Scientists get hysterical whenever anyone questions their authority, pokes fun at them, doesn’t take them seriously. They also tend to be incredibly ignorant about the processes by which political debates get played out, public opinion gets formed, etc. And they are apparently oblivious about the connections between their own work as scientists, and their value commitments as citizens and human beings. When the problem of climate change gets overblown or distorted in movies or by environmental groups, are the same scientists who are freaking out about Crichton’s goofy book decrying distortions in the other direction? There seems to be no awareness (or at least no acknowledgement) that the reason Crichton’s book is galling is not because he distorts the science (if this were the case, almost every science fiction book would create collective apoplexy), but because the scientist-critics don’t like his politics. From this perspective, Crichton and his scientist-critics both labor under the same fallacy: that science dictates action in the world. It doesn’t.

Michael Crichton’s new book, “State of Fear,” is a lampoon of environmentalists and a crusade against climate change science. According to Andy Revkin in today’s New York Times, one environmental group in the book “sends agents in Prius hybrid cars to kill foes with bites from blue-ringed octopuses carried in sandwich bags.” (Maybe I should try this during my next faculty meeting!)

Climate scientists concerned about the impact of the book are probably damned if they do and damned if they don’t. If they ignore Crichton, his evidently anti-science message wins — through the sheer power of his celebrity. If they publiclly rebut him on the merits of the case, they further publicize the book (already second on Amazon’s best seller list). And he wins again because of his celebrity.

So, any opinions about “State of Fear” and how scientists should respond to it?

— Tom Yulsman, Center for Environmental Journalism

Roger Pielke responds:

Does it really have to come to this?

In today’s New York Times, climate scientist James Hansen criticizes novelist Michael Crichton for “pretending.” Is this really how the climate science community wants to engage this issue? Take a close look; we are seeing glimpses of where the scientific enterprise is headed — “The Day After Tomorrow” vs. Michael Crichton. And don’t kid yourself into believing that science will in the end dominate any public, political debate — movie makers and novelists will always be more compelling to the public than scientists. What is at risk here is more than just political outcomes over climate change.

A quote worth emphasizing:

“In the resulting media contest [over science] between competing authorities, it is not possible to tell whether science or politics is speaking. We then lose both the power of science and the credibility of democratic process.”

Kantrowitz, A., 1994. Elitism vs. checks and balances in communicating scientific information to the public. Risk: Health, Saf. Environ. 101

Kerry McEvilly writes to us, “Do you think that maybe it’s time to re-establish the OTA [Office of Technology Assessment] to add some semblance of continuity in what our elected leaders are getting in the way of science policy advice?”

To answer we’ve asked Paul Komor, former OTA policy analyst and Project Director, and Rad Byerly, former chief of staff of the House Science Committee, for their responses.

The full responses follow, but first a couple excerpts.

Dr. Komor states, “OTA’s demise was not the result of careful deliberation, a thoughtful comparison of costs and benefits, or defeat by its political enemies. Rather, it was largely being in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

And Dr. Byerly says, “In the main Congress is a reactive institution; it does not take up a subject until it is an issue needing attention, which often means that Members and interest group are already choosing sides.”

The full-text follows and feel free to leave comments:

Kerry D. McEvilly writes:

I do not seek to submit an article so much as a question.

Much, far to much I sometimes fear, has been made of the Executive Branch skewing science policy for political or ideological purposes as of late.

One persistent critic in this chorus, among others on Capitol Hill, seems to be Rep. Waxman in the House, and in that chamber especially the differences between science and science policy is becoming increasingly blurred and politicized.

With each side of the aisle receiving partisan advice from such disparate advocacy organizations as AEI and UCS, it seems there isn’t anything close to a common discourse on issues such as embryonic stem cell and climate change research.

Do you think that maybe it’s time to re-establish the OTA to add some semblance of continuity in what our elected leaders are getting in the way of science policy advice?

I know that the legislation authorizing OTA has never been repealed and it seems that every session Rep. Holt and Rep. Boehlert introduce legislation to resurrect it, but obviously it would have to be a somewhat different entity to survive the Class of ’94’s hostility.

Presuming you even think it would be a good idea to reauthorize OTA, how would you reorganize or reform it to get it past the residual hostility it provoked in some members, garner the necessary votes in the House (a pilot proposal cleared the Senate in 2001) and into the next Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill?

Paul Komor responds:

Proposed legislation to reinstate the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) has become almost an annual tradition. In addition, there’s been a steady stream of articles from academics and think tanks calling for a reinstatement of OTA (For the latest, see here. ).

However the proposed legislation never seems to make it out of committee, and the many pro-OTA articles never get much attention. Why the apparent mismatch between intentions and reality?

First, arguments about whether OTA was politically biased or ineffective are largely off the point. OTA was the unfortunate sacrificial victim of the 1995 budget fight. The House of Representatives’ class of 1994, led by then-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA), had ambitious plans to drastically shrink government. To demonstrate their commitment, they cut the Legislative branch budget as well – which included eliminating OTA. OTA’s demise was not the result of careful deliberation, a thoughtful comparison of costs and benefits, or defeat by its political enemies. Rather, it was largely being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Second, OTA’s demise, and the repeated failure of attempts to reinstate it, reflect the public-good-like nature of its work. OTA was a Congressional support agency, with a mission of informing Congressional members and staff about science and technology issues. OTA’s ultimate goal of “better policy” is a worthy one, but one without direct constituents (other than the small group of academics and intellectuals who write articles calling for OTA’s reinstatement).

Congress is typically (and unfortunately) driven by need, rather than by foresight. There’s no short-term perceived need for a new OTA, no influential constituent or Member of Congress with a concentrated interest in a new OTA, and no groundswell of popular support for a new OTA. As a result, although few will argue against a new OTA, even fewer will invest political capital in an idea that benefits everyone a little but no one a lot.

Finally, this is not to say that OTA was perfect. Our reports were, almost without exception, well written, objective, and thoughtful. (I spent 6 years at OTA, as a policy analyst and Project Director). But we could have done better at meeting Congress’ needs. Our reports were sometimes late, usually much too long, and often inconclusive. The more fundamental problem was that we hired too many people like me – academics, motivated by intellectual curiosity and a need to get all the data in before drawing any conclusions. We needed more of a private sector consultant culture: where schedules and deadlines are seen as imperatives rather than suggestions, clients’ needs come first, and findings are more important than research methods.

Rad Byerly responds:

McEvilly’s letter contains its own answer to his question about resurrecting OTA: Resurrection will be difficult due to “residual hostility” to advice on issues such as stem cell research and climate change research, and of course teaching evolution vs. creation. To a much greater degree and extent than anytime in recent history, the three branches of the Federal government are driven by religious faith in a truth higher than science, so that to this degree and extent no science advice is needed or wanted. Reform of OTA is thus irrelevant.

Eventually this will change, the government will be more balanced, and perhaps OTA can then be resurrected. Let’s consider one important difficulty OTA faced.

In the main Congress is a reactive institution; it does not take up a subject until it is an issue needing attention, which often means that Members and interest group are already choosing sides. OTA got its “assignments” from the Congress, and so typically could not initiate a study until it was on Congress’ agenda. OTA’s study process was slow relative to the speed with which issues became polarized and Members took positions. Not always, but often, OTA’s studies arrived in a Congress that had mostly made up its mind, usually agreeing to disagree, and technical arguments typically were not strong enough to change votes.

What might be done differently? Could we develop a process to get ahead of issues? Perhaps. We did foresee the existence of ethical, legal, and social issues in the Human Genome Project, at least enough to fund some research on them. OTA could have established a parallel effort. Assuming the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository moves ahead, in several decades we will face a decision on whether to “close” it, essentially to abandon it to passive management. When and if we come to that decision the waste will have been emplaced and the repository will have been activity monitored for a period. The issue will be whether to change to a lower, i.e., cheaper, level of management; a passive management. The fear is that, de facto, it will be forgotten. OTA could begin soon (i.e., when/if lawsuits conclude and progress begins again) to prepare for the decision, perhaps for years mainly only putting information about the repository and related matters into a secure database. Another area: OTA might develop long-term projects to evaluate activities, e.g., in elementary education, whose ultimate success cannot be measured in less than a decade or two. The point here is that Members might support such efforts that would bear fruit for a future Congress.

Establishing this new kind of OTA would be difficult, but not impossible. It would not be necessary to change the nature of Congress, only to get several farsighted Members committed to some vision like this. The whole Congress would not have to act, to take a vote, on the issues themselves, only to fund relatively cheap preparations for the time in the distant future when the issues ripen.