Science Allows Ideology-Free Policy
March 10th, 2009Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
In a much anticipated move, President Obama yesterday rolled back Bush Administration policies governing the funding of stem cell research (discussed by Ryan yesterday). Liberals applauded and conservatives frowned. In an excellent article, Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the New York Times characterizes the move accurately:
President Obama’s directive on Monday to “guarantee scientific integrity” in federal policy making could have a far-reaching impact, affecting issues as varied as climate change, national security, protection of endangered species and children’s health.
But it will not divorce science from politics, or strip ideology from presidential decisions.
This perspective is absolutely correct, and is actually consistent with what the Obama Administration has done, as noted by Ryan yesterday. Yet some dissonance remains in how many scientists view the action. For instance, in Stolberg’s article, Alan Leshner of AAAS is reported to have these incoherent views:
“We’re not dumb — we know that policy is made on the basis of facts and values,” said Alan I. Lesher, chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and a former director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse under President Bill Clinton and, briefly, Mr. Bush.
But by asserting “the centrality of science to every issue of modern life,” Dr. Lesher said, Mr. Obama is suggesting that science rather than ideology will be the foundation for his decision making. “What you are seeing now is both a response to the last eight years, and a genuine reaction to President Obama’s enthusiasm for science,” he said.
Ideology, I suppose, is something that those other guys have. These sentiments, and those reported yesterday by Ryan, are incoherent.
With Obama calling for guidance on science in politics from his science advisor John Holdren within the next 120 days, the subject is sure to reemerge. How the Obama Administration deals with this issue will be interesting to see.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:06 am
President bush stopped federal funding for harvesting human embryos for research on moral grounds.
President Obama has now allowed harvesting human embryos for research on scientific grounds.
Does that mean that it is now public policy to substitute science for morality in policy decisions?
March 10th, 2009 at 7:40 am
Scientific Consensus, and equally important engineering consensus relative to implementation methods and procedures, exists for the following.
1. Nuclear irradiation of all food would save lives and at the same time reduce the resources needed, and associated undesirable environmental impacts, to produce foodstuffs by the significant reduction in food wastes.
2. Nuclear power is at present the best alternative fuel source for displacement of fossil fueled base-loaded electricity production.
3. Genetically modified food crops have the same benefits as listed in 1 above.
4. Use of biomass crops to reduce consumption of oil for transportation has very significant adverse impacts on the environment and more importantly on human populations through higher costs for food necessary for health and safety.
5. The proper use of DDT can very significantly reduce unnecessary deaths in less-developed countries.
6. Development of lesser-developed countries through easy access to abundant electricity will very significantly reduce unnecessary deaths while at the same time reduce unnecessary use and destruction of natural resources.
I eagerly await science-based implementation of all these as policies supported by the present administration.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:44 am
re: #1
This article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/science/10lab.html?_r=1&ref=science
Says:
“Restrictions on embryonic stem cell research originated with Congress, which, each year since in [sic] 1996, has forbidden the use of federal financing for any experiment in which a human embryo is destroyed. This includes the derivation of human stem cell lines from surplus fertility clinic embryos, first achieved by Dr. James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin in 1998.
President Clinton contemplated but never implemented a policy that would have allowed N.I.H.-financed researchers to study human embryonic stem cells derived by others. Research was able to begin only in August 2001, when President Bush, seeking a different way around the Congressional restriction, said researchers could use any lines established before that date.”
March 10th, 2009 at 10:09 am
EDaniel, you must have a different definition of “consensus” than me.
#1. I don’t know that I’ve ever read credible suggest that we should be irradiating “all food”.
#2. You must have never talked to anyone who preferred geothermal or hydropower. And there are actually people who, even *today*, prefer wind and solar.
#3. Not true. Depends on the type of modification. Bt-corn needs less pesticides than regular corn, but RoundupReady soybeans can withstand MORE pesticides than regular soybeans.
#4. Not many people think this. For example, in 2005 the Departments of Agriculture and Energy issued a joint report estimating > 1 billion tons of non-food sustainably harvestable biomass existed in the US.
Can you offer any evidence at all of a “consensus” on these points? Keep in mind linking to a single report or paper will not be enough; I am not arguing that no one has the views you list, just that the number of people who do is far short of a “consensus”.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:34 am
We had a long debate about this within my work and professional society communities.. about the term “science-based policy” or science as the “foundation” as Dr. Lesher calls it. We talked about policy being “informed by science” but not “based on science.” Perhaps that is just semantics..
The other issue we talked about was what do we mean by “science”? We were writing a regulation and I suggested substituting “scientific information.” My colleague refused, saying that science includes theories and ideas of (guess who?) scientists.
I think we need to be careful because we may not share interpretations of what “foundation” or “based on” means, nor what “science” means.
Also I used to work in the GE food world, and to me the difference is fundamentally not about science- that people weigh the risks and the rewards differently (not that they disagree on what ARE the risks and rewards) and that there are many areas of uncertainty, and pros vs. cons generally disagree on how to handle the uncertainties.
March 14th, 2009 at 8:48 am
Stem Cells and Science (Policy) Fiction:…
I’ve had a busy travel and writing week, so I did not have time to comment on President Obama’s stem cell policy announcement and accompanying statement on the “restoration” of “scientific integrity to government decision-making…….