Political Advocacy and the Ethics of Resigning
February 12th, 2006Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
At the core of the debate over NASA and NOAA policies for the interaction of scientists with the media lies an implicit and ill-defined distinction between discussions of science and discussions of policy. Most discussions of Dr. Hansen have glossed over the distinction between his right to speak out and his fundamental disagreement with the policies of the U.S. government. Is there a point at which Dr. Hansen, or other government officials in similar situation, have an obligation to resign? The answer is that it is complicated.
Democratic government would be impossible without career government employees whose duty it is to carry out the laws and policies put into place by the properly elected representatives of the people. But is reality, career government employees have considerable discretion in their duties and are key factors in recommending and implementing policy. The debate over James Hansen has thus far failed to engage these complicated issues, falling back on the worn, but safe science-policy distinction.
For example, Michael Griffin, NASA administrator, released a statement on said “I encourage scientists to conduct peer-reviewed research and provide the honest results of those findings.” What is unsaid by NOAA and NASA here is how scientists should manage discussing policy issues when they are in political opposition to the current policies of the U.S. government, which is really at the core of the debate of NASA and NOAA.
A news story from Australia helps to frame the challenge:
A FORMER CSIRO senior scientist and internationally recognised expert on climate change claims he was reprimanded and encouraged to resign after he spoke out on global warming. . . Dr Pearman says he fell out with his CSIRO superiors after joining the Australian Climate Group, an expert lobby group convened by the Insurance Australia Group and environment body WWF in late 2003. A core aim of the group was to encourage Australian political leaders to consider carbon trading — where industry pollution is capped and there are financial incentives to reduce emissions — and other measures including a target to reduce greenhouse gases by 60 per cent by 2050. The Federal Government has said it will not pursue carbon trading at this stage. It accepts that global warming is real and poses a threat to the Australian environment, but does not support mandatory targets for reducing carbon emissions. Dr Pearman, who headed the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research for 10 years until 2002, said he was admonished by his Canberra superiors for “making public expressions of what I believed were scientific views, on the basis that they were deemed to be political views”.
What is political advocacy anyway? Political advocacy refers to efforts to reduce the scope of choice available to decision makers, typically to some desired course of action. In the case above, Dr. Pearman was not only acting as a political advocate in arguing for carbon trading, he actively joined groups whose mission was overt political advocacy. For his part, Dr. Pearman doesn’t seem to recognize what political advocacy actually is stating, “In 33 years (with CSIRO), I don’t think I had ever felt I was political in that sense. I’ve worked with ministers and prime ministers from both parties over a long period of time, and in all cases I think I’ve tried to draw a line between fearless scientific advice about issues and actual policy development, which I think is in the realm of government.” The article does not say how active Dr. Pearman was in his political advocacy, but it is conceivable that his advocacy actions were in direct conflict with his duties as a government employee and as such it would be entirely appropriate to ask him to leave. (Much the same if a conscientious objector objected to a war. Rather than force them to fight or allow them to block implementation it would be appropriate to relieve them of their government duties.)
James Hansen has clearly engaged in political advocacy unrelated to his expertise on climate when he came out in support of John Kerry, when he criticized the role of special interests he disagrees with influencing the Bush Administration, and when he offered some comparisons to NOAA press policy, “It seems more like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union than the United States.” And James Hansen also engaged in political advocacy related to his expertise when he called for the U.S. government to act on reducing greenhouse gases. All of this seems quite obvious.
Let me emphasize that I think that Dr. Hansen should be able to do all of these things, provided that he is clear that he is offering his opinions and they differ from those of his employer, the government of the United States. He did exactly this in a recent speech,
Hansen prefaced his speech, which focused largely on how quickly humans must act in order to prevent irreversible climate change, by saying he was speaking as an individual. “I’m not speaking for the agency or the government,” he said.
But at the same time it is important to recognize how government works in the United States, and most democracies. Far reaching national policies are set by the duly elected representatives of the people, and not unelected government bureaucrats. Governance would be impossible if every government employee sought to implement policies according to their own personal beliefs. As Sobel writes in an excellent article titled “The Ethics of Resigning,”
All senior leaders, whether appointed or career, serve in an administration and for a principle with broader responsibilities. These officials have special obligations to protect and support their principal and administration as the mechanism of democratic accountability in government. They have strong implicit obligations to stay within the policy framework of their administration and not undermine their principal.
Dr. Hansen has every right to disagree with the policies of the U.S. government. But at some point, Dr. Hansen and others in government positions have to decide where their allegiances lie – do they want to work for the government and help to implement those policies that, for better or worse, are the result of the messy process of democracy? Or do they want to throw their efforts behind the aims of special interest groups who are seeking particular political outcomes? There is indeed a choice to be made as they cannot effectively do both. And sometimes, the ethically correct choice in a democracy is to resign and take the honorable position of outspoken political advocate.
J. P. Dobel argues that the decision to resign from a government position has positives and negatives, among them,
. . . resignation can help ensure accountability to democratic institutions . . . exit from an institution can signal to the public the existence of a debate over deeper or more serious issues than had been exposed in public deliberations. A public resignation with voice adds information and credibility to dissent. Like any human action, however, resignation cuts both ways and can also harm accountability. If everyone opposed to a policy exits, the institution loses its capacity for internal reform. Exits of dissenters narrow the range of options within an inner circle, encourage groupthink, and undermine the internal trust and communication needed for honest policy discussion.
Dobel argues that career officials have strong incentives not to resign,
Career officials possess strong independent moral obligations to stay and accede to legal changes in policy as they respond to democrativ accountability and defend the competence of their office. They might believe they can ameliorate the policy, leak, or whistle blow, or work to change the policy.
Bottom line from my perspective:
NASA and NOAA have an obligation to allow career scientists to express their views on science and its relationship with policy.
Career scientists have an obligation to differentiate their personal views from official government policies.
Career scientists need to look inside themselves and ask the difficult question, “If I cannot in good faith fulfill my job and its responsibilities to implement the policies of a democratic government because I disagree with those policies, do I have an ethical obligation to resign and take on a role as political advocate working to change the system?”
If democratic governance is to be possible, then for some people in some situations, the answer to this question should be “Yes.” I don’t know what the answer is for James Hansen, but it is a question that he should ask himself every day that he works to overturn U.S. government policies on climate.
Reference: J.P. Dobel, 1999. The Ethics of Resigning, Journal Policy Analysis and Management, 18:245-263.
February 12th, 2006 at 9:54 am
This may be orthogonal to the point you’re raising here, but are GISS employees NASA employees? Or is GISS, like JPL and many other federal reserach centers, managed by a contractor?
February 12th, 2006 at 10:02 am
John- Thanks, your question is on point. There are significantly different roles between government contractors and career government employees. GISS is a part of Goddard Space Flight Center, and many (though probably not all) of its employees are government employees. James Hansen is a NASA employee, not a contractor.
February 12th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
John, Roger only touches the surface. The relationship between GISS and Goddard and NASA is discussed in detail at http://tinyurl.com/ao73b or http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/02/everything-is-not-what-it-seems.html for a start. There are more details if you drill down into the various links provided including who does what with whom. It is about as simple as the limerick.
Finally, IMHO, Roger simply does not understand what is going on and is trying to jam it into his own world view. First, Hansen’s view on dealing with climate change is quite close to the current administration’s or at a minimum could be easily reconciled with it. Two, his view on what this administration is doing wrt science at NASA is quite close to Chris Mooney’s. This, of course, ticks Roger off.
Contrary to what Roger asserts, Hansen is not trying to force the administration’s policy to bend to his views. The long and the short of it is that this administration is trying to control the outcomes of NASA science studies to comport to its political views. This is a first.
February 12th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
Is the idea here that we’d have frequent changes of administration, that “U.S. Government” policy is identical to that of the current administration, and so science programs would also be cut off and new ones started each time an election resulted in a change of administration?
The alternative seems to be the rather more frightening idea that those in control of the administration, and so “U.S. Government” policy at present, will not change again, and anyone who disagrees with that, who is currently in civil service — not apponted to a political service post — should nevertheless resign.
What historical precedent is there for such a conflation of politics and science? When and where did this last happen, in world history? I thought having government professionals insulated from short-term political control was one of the triumphs of our political system.
Am I reading the wrong history books?
Seriously, why is this not terrifying as a proposal for how to do science with public funding?
February 12th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
Eli-
Thanks for your comment and the links, but I see no contradiction with what you presnted and my post.
Hansen is a government employee. Period.
Hansen’s view on climate policy is not een close to that pursed by the Bush administration except for methane policy. See the text of his AGU talk for various points of departure. This seems farily obvious.
We seem to agree that NASA and NOAA should not be shackling scientists.
You may have information that I don’t because the allegations I’ve seen do not involve the Bush folks meddling in science studies only the PR, call Andy Revkin if you know something different.
Thanks!
February 12th, 2006 at 2:06 pm
Hank-
Thanks for your comment, but I am not sure I understand your point. The Bush Administration has been a great champion of climate science spending in excess of $10 billion on it since 2001. If you have evidence of political meddling in the practice of climate science I’d of course be interested in seeing it. The allegations regarding Hansen have to do with who he can speak to, what messages are taken to the public, and with what “handling.”
Hansen’s complaint is that he is too insulated. He wants to have more of a voice in policy debate. There is no evidence nor any allegations that his ability to do research has been in any way compromised. Though I’d be interested in hearing evidence to the contrary.
Of course, I should point out that funding science is an alternative to other policy actions on climate is itself a political strategy.
February 12th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
A couple of points for clarification. Around 20 of the scientific staff at GISS work directly for NASA as civil servants (including me). The rest work for Columbia University or the contractor.
GISS’s mission is to research long term climate change, rather broadly defined, it is not to implement government policy. Thus there is no contradiction in Hansen continuing to work on climate science while disagreeing on policy.
The problem with NASA public affairs was not limited to Hansen, but also impacted the rest of us even on issues and media requests that had absolutely nothing to do with any policy questions. Simple requests to explain ‘global warming’ or discuss the difference between weather and climate were turned down by Deutsch and company, presumably because they felt the mere mention of the science was political.
February 12th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
Evidence? All I know is what I read in the news.
This sort of thing worries me, though, especially if any of the people involved are in the class you’d think should resign instead of continuing to work.
Mercury:
“Recent reports by the EPA Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office were critical of the agency for politicizing the rulemaking process by directing agency scientists to tailor the mercury rule caps to those that will be achieved under other emissions controls.”
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05075/472089.stm
I read elsewhere that the EPA’s mercury scientists felt so strongly that their research was ignored in favor of rolling back the standard for emissions, that the group told the press they will be filing a comment objecting to their own agency’s Proposed Rulemaking when it comes out in the Federal Register.
Just one example from one agency. Hansen’s public comments seem far more restrained than those from the EPA and public health scientists. I’m suggesting you take a very broad look at the actual situation.
Another news article:
“PEER filed suit under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain the surveys after EPA refused to release them. In July, EPA surrendered the surveys and paid PEER’s attorneys fees and costs.
“These survey results are the early warning signs of a scientific organization drifting toward dysfunction,” stated PEER Program Director Rebecca Roose, noting that during the Bush administration, EPA has been plagued by reports of political suppression of scientific results on issues ranging from global warming to asbestos to mercury regulation. “Thus far, ORD has chosen to mask problems by initiating an aggressive PR campaign.”
“The survey results also echo the findings from EPA’s Science Advisory Board, which warned in a draft report this April that the agency is no longer funding a credible public health research program.”
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=558
Perhaps in contrast, there’s the judge who resigned from the secret domestic surveillance court in protest — could he have said anything in public without resigning? I think that’s a different situation.
I don’t think this is a two-sided argument — more like how big or small a circle to draw on the map, starting from the center. If you move the boundary in on your particular axis, it moves in for the whole circle and coverage changes everywhere — all the agencies.
February 12th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
Hank-
Thanks for the link to the mercury info, I’ll have a look with interest.
Please read my piece again. I did not suggest that Hansen resign.
February 12th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
Hansen’s statements may not be consistent with Bush administration policies, but, if NASA’s mission includes “to understand and protect our home planet”, then Bush administration policies would appear to be inconsistent with US laws. Thank goodness for the civil service.
February 12th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
Roger, in spite of the little story you posted about your run in with NSF, you still maintain that there is nothing wrong here, move on. The point is that the level of interference is much higher in this administration and it is impacting on the science as Gavin Schmidt testifies.
I suppose by your lights Roy Spencer (of Christy and Spencer MSU proprietors) should have resigned in the 90s and been rehired this decade.
February 12th, 2006 at 5:29 pm
Eli-
Maybe go back and read some of my posts again as you have mischaracterized my views. The Bush administration may indeed be the worst abuser of science. Lets posit that as a fact. OK, with that out of the way, now what?
February 12th, 2006 at 7:57 pm
Roger,
Not to deviate too far from the subject, but this has been on my mind since your discussions on Mooney’s book.
This may seem obvious to some readers, but I am continually perplexed by claims of the abuse of science. Over the past decade, these claims appear to be increasing in frequency, and I do not understand why. From my perspective, most claims of abuse seem hollow.
With the exception of out right fraud or intentionally mischaracterizing scientific results, exactly what constitutes abuse?
From my observation, most claims of abuse are misguided, and typically result from:
1) An individual’s expectation of how science should interface with policy differing from how science actually interfaces in practice. Reliance on the linear model of science and PUS come to mind.
2) An individual’s perspective being inflexible to the possibility of multiple legitimate interpretations of the same set of facts. Typically, this leads to unjustified claims of intentionally mischaracterizing science.
What am I missing?
Best,
Dave
February 12th, 2006 at 10:14 pm
Let us discuss the case of Roy Spencer at Marshall and we can toss in Sally Baliunas at the Harvard-Smithsonian Astrophysics center. Should they have resigned their positions in the 1990s?
We could probably toss in Pat Michaels who serves as State Climatologist under Mark Warner and now Tim Kaine.
February 12th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
David-
Thanks for your comments. You don;t seem to be misisng anything. There does indeed seem to be a trend of more and more political battles being waged through science. For instance, this trend was observed by Chuck Herrick and Dale Jamieson before Bush took office in this paper:
http://www.puaf.umd.edu/IPPP/reports/Spring-Summer%20Vol21%202001/221056.pdf
I attribute the trend to at least four factors:
1) More contested political issues today have a S&T component than in the past.
2) We have far more science available than ever before, fueling what Sarewitz calls the “excess of objectivity” making it easier to wage political battles through science
3) A post-Cold War trend of demands for science to be “relevant” motivating many scientists to seek to be relevant through political advocacy
4) More scientists chasing relatively fewer dollars (even as budget have increased) creating incentives to connect science with ongoing political debates as a mechanism of promotion of their calims to research funding.
There are surely additional conditional factors at play as well.
In 2004 I taught a workshop-style course in which we sought to put some analytical rigor on this issue. What we came up with can certainly be debated, but it does add a bit of perspective. See it here:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1429-ENVS%204800%20Report.pdf
And no, unfortunately, your insights do not appear to be obvious to most readers! Thanks for the comments.
February 12th, 2006 at 10:33 pm
Eli-
Roy Spencer can speak for himself:
“I have some familiarity with these restrictions on government employees, as they were a major reason I resigned from NASA over four years ago. But back then, the shoe was on the other foot. NASA knew I was not supportive of the popular gloom-and-doom theory of global warming, and before any congressional testimony of mine on the subject, I was “reminded” that I could speak on the science, but not on policy matters.”
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=013106I
For government employees resignation is always an option when they disagree with policies that they have expertise in. Again, I am not advocating that Hansen resign (please do read my original post) but only acknowledging the reality that it should be an option on the table if he cannot reconcile his day job with his political predilections. Ultimately this is a decsion that only he can make.
Thanks for your comments.
February 13th, 2006 at 10:01 am
Now _this_ guy … well, what do you think, he and his partner owned a swamp they wanted to fill and sell as home sites (in real estate parlance, called “Big Hills”)
He was appointed in 2001 as the regional EPA head.
Here’s how he’s handling the wetlands and public health laws — which he’s testified he disagrees with:
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=527
http://web.naplesnews.com/03/10/naples/e7399a.htm
This is the big circle I’m talking about — when you start trying to define the perimeter of ethical behavior for scientists and those administering scientific agencies, this is the environment in which you’re making judgments.
February 13th, 2006 at 10:24 am
Given a history of embracing the merits of exaggeration, it hardly seems unreasonable to expect that someone isn’t insisting on some sort of oversight.
See http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/02/10/a-misinformed-public/
February 13th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
Well, Roger, if that policy doesn’t amount to a gag I’m not sure what would. Interestingly, *I* just heard from a NOAA scientist (who very much wishes to remain anonymous, not surprisingly). She/he doesn’t work directly on hurricanes, but is close enough to some of those who do to affirm that many of them do think a GW-hurricane connection has been clearly established, but are afraid to speak out about it.
February 14th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
Maybe they can talk about snowstorms?
http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkzJmZnYmVsN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2ODc5NTYxJnlyaXJ5N2Y3MTdmN3ZxZWVFRXl5Mg==
“Heavy, intense nor’easter fooled the forecasters
Monday, February 13, 2006
“It was the storm that wouldn’t let up…. The storm was unusual because it developed an eye, like a hurricane; it brought thunder and lightning and it was a snow-only event. …”
I found that looking for something I heard on the radio, saying the recent record snowstorm happened because of the “unusually warm Atlantic Ocean”
If there’s good info being withheld from the public, I suppose we’ll see signs of it showing up in the stock market and real estate and insurance industry changes. Maybe someone’s looking there, as the SEC often does when a stock price changes dramatically before information is made public.
February 14th, 2006 at 7:23 pm
A snowicane!