, he said. “I think that the science must provide a compelling reason and a logic to take those steps, and this is what I hope the IPCC will be able to do in the future,” he added.”

If the IPCC exists solely to motivate action on a particular policy alternative, then it risks becoming an instrument of marketing for decisions already made. This is a long way from where the IPCC was in 1990 when its Working Group III operated under a mandate to empower decision makers by “lay[ing] out as fully and fairly as possible a set of response policy options to global climate change and the factual basis for those options.” It is not at all clear what options on mitigation and adaptation are available for dealing with climate change in the post-Kyoto period, much less their relative costs and benefits, and if the IPCC determines what option should be advocated prior to an open and informed discussion, then it risks morphing into just another interest group selling a preferred solution on climate change, and in the process frittering away its science-based authority and legitimacy.

Folks in the IPCC ought to think carefully about continuing down the path of abandoning their role as honest broker.

Writing in The Guardian a few days ago, Ian Sample has an interesting article on the role that many scientists have taken in this year’s presidential election. He writes,

“The build-up to next week’s US election has seen a strange transformation take place in the world of science. The traditional strategy of keeping heads well down when it comes to politics has given way to outright activism. More scientists than ever have waded into the electoral fray, pegging their allegiance firmly to the Democratic presidential candidate, John Kerry.

To many, the mobilisation of scientists in favour of Kerry is inevitable, a consequence of the Bush administration’s policies on stem cells and climate change. But some scientists believe that by aligning itself so strongly with a particular party, science may have set itself up for a fall. “When the community gets on the political bandwagon, they lose control of how the facts are used,” says a source within the US National Academy of Sciences, speaking on condition of anonymity.”

Sample raises an interesting question: What happens when the favored political candidate misuses science?

(more…)

Applications are invited for a tenure track position (Assistant Professor) within the Department of Philosophy and Religion Studies, to begin fall of 2005.

AOS: Environmental Philosophy/Ethics and/or Religion and Nature/Ecology.

AOC: Open, but the department has needs in the philosophy of science, aesthetics, and logic. The department, the leading program in environmental philosophy in the United States, seeks a dynamic individual who is interested in exploring how their area of expertise intersects with contemporary cultural and societal issues. Experience and/or interest in working with scientists and engineers, policy analysts, is desirable. Normal teaching load is 2-2.

Qualifications include a Ph.D. by August 1, 2005. The department offers a MA in philosophy with a concentration in environmental ethics, a BA in philosophy, and an interdisciplinary minor in religion studies. It is awaiting approval of a PhD in philosophy.

Located in the Dallas-Ft Worth Metroplex, the university has more than 31,000 students.

Review of applications begins December 1, and will continue until position is filled. Please send letter of application, C.V., and a list of references to Philosophy Search Committee, Department of Philosophy and Religion Studies, University of North Texas, P.O. Box 310920, Denton, TX 76201-0920. Information about the department can be found at www.phil.unt.edu, and inquiries are welcome at 940-565-2134 or philosophy@unt.edu. UNT is an AA/ADA/EOE committed to diversity.