Comments on: Sarewitz in American Scientist http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3736 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: hank http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3736&cpage=1#comment-3134 hank Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:04:18 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3736#comment-3134 Perhaps the point is simply that a statistical risk is not sufficient to allow any government regulation, and that a person's freedom to take risks means the government has no role in limiting activities that, statistically, only raise any individual's personal risks slightly? To exaggerate the point, are we hearing all this climate argument as an expression of an underlying argument that, even if government can forbid shooting yourself or someone else, government if done properly can't forbid you or your friends from getting together to play Russian Roulette (perhaps government can require that the number of players must be one fewer than the number of bullets in the gun)? This would I think boil down to an argument against government involvement in many activities, perhaps based on pure capitalist market ideals? The evidence, I suggest, is copious. Example: http://m-i-n-a.org/fr080900.htm "... the Defense Supply Center ... found its inventory contained over 30 million ``bogus'' fasteners and Army depots contained another 2.6 million counterfeit fasteners. Similarly, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) found substandard fasteners in space shuttle equipment and six of its fastener vendors were found to have inadequate quality control systems." "As a result of the evidence presented at these hearings, Congress enacted the FQA in 1990.... the law requires persons who manufacture and sell fasteners covered by the Act to, among other things, assure that they meet applicable standards and specifications through laboratory testing. ... " "... Major concerns over this law's potential burden on the fastener industry delayed the Department of Commerce's implementation of final regulations for nearly a decade." "A manufacturer's costs for laboratory testing--on a per fastener basis--increase as the quantity of fasteners sold decreases.... And the problem persists today: http://www.anl.gov/Media_Center/Argonne_News/2005/an050411.htm#story3 It seems to me to come down to whether something that's only a statistical risk, not a certainty, is legitimately a risk people can try to control for themselves through government action. Perhaps the point is simply that a statistical risk is not sufficient to allow any government regulation, and that a person’s freedom to take risks means the government has no role in limiting activities that, statistically, only raise any individual’s personal risks slightly?

To exaggerate the point, are we hearing all this climate argument as an expression of an underlying argument that, even if government can forbid shooting yourself or someone else, government if done properly can’t forbid you or your friends from getting together to play Russian Roulette (perhaps government can require that the number of players must be one fewer than the number of bullets in the gun)?

This would I think boil down to an argument against government involvement in many activities, perhaps based on pure capitalist market ideals?

The evidence, I suggest, is copious. Example:

http://m-i-n-a.org/fr080900.htm

“… the Defense Supply Center … found its inventory contained over 30 million “bogus”
fasteners and Army depots contained another 2.6 million counterfeit fasteners. Similarly, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) found substandard fasteners in space shuttle equipment and six of its fastener vendors were found to have inadequate quality control
systems.”
“As a result of the evidence presented at these hearings, Congress enacted the FQA in 1990…. the law requires persons who manufacture and sell fasteners covered by the Act to, among other things, assure that they meet applicable standards and specifications through laboratory testing. … ”

“… Major concerns over this law’s potential burden on the fastener industry delayed the Department of Commerce’s implementation of final regulations for nearly a decade.”

“A manufacturer’s costs for laboratory testing–on a per fastener basis–increase as the quantity of fasteners sold decreases….

And the problem persists today:

http://www.anl.gov/Media_Center/Argonne_News/2005/an050411.htm#story3

It seems to me to come down to whether something that’s only a statistical risk, not a certainty, is legitimately a risk people can try to control for themselves through government action.

]]> By: Eli Rabett http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3736&cpage=1#comment-3133 Eli Rabett Tue, 21 Feb 2006 04:09:48 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3736#comment-3133 It strikes me that Saweritz's arguments verge on deconstructionism and post-modern literary criticism. Nothing can be known, everything is perception. It strikes me that Saweritz’s arguments verge on deconstructionism and post-modern literary criticism. Nothing can be known, everything is perception.

]]> By: hank http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3736&cpage=1#comment-3132 hank Sun, 19 Feb 2006 18:04:30 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3736#comment-3132 Isn't this no more than the political "anti-government-nanny" argument that nobody cahn tell you what to do even for everyone's good? Lead, asbestos, chlorofluorocarbons, tobacco, mercury, particulates -- lots of money got made before regulation, to produce enough statistics from the population to do science and understand problems with those industries. Public health isn't perfect but it's been driving policy changes based on good science for as many decades as we've had good science. Yes science is very new as a source of push for political decisions. But the track record of using science to drive politics is pretty good. And the track record of using politics to 'steer' science is dismal. Isn’t this no more than the political “anti-government-nanny” argument that nobody cahn tell you what to do even for everyone’s good?

Lead, asbestos, chlorofluorocarbons, tobacco, mercury, particulates — lots of money got made before regulation, to produce enough statistics from the population to do science and understand problems with those industries.

Public health isn’t perfect but it’s been driving policy changes based on good science for as many decades as we’ve had good science. Yes science is very new as a source of push for political decisions. But the track record of using science to drive politics is pretty good. And the track record of using politics to ’steer’ science is dismal.

]]> By: kevin http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3736&cpage=1#comment-3131 kevin Wed, 15 Feb 2006 22:58:21 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3736#comment-3131 I really hope Dan picked that Florida2000 picture of the guy with the mag glass. I really hope Dan picked that Florida2000 picture of the guy with the mag glass.

]]> By: Ben http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3736&cpage=1#comment-3130 Ben Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:48:26 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3736#comment-3130 One reason why science is often a misused tool on either side of a political debate is that scientists are rarely in universal agreement on any particular subject. If you are a politician you will have no problem finding a PhD to suggest that a)CO2 doesn't cause global warming, b)CO2 is responsible for almost all global warming, c)nuclear power is safe, d)nuclear power is a great threat to all life on this planet, e)embryonic stem cells will cure everything from diabetes to cancer, f)ESCs won't ever cure anything, g)life evolved from primordial soup of chemicals, h)life is so complex that it necessitates a designer, etc. Two scientists can look at the same data and draw two different conclusions. As long as scientists are allowed to differ with the establishment (no matter what their reasons for doing so) science, and the contradictory opinions of scientists, will be used and abused to lead and mislead the public. This is democracy. One reason why science is often a misused tool on either side of a political debate is that scientists are rarely in universal agreement on any particular subject. If you are a politician you will have no problem finding a PhD to suggest that a)CO2 doesn’t cause global warming, b)CO2 is responsible for almost all global warming, c)nuclear power is safe, d)nuclear power is a great threat to all life on this planet, e)embryonic stem cells will cure everything from diabetes to cancer, f)ESCs won’t ever cure anything, g)life evolved from primordial soup of chemicals, h)life is so complex that it necessitates a designer, etc.
Two scientists can look at the same data and draw two different conclusions. As long as scientists are allowed to differ with the establishment (no matter what their reasons for doing so) science, and the contradictory opinions of scientists, will be used and abused to lead and mislead the public. This is democracy.

]]>