« October 2004 »

UCSD Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Science Studies

The UCSD Science Studies Program invites applications for a one-year postdoctoral fellowship as part of an NSF Research and Training Grant in "Proof, Persuasion and Policy." We welcome candidates in any field represented in our program (history, philosophy, sociology, communication) whose research is relevant to the theme of the grant, particularly those whose work falls in one or more of the following areas: models and prediction, methodology of the social sciences, and disease and health. The fellow will participate in the Program's weekly colloquium, teach or co-teach one course, help organize a workshop at the end of the year, and contribute to the intellectual life and activities of the program. Applicants must have completed Ph.D. before beginning their fellowship. The stipend is $40,200, plus health and other fringe benefits. For information on the UCSD Science Studies Program, and the "Proof, Persuasion, and Policy" initiative, see: http://sciencestudies.ucsd.edu/index.html.

UCSD is an AA/EOE. Scholars who are women, minorities, veterans, and/or people with disabilities are especially encouraged to apply. Applicants who are not United States citizens should state their immigration status at the time of their application. Please send a detailed letter of application, c.v., and placement file or three letters of reference, to Ms. Dawn Murphy, Science Studies Program, MC 0104, University of California-San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0104. Review of applications will begin January 1, 2005 and continue until the position is filled.

Follow Up on CRS on DQA

Earlier this month we discussed a Congressional Research Service Report on the Data Quality Act (DQA, also called the Information Quality Act - IQA).

The Center for Regulatory Effectiveness (CRE) a long-time champion of the DQA, finds fault. in the CRS discussion of the DQA’s legislative history. The CRE discussion includes this summary:

“The [CRS] report states without any caveat whatsoever:

“There were no hearings or debates on this provision and no committee reports were filed. As noted previously, the language was inserted as Section 515 of the more than 700-page Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001.”

This statement is inaccurate, misleading and not supported by the record of a five year Congressional debate. The Congressional debate surrounding passage of the DQA is presented in painstaking detail in the following sections of this note. All of the source material has been on the CRE website for a number of years.”

You can read the CRE discussion in full here.

Science Press Releases, Science Headlines

NASA’s David Morrison has a thoughtful opinion on the pressures that science agencies place upon themselves to get news coverage. He writes:

“Many observers of the science press have noted an increasing tendency for both press releases and printed stories about science topics to exaggerate the uniqueness and impact of new research. The writer of a press release does this to increase the probability that the media will cover the story, and the media reporter will go along with this hyperbole or perhaps expand it further in order to get the story approved for publication by editors or other gatekeepers.”

He observes that when this occurs it can lead to back and forth claims among different scientists:

“The coverage can produce a whipsaw effect, with different scientists successively emphasizing apparently contradictory results. Often, each story is discussed with little reference to the context or possible mitigating evidence that should soften the conclusions and make them more tentative. This is not intended as a general criticism of science reporting. There are many excellent science journalists who understand the issues and provide well-reasoned discussions of context for news stories.”

Here is a good example of an exaggerated press release, which does not even refer to new research, and from Harvard no less:

“EXPERTS TO WARN GLOBAL WARMING LIKELY TO CONTINUE SPURRING MORE OUTBREAKS OF INTENSE HURRICANE ACTIVITY
Problem Tied to Rising Sea Temperatures From Trapped Greenhouse Gases; Trend Portends More Storm Damage Costs for FL, AL, LA, TX, NC and SC.”

And here is a place where you can browse many science-related press releases.

A Report Card for President Bush's Science Policies

Earlier this week Democrats on the House Science Committee issued a "report card" on President Bush's and the Republican-controlled Congress' science policies. Not surprisingly, the Democrats give the President a "D." A passing grade, but not by much. Here is how the report card looks:

"The report, entitled Science and Technology: The Untapped American Resource, describes Democratic priorities in these areas, as well as how Republicans in the Administration and Congress have undercut scientific integrity, starved scientific funding, and failed to create effective S&T policy in eight key areas:

*Supporting Technological Innovation to Create Good-Paying Jobs - Republicans have cut key programs which assist small businesses in meeting today's technological challenges. Grade: F

*Leadership in Manufacturing - The nation's manufacturers have no effective advocate in the Bush Administration. Grade: F

*Being Good Stewards of the Nation's Space Program - The civilian space program has been dogged by indecision, false starts, and financial mismanagement. Grade: C-

*The Lack of Scientific Integrity - The use of science in setting health and environmental policy has been corrupted. Grade: D

*Reducing our Dependence on Foreign Oil - Republicans have failed to enact meaningful legislation to deal with energy dependence and record oil prices. Grade: C-

*Securing Cyberspace - There is no effective advocate in the Bush Administration for securing the computer networks which are the backbone of much of our Nation's economy and safety. Grade: D

*Protecting the Right to Vote: Standards for Voting Technologies - The Administration has ignored a 2002 law insuring the reliability of voting machines. Grade: F

*The Future of American Science and Technology - Because of Republicans' fiscal irresponsibility, funding prospects for science and technology programs over the next five years looks bleak. Grade: D"

You can access the whole report here (in PDF).

Two quick comments on the report:

1) A "C-"on space policy? Grade inflation at work here it seems. Undoubtedly this is not an "F" because the Congressional Democrats are as wrapped up in responsibility as Congressional Republicans for NASA's recent failures and current predicament.

2) The grade of "D" on "The Future of American Science and Technology" and accompanying explanation does a better job than most partisan analyses of placing responsibility for the relatively dismal projections of future funding for science and technology with larger decisions made about the federal budget, and not with decisions made specifically about research and development. However, if the report were to have given the Bush Administration a grade simply for the amount of past funding, it would have had to be an "A" given the enormous growth in federal resources devoted to science and technology. Of course an "A" in the magnitude of expenditures is not the same as an "A" in the substance of those expenditures!

Read the whole report here (in PDF).

More on Presidential Advisory Committees

Yesterday Representative Brian Baird (D-WA) sent a letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft asking for a Justice Department investigation into allegations that the Bush Administration violated the law when appointing some members to presidential science advisory panels. The allegations seem to hinge on whether or not prospective candidates to the advisory panels were asked about their political affiliation.

Baird’s letter states:

“In a letter report to me from the General Counsel of GAO, their characterization of the law surrounding the Federal Advisory Committee process suggests that the law has been broken in at least two cases at the Department of Health and Human Services. In both cases, there were press reports from scientific experts contacted by HHS officials in which those experts reported they were asked about their political affiliation or asked political litmus test questions as part of the vetting process for composing advisory panels… The questions were coming from an official in the HHS Office of White House liaison - a strange office in which to center efforts to put together experts on meaty, difficult scientific issues.

GAO Counsel notes that the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 201 et. seq. prohibits agencies from using political affiliation in selecting members for advisory committees. This law provides the legal underpinning for both the National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse and the National Advisory Council for Human Genome Research. In both cases there have been reports of political affiliation or values being used as a filter by political appointees at HHS.”

Baird’s letter is based on a GAO letter report prepared at his request on the legality of asking prospective advisory panel members about their affiliations.

My reading of the GAO report, and note that I am no lawyer, suggests the following conclusions:

1. The use of the phrase “political affiliation” by GAO may refer to specific questions about membership in a political party. It is not clear to me that this phrase encompasses questions such as ‘Do you support the president?” Baird in his letter seeks to conflate the two sorts of questions but the GAO report does not lend itself to such ambiguity using the phrase “political affiliation” throughout.

2. The GAO report clearly distinguishes the appointment of government officials from non-governmental officials. It appears that the rules against inquiring about political affiliation are much stronger in the case of government officials. The GAO report notes:

“Agencies are prohibited under the federal personnel laws from discriminating on the basis of political affiliation when considering regular federal employees in the competitive service for membership on advisory committees. Such discrimination is deemed to be a prohibited personnel practice under 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(1)(E). Federal advisory committee members generally are representative or SGE members, however, rather than regular federal employees, and 2302(b)(1)(E) generally allows agencies to ask about and consider political affiliation when selecting representative or SGE members.”

3. Finally, footnote 15 of the GAO report seems to be quite relevant here. It states in its entirety:

“As discussed in our report, the Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that committee memberships be "fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed by the advisory committee." 5 U.S.C. app. 2, 5(b)(2). The political affiliation of members of particular committees has been deemed relevant in achieving such balance. See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. 303 note (certain Federal Communications Commission advisory committee must be "fairly balanced in terms of political affiliation"); United States Coast Guard, Commandant Instruction 5420.37, Attach. 3 at 1 and 3 (Sep. 23, 1993) (political affiliation information sought for purposes of balance). See also OPM Letter, above (achieving requisite committee member balance may be difficult in some circumstances without considering political affiliation or philosophical positions).”

This suggests to me that for the most part, in the empanelment of presidential advisory panels consideration of political leanings as well as affiliations is allowed, and in some cases required. There are however several instances in which such consideration is formally off limits, particularly when the member of the panel is a government employee, and on particular panels for which such consideration is explicitly prohibited.

Off course, as we’ve written here earlier, from the standpoint of effectively connecting science and policy, it is not so much how a panel is empanelled as what it is they do in practice.

Sarewitz on California Proposition 71

In yesterday’s Los Angeles Time, ASU’s Dan Sarewitz makes the case that issues of science policy ought to trump other considerations in the debate over Proposition 71, a citizen ballot initiative that, among other things, proposes to create a $3 billion fund for stem cell research. Sarewitz observes:

“Proposition 71 would put stem cell research out of the reach of democracy — in a move that would seriously undermine the unwritten social contract that exists between government and science in this country… underpinning this contract is an understanding that scientists are accountable not just to themselves but to society, to democratic processes and, ultimately, to the public will. This core of public accountability has been good for science and for society in three important ways. First, it maintains public trust in science through transparency of the legislative process… Second, it ensures that science responds to changing public interests and values… Third, and perhaps most important, democratic accountability protects the public and the public interest from potential abuses… The last 50 years of rapidly advancing American science shows us that democracy and science can fruitfully coexist, even if the relationship is sometimes contentious. If Californians want to fund stem cell research, they could do so through legislation that preserves the balance between scientific autonomy and democratic values by providing for annual appropriation of funds and accountability to elected officials rather than vested interests. Democracy is hard, but it deserves our protection more than anything else. Even more than science.”

Sarewitz’s argument raises broader questions about the role of citizen initiatives in the context of highly complex issues with profound and long-lasting impacts. On the positive side citizen initiatives allow for individuals to participate directly in the selection of specific policies. But on the negative side the initiative process is essentially a binary process – take or leave the initiative that is presented. There is no give and take compromising that is characteristic of legislating. The ballot initiative process is a funny one, because if you put any option up for a vote, people will invariably take sides. But Sarewitz reminds us that it is important to recognize that sometimes we should take a perspective that allows us to see beyond the "yes or no" and look for a third way.

More on Hurricanes and Climate Change

For some reason some members of the scientific community are pushing hard through the media to allege a direct connection between the Florida hurricanes of 2004 and human-caused climate change, so we’re going to revisit the topic (yet) again. Examples include here and here and here and here and here). This organized effort seems quite odd to me for two reasons:

1) There is a strong scientific consensus that if greenhouse gas emissions have an effect on hurricanes, these effects will be quite small as compared to the observed variability in hurricane frequencies and intensities. (See the primer below.)

2) There is overwhelming evidence that the most significant factor in trends in and projections of the damages associated with hurricane impacts is societal vulnerability to those impacts. (See this post and this post.)

One obvious reason for a group of scientists to invoke via the media a connection between this year’s storms and climate change is part of a strategy of political advocacy in support of greenhouse gas reductions. If the issue was simply scientific, then I’d assume that the scientists would just battle their differences out on the pages of peer-reviewed journals, far from the public eye. But the great irony here is that those who invoke the modulation of future hurricanes as a justification for changes to energy policies to mitigate climate change are their own worst political enemy. Not only do they provide a great opening for criticism of their reasoning and science, they are advocating a policy that simply won’t be effective. There are much, much better ways to deal with the threat of hurricanes than with energy policies. There are also much, much better ways to justify climate mitigation policies than with hurricanes.

Last week my colleague and occasional collaborator Chris Landsea, one of the world’s foremost experts on hurricanes, put together the following short primer on hurricanes and climate change, and I’ve shared it here with his permission:

Hurricanes and Global Warming
Chris Landsea (chris.landsea@noaa.gov)
---------------------------------------
There are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity. Whatever suggested changes in hurricane activity that might result from global warming in the future are quite small in comparison to the large natural variability of hurricanes, typhoons and tropical cyclones. For example, the latest GFDL global warming study suggested about a 5% increase in the winds of hurricanes 80 years in the future. This contrasts with the more than doubling that occur now in numbers of major hurricanes between active and quiet decades in the Atlantic basin.

If global warming is influencing hurricane activity, then we should be seeing a global change in the number and strength of these storms. Yet there is no evidence of a global increase in the strength and frequency of hurricanes, typhoons, and tropical cyclones over the past several years.

Beginning in 1995, there has been an increase in the frequency and intensity of hurricanes in the Atlantic basin. However, this increase is very likely a manifestation of a natural multi-decadal cycle of Atlantic hurricane activity that has been occurring likely for the last few hundred years. For example, relatively few Atlantic major hurricanes were observed in the 70s, 80s and early 90s, but there was considerable activity during the 40s, 50s and early 60s. Also, the period from 1944 to 1950 was particularly infamous for Florida - with 11 hurricanes hitting the state during those years.

Total U.S. direct damages from Atlantic hurricanes this year will be on the order of $30 billion, making it about equal to the most damaging year on record - 1992 with the landfall of Hurricane Andrew. However, such increased destruction from hurricanes is to be expected because of the massive development and population increases along the U.S. coastline and in countries throughout the Caribbean and Central America. There is no need to invoke global warming to understand both the 10 years of active hurricane seasons and the destruction that occurred both in Florida and in Haiti this season. The former is due to natural cycles driven by the Atlantic Ocean and the latter is due to societal changes, not due to global warming.

Bring the Policy Back In

Consider the following imaginary scenario.

NGOs and a few other representatives of the oil and gas industry decide to band together to produce a report on what they see as needed and unnecessary policy actions related to climate change. They put together a nice glossy report with findings and recommendations such as:

*Coal is the fuel of the future, we must mine more.
*CO2 regulations are too costly.
*Climate change will be good for agriculture.

In addition, the report contains some questionable scientific statements and associations. Imagine further that the report contains a preface authored by a prominent scientist who though unpaid for his work lends his name and credibility to the report.

How might that scientist be viewed by the larger community? Answers that come to mind include: "A tool of industry," "Discredited," "Biased," "Political Advocate." It is likely that in such a scenario that connection of the scientist to the political advocacy efforts of the oil and gas industry would provide considerable grist for opponents of the oil and gas industry, and specifically a basis for highlighting the appearance or reality of a compromised position of the scientist.

Fair enough?

Ok, let's return to reality and consider a real world case. In this case the NGOs and other groups represent environmental and humanitarian groups that have put together a report (in PDF) on what they see as needed and unnecessary policy actions related to climate change. They put together a nice glossy report with findings and recommendations such as:

*Limit global temperature rise to 2 degrees (Celsius, p. 4) *Extracting the World Bank from fossil fuels (p. 15) *Opposing the inclusion of carbon sinks in the [Kyoto] Protocol (p. 22)

The report contains numerous references to specific weather events from 2004 as being caused by and evidence of human-caused climate change, which stretches the science to some degree (at least as assessed by the IPCC).

[From the press release is this statement: "This summer has been marred by the havoc wrought across the Caribbean by the hurricanes Jeanne and Ivan, and the worst flooding in recent years in Bangladesh. In a world in which global warming is already happening, such severe weather events are likely to be more frequent, and extreme."]

And here, finally, I get to the main point. The report has a forward written by R. K. Pachauri, Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC has adopted as a mandate an objective of being "policy relevant, but not policy prescriptive" (what this means is actually unclear).

It is troubling that the Chair of the IPCC would lend his name and organizational affiliation to a set of groups with members engaged actively in political advocacy on climate change. Even if Dr. Pachauri feels strongly about the merit of the political agenda proposed by these groups, at a minimum his endorsement creates a potential perception that the IPCC has an unstated political agenda. This is compounded by the fact that the report Dr. Pachauri tacitly endorses contains statements that are scientifically at odds with those of the IPCC. But perhaps most troubling is that by endorsing this group's agenda he has opened the door for those who would seek to discredit the IPCC by alleging exactly such a bias. (And don't be surprised to see such statements forthcoming.) 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.

Let me also be clear on my views on the substance of report itself. Organized by the New Economics Foundation and the Working Group on Climate and Development, the report (in PDF) is actually pretty good and contains much valuable information on climate change and development (that is, once you get past the hype of the press release and its lack of precision in disaggregating climate and vulnerability as sources of climate-related impacts). The participating organizations have done a nice job integrating considerations of climate change and development, a perspective that is certainly needed.

More generally, the IPCC suffers because it no longer considers "policy options" under its mandate. Since its First Assessment Report when it did consider policy options, the IPCC has eschewed responsibility for developing and evaluating a wide range of possible policy options on climate change. By deciding to policy outside of its mandate since 1992, the IPCC, ironically, leaves itself more open to charges of political bias. It is time for the IPCC to bring policy back in, both because we need new and innovative options on climate, but also because the IPCC has great potential to serve as an honest broker. But until it does, its leadership would be well served to avoid either the perception or the reality of endorsing particular political perspectives.

Litmus Test Script

In yesterday’s New York Times Andy Revkin had a valuable article on current controversies related to the Bush Administration and science. The article discussed “litmus tests” for scientists asked to serve on advisory panels:

“Despite three years of charges that it is remaking scientific and medical advisory panels to favor the goals of industry or social conservatives, the White House has continued to ask some panel nominees not only about their political views, but explicitly whether they support Mr. Bush. One recent candidate was Prof. Sharon L. Smith, an expert on Arctic marine ecology at the University of Miami. On March 12, she received a call from the White House. She had been nominated to take a seat about to open up on the Arctic Research Commission, a panel of presidential appointees that helps shape research on issues in the far north, including the debate over oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The woman calling from the White House office of presidential personnel complimented her résumé, Dr. Smith recalled, then asked the first and - as it turned out - only question: "Do you support the president?" "I was taking notes," Dr. Smith recalled. "I'm thinking I've lost my mind. I was in total shock. I'd never been asked that before." She responded she was not a fan of Mr. Bush's economic and foreign policies. "That was the end of the interview," she said. "I was removed from consideration instantly."”

For any scientist who may wish to serve on a presidential advisory panel when asked but don’t appreciate being asked about their political views or doesn’t necessarily agree with the president’s policies, we here at Prometheus offer up the following script for use when the White House Office of Presidential Personnel (WHOPP) comes calling (and please feel free to imagine the WHOPP serving a President Bush or a President Kerry, the script stays the same).

“WHOPP: Dr. Smith, we are calling to explore the possibility of the president appointing you to serve on the President’s Scientific Advisory Committee on So and Such. Your accomplishments and resume are extremely impressive.

Dr. SMITH: Why thank you. I am pleased to be considered for this important committee.

WHOPP: As part of our process of empanelment we would like to ask you a few questions …

Dr. SMITH: Of course, go right ahead …

WHOPP: First, Do you support the president?

Dr. SMITH: Of course I support the president. As a recipient of many millions of dollars in federal support for my research on this topic of critical national importance over the past many years I strongly believe that scientists have an obligation to support elected officials by helping to connect scientific and technological expertise with the needs of decision making. While the responsibility for deciding on particular courses of action remains with government officials, I do believe that advisory panels can help to provide some insight to those choices. So I would very much value an opportunity to contribute back to the federal government by serving on a presidential advisory panel and supporting the president in this important role.”

We’ve discussed here before that the issue of presidential appointments is much more complicated than asking or not asking about political affiliations. But let’s be honest, any scientist who cannot handle a question about their political leanings in a politic manner probably doesn’t deserve to be on the panel anyway. The option is always available to tell the WHOPP that oppose (or support, as the case may be) the president politically in whatever direct and colorful language that you’d like. But of course for those who express political opposition you’ve then just given the WHOPP a solid basis for removing you from consideration because of concern that YOUR strongly-held political views will interfere with your role on the panel. Ironic, huh? So long as WHOPPs and the like want to bring political considerations explicitly into the empanelment process, we here at Prometheus recommend that scientists of all political persuasions just stick to the script.

A New Essay on Science Funding

I’ve got a new essay on science funding online at CSPO in the Perspective part of their website. In the essay I describe how the federal R&D budget is tabulated and what recent data show. I argue that in terms of aggregate funding for R&D we are at the close of a “second golden age” for science and technology (see Figure 1, PDF). In addition, I hope to provide some good evidence as to why the mindless comparison of federal R&D spending to GDP is not a particularly significant measure of government commitment to science and technology (see Figure 2, PDF). A much more meaningful measure is R&D spending as a fraction of discretionary spending: “…R&D funding as a fraction of discretionary spending has increased from 11.3% in 1982 to 14.3% in 2003. Today, R&D is responsible for as large a portion of discretionary expenditures than at any time in the past 22 years.”

In the paper I write, “Of course, science policy should not be about simply “How much?” but “Why?”. However, the S&T community typically focuses narrowly on “how much?” using a three-part strategy to argue for more public sector resources. It claims crisis, even in times of plenty. It calls for balance, to limit intra-disciplinary, intra-agency debates over priorities. And it claims that societal benefits are proportional to funds invested; more funds are equated with more benefit… A focus on aggregate funding, rather than the marginal benefits of adding or cutting funding for particular programs, may prove problematic as R&D funding all but certainly cannot continue to grow at the pace that it has over the past decade, regardless of who occupies the White House, making tough choices within the scientific community inevitable”

Read the whole thing here.

Satellite Reentry Risks

In 2001 I helped organize a workshop for NASA on the risks and benefits with allowing its TRMM satellite to reenter in controlled versus uncontrolled fashion. At the time we concluded that while it was clear that risks to people were relatively small, NASA did little more than a back of the envelope calculation to quantify those risks.

Over the weekend a Chinese satellite struck a house upon reentry. Apparently no one was injured. This is not the first time that there has been a close call.

As the National Research Council prepares to convene an expert panel to consider the TRMM reentry options and the more general policies for satellite reentry policy, it will be important to place reentry risk assessments on a more solid basis. (For more on TRMM see this post.)

It’s Time to Clarify the role of AAAS in Policy and Politics

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is a professional society with a mission, just like its name implies, to “To Advance Science and Innovation Throughout the World for the Benefit of All People.” (Note: I am a member of AAAS and serve on a minor committee.)

Of late I have been wondering about the role of the AAAS in matters of policy and politics that go beyond funding for science. While we should expect AAAS to be a vigorous advocate for increased support for science, I have recently wondered about what AAAS’ sees its role as in political controversies that involve science, e.g., on issues like stem cells, global climate change, cloning, etc.

Some insight on this issue can be found in a 1989 AAAS doicument titled AAAS Policy, Guidelines, and Procedures for Communications with Congress. This document observes,

“The AAAS does not engage in political activities,” and “The AAAS does not, as a general policy, engage in direct or grass roots lobbying… Direct lobbying generally is any attempt to influence any legislation through communication with any member or employee of a legislative body (both Congress and state and local legislative bodies). Grass roots lobbying generally is any attempt to influence any legislation through any attempt to affect the opinions of the general public.”

Of course, all similarly incorporated non-profits (i.e., 501 (c) (3)) are required to follow similar rules about advocacy. Such rules are in general pretty easy to get around because they focus on limiting advocacy for specific candidates and legislative proposals (see, e.g., this description).

The AAAS observes, “… activities related to the preparation and distribution of nonpartisan analysis, study or research are not lobbying activities. Such work may even advocate a particular position but it must also contain a sufficiently full and fair treatment of the pertinent facts to enable the formation of an independent opinion.” It further notes, “Generally, the AAAS should seek to express concerns, educate about consequences, and explore options rather than advocating specific legislative actions. However, in any communication that advocates a position — other than in a requested communication — close attention must be given to the requirements for a full and fair treatment of the issue, as discussed earlier.”

So with this background, consider the following press releases from AAAS in 2004:

AAAS Joins Call Against Proposed United Nations Ban on Therapeutic Cloning.

United Nations Environment Programme and AAAS Agree to Partner on Environmental Goals

AAAS signs letter urging President Bush to expand access to embryonic stem cells

At a meeting organized by AAAS and its journal, Science … Climate experts urge immediate action to offset impact of global warming”

Don't Leave Georgia's Children Behind

Each of these reflects a clear advocacy position on a controversial subject. I am not suggesting that AAAS is running afoul of nonprofit rules and regulations. What I am suggesting is that the positions taken by AAAS do not appear to me to be well-grounded in the AAAS’s own guidelines for engaging in policy analysis or advocacy.

For example, I have previously observed that the AAAS June forum on climate change was anything but a “full and fair” treatment of climate policy issues (not because it didn’t reflect scientific consensus, but because it ignored climate policy.) It was a clear effort to support a particular political perspective on climate change through the selective presentation of information.

I’ll admit that I do not have a specific proposal in mind for how the AAAS ought to confront issues of policy and politics. But it seems to me that the AAAS existing guideline to “to express concerns, educate about consequences, and explore options rather than advocating specific legislative actions” is a good place to start. At the same time it does not appear to me that the AAAS has always met this standard, particularly recently. Of course, the standard is a quite inscrutable and imprecise.

Given the attention currently being devoted to the politicization of science, perhaps it is time for the AAAS to revisit its own guidelines and procedures for engaging issues of politics and policy in a way that provides clear leadership for the scientific community. Otherwise, the AAAS leaves itself wide open for criticism of its advocacy efforts.

Job Announcement: CU-Boulder

The Department of Political Science and the Environmental Studies Program of the University of Colorado at Boulder invite applications for a jointly rostered, tenure-track position at the rank of Assistant Professor. Preference for candidates interested in globalization or governance issues, but we welcome applications in the field of environmental policy broadly defined. Competitive candidates will be able to demonstrate an active and systematic research agenda and effective teaching. Salary and benefits will be competitive.

Please send a current vitae, samples of research, teaching portfolio (e.g. student evaluations, syllabi, teaching philosophy), and three letters of recommendation to Environmental Policy Search Committee, Environmental Studies Program, 397 UCB, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309. To insure full consideration, application materials should be received no later than November 15, 2004, but applications will be received until the position is filled. The University of Colorado at Boulder is committed to diversity and equality in education and employment.

Job Opportunity: CSPO

The Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes (CSPO) at Arizona State University (ASU) seeks to fill a new, tenure-track faculty position in the general field of science, technology, and society available for August 2005. This position will likely be filled at the Assistant Professor level, but we will also consider candidates recently promoted to Associate Professor. Qualified candidates will have Doctorate or equivalent in related area, and will have demonstrated research and teaching interests at the intersection of public policy, scientific and technological advance, and social impacts appropriate to rank; evidence of potential in both research and teaching appropriate to rank. Particular areas of specialization are open but could include emerging technologies (nanotechnology; genomics; robotics; etc.), biomedicine and health, social progress indicators, research policy, information technology, technology and development, globalization, etc. Disciplinary approaches are also open but could include political science, economics, anthropology, sociology, communication, history, law, and cultural studies. Experience with policy, public engagement, technology assessment, or other applied areas is a plus. Natural scientists with significant policy research experience will also be considered. The appointment will be split between CSPO and an appropriate disciplinary unit within ASU's College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. Salary and start-up package very competitive.

CSPO and ASU offer an innovative, interdisciplinary environment for developing and testing research and teaching ideas related to the governance and conduct of science and technology in the public interest.

Review of applications will begin November 19, 2004 (no electronic applications accepted), if not filled will continue every Friday thereafter until the search is closed. Submit: detailed letter of application stating qualifications, experience, research plans, and teaching interests; a complete, detailed curriculum vitae; and 3 letters of recommendation to David Guston, Chair, Search Committee, Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes, PO Box 874401, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-4401. AA/EOE

For more information about CSPO, go to www.cspo.org.

On Cherry Picking and Missing the Point

In an op-ed for the Scripps-Howard news service 27 September 2004, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas cite the paper by Dan Sarewitz that was part of the special issue on “Science, Policy, and Politics” that I guest co-edit for the journal Environmental Science and Policy. They write:

“An upcoming journal paper in Environmental Science & Policy sheds some light on the distortion of climate science by "consensus" politics. Daniel Sarewitz of Arizona State University, who was on one panel that authored a 2003 climate report for the National Academies of Sciences' National Research Council (NRC), provides an inside view of the NRC report's publication process, and details what outsiders may get as "consensus."”

Soon and Baliunas are well known for their political activities opposed to the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. In particular they have highlighted the case that the scientific evidence does not justify regulation of emissions of greenhouse gases. As such they have, along with their colleagues and opponents, contributed to the “scientization” of the political controversy on climate change. Here is what Sarewitz has to say about “scientization”:

“Scientization of controversy also undermines the social value of science itself. In the absence of agreed upon values that can inform the articulation of social goals, we cannot recognize the broad range of policy options that might be available to achieve those goals, nor can we possibly know how to prioritize scientific research in support of the goals. Scientific resources end up focused on the meaningless task of reducing uncertainties pertinent to political dispute, rather than addressing societal problems as identified through open political processes.”

So my interpretation of Sarewitz’s paper is that he offers no support for Soon and Baliunas (or, for that matter, their opponents who lean on science) effort to suggest that the “science” compels a particular political outcome. Instead, he is suggesting that we instead need a “third way” on science in politics. A good concise perspective by Sarewitz can be found here.

For Soon and Baliunas to cite Sarewitz in support of their political agenda seems to me to be an example of “cherry-picking” his text and completely missing the main point of his paper.

An Equation for Science in Politics: SM = f(PP)

SM = Scientific Merit
PP = Political Perspective

The September, 2004 issue of Physics Today has an interesting story following up on the recent court decision on the status of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. The details of the case itself are interesting (we posted on this here and here), however I’d like to highlight a few passages from the story on how opponents on various sides of the issue characterize science.

The story notes how an opponent to Yucca Mountain characterizes the court’s ruling:

“Out in Nevada, where Yucca Mountain is located, State Attorney General Brian Sandoval all but pronounced the project dead, saying, "Simply put, Yucca is stopped in its tracks because the court recognizes that the project isn't rooted in sound science."”

It then notes how a proponent characterizes the same science:

“Back in Washington, DC, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the organization that represents the nuclear industry, was expressing confidence that DOE would be able to meet the "eventual standard" of radiation safety for Yucca and that "the licensing process for the repository will continue without interruption or delay." NEI added that the "scientific basis for the facility . . . is still sound today."”

Then the Physics Today article comes to this conclusion:

“So the science is sound or it isn't, depending on whether you are in favor of or opposed to the federal government's plans to move some 77 000 tons of high-level radioactive waste into the mountain, beginning in 2010.”

In other words one’s perspective on the science is a function of one’s political views. One reaction to this situation, which is very common today in contested issues with a scientific element, has been to call for “more science” as a way to find unassailable proof or factual truth. But what if science does not provide a way out of difficult, contentious, and political issues like Yucca Mountain (or climate change or genetic modification, etc. etc.) and in fact makes things worse?

Job Opportunity

*** Job Opportunities in Washington, DC ***
Policy Assistant/Analyst, Environment and Energy Study Institute

The Environmental and Energy Study Institute, a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting environmentally sustainable societies, seeks a full-time Policy Program Assistant. Applicants should possess strong writing and verbal skills, ability to work well in teams or independently, strong computer skills (database & website), ability to meet deadlines and work under pressure, be a self-started, able to juggle multiple tasks, and committed to the environment.

Bachelor's degree (environmental science or policy preferred) and 2 years experience required. Experience in transportation, biofuels, renewable energy and/or on Capitol Hill desired.

Salary mid-20s to low 30s, depending on experience; excellent benefits; growth potential. www.eesi.org

Please send cover letter, resume and a short writing sample either via mail, fax or e-mail to:

Employment, EESI,
122 C St., NW, Suite 630
Washington, D.C. 20001
fax: 202-628-1825
email: eesi@eesi.org
No phone calls please.

If not Dominance, then What?

Alan I. Leshner, CEO of the AAAS, is the author of the lead Editorial in this week’s Science, titled “U.S. Science Dominance is the Wrong Issue.” Leshner comments:

“…globalization of science is cause for celebration. Better still, more countries are making productive investments in their science infrastructures, and this portends well for the future of all humankind. At the same time, recent weeks have seen strident laments from many American quarters, to the effect that the United States may be losing its longstanding global preeminence in science. Some of that concern was triggered when the U.S. National Science Board issued its Science and Engineering Indicators, 2004 report last May. It showed that the United States is no longer the largest producer of scientific information. The European Union is outpacing the United States in the total number of papers published. Moreover, the U.S. share of major science prizes has decreased significantly over the past decade. For those Americans who take an overly nationalistic view of the scientific enterprise, this might be bad news. From a more global viewpoint, however, these facts signal a long-awaited and very positive trend: Better and better science is being done all over the world.”

Leshner concludes: “The United States should not be wasting energy right now on the question of its global scientific dominance.” This is a position we’ve commented on occasionally here at Prometheus (e.g., here and here).

Leshner’s posits that one of the real problems facing U.S. science is … money! He writes, “How can we recruit the best young people to science careers if they foresee a grim funding picture for their future work?” Of course, it might be possible to argue that $130 billion in funding might still allow the recruitment of a few of the best young people. (Note: Leshner also laments the “overlay of politics, ideology, and religious conviction on the U.S. climate for science.”)

What Leshner’s argument fails to acknowledge is that most of the concern about the U.S. losing its global dominance in science is expressed as a justification for increasing science budgets. (Some examples of such arguments, from many, can be found here and here and here.) So when Leshner argues that we should be less concerned with global dominance and more concerned with budgets, he is taking away one of the key arguments used by advocates who support more federal funding for science and technology.

As Leshner takes away one of the usual justifications for increasing science budgets he does not tell us why instead we should be concerned about current projections on decreasing funds for science. Of course, such projections say nothing about science per se but reflect the fact of projected decreasing funds for just about every area of discretionary government spending. Leshner focuses our attention on the question of “How much?” but not “Why?”

CRS report on DQA

The Congressional Research Service has a new report out on the Data Quality Act (or as the CRS calls it the Information Quality Act (IQA). The report includes the following ‘Concluding Observations”:

“The determination of whether agencies’ actions are subject to judicial review under the IQA will clearly have a major effect on the act’s implementation. However, even in the absence of judicial review, the IQA can still have a significant impact on federal agencies and their information dissemination activities. OMB’s report on the implementation of the act during FY2003 provided numerous examples of agencies changing their policies and publications in response to administrative requests for correction from affected parties. Those administratively driven policy changes have continued after the one-year period covered by OMB’s report. For example, shortly after the June 2004 court case and DOJ brief, the National Institute on Aging within the National Institutes of Health reportedly agreed to revise its website and printed publications, eliminating statements indicating that smokeless tobacco products are no less safe than cigarettes. The change was reportedly a direct result of an IQA correction request filed by the National Legal and Policy Center. The IQA may also be having an effect on information dissemination in the states. The Center for Regulatory Effectiveness has reportedly drafted and promoted a model state version of the act that is derived from the federal legislation and the OMB guidelines. The State of Wisconsin has adopted data quality legislation, and other states are reportedly planning to do so.”

The report also suggests a number of “Possible Improvements and Modifications.”

For anyone interested in the role of information in decision making in federal agencies, the report is an excellent summary of where things stand in the experiment that is the DQA.

Science and Technology Policy Graduate Fellowship Program

Author: Rad Byerly

CHRISTINE MIRZAYAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY GRADUATE FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM, WASHINGTON, D.C. This Graduate Fellowship Program of the National Academies-consisting of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council-is designed to engage graduate and postdoctoral students in science and technology policy and to familiarize them with the interactions among science, technology, and government. As a result, students in the fields of science, engineering, medicine, veterinary medicine, business, and law develop essential skills different from those attained in academia, which will help them make the transition from being a graduate student to a professional. We are pleased to announce that applications are now being accepted for our 2005 program. This year, the program will comprise three, ten-week sessions:

Winter: January 10 through March 18
Summer: June 6 through August 12
Fall: September 12 through November 18

To apply, candidates should submit an application and request that a mentor fill out a reference form. Both forms are available on the Web. The deadline for applications is November 1 for the Winter program, March 1 for the Summer program, and June 1 for the Fall program. Candidates may apply to all three programs concurrently. Additional details about the program and how to join our mailing list are also available on the Web site. Questions should be directed to: policyfellows@nas.edu.

Here is what four alumni said about the program:

"This program will open your mind to a world rarely envisioned from the confines of laboratory bench work. I learned an immeasurable amount about the policy and politics behind science and after the program opens your mind, it opens career doors."

"A really great experience for those from the "soft sciences" who have an interest in S&T policy or if you're trying to figure out what else you might want to do outside of academia. This was a great opportunity to bridge the gap and gain a new understanding and appreciation for how it all works, the people involved, and the profound difference it can make in the end (and all long the way)."

"I had no idea that this experience would affect me in the way that it has. This program has revitalized my love for science, given me a perspective from a new environment, raised my awareness of important policy issues, allowed me to network with colleagues, and, for the first time in a long while, made me look forward to going to work every day. I highly recommend this program."

"This program provides an amazing opportunity to learn about science and policy and, in particular, the role of the National Academies in contributing to science policy. If you are in graduate school in the sciences and have an interest in science and policy, you don't have to wait until you've got your degree to see what it would be like to work in DC. The program can inform your graduate education and help you to think "outs ide the box" in terms of potential careers."

Interesting Email

The announcement below appeared in my email inbox from the Climate-L folks. Note who is responsible for funding the upgrade of the UN FCCC website. Give the U.S. stance on Kyoto, I wonder what is going on there, perhaps a paving of the way for a reentry into the negotiations?

"The UNFCCC secretariat is pleased to announce the relaunch of its official website, which will take place on 11 October 2004.

This relaunch will conclude a major project designed to make information more accessible, introduce a revised navigation structure and automate information management.

The relaunch has been made possible through a generous contribution from the United States of America and has benefited from feedback provided by 450 Party representatives, IGOs and NGOs.

The secretariat hopes that the new website will enhance communications and access to information about the climate change process."

(Mis)Justifications for Climate Mitigation

Last week’s Science has a very interesting exchange (subscription required) between Indur M. Goklany, of the Office of Policy Analysis, U.S. Department of the Interior and Sir David A. King, Chief Scientific Adviser to U.K Prime Minister Tony Blair and Head of the Office of Science and Technology.

Goklany writes that King justifies action to mitigate climate change on the argument that because "of continued warming, millions more people around the world may in future be exposed to the risk of hunger, drought, flooding, and debilitating diseases such as malaria. Poor people in developing countries are likely to be most vulnerable." Goklany responds to this justification by considering the case of malaria:

“… the population at risk of malaria (PAR-M) in the absence of climate change is projected to double between 1990 and the 2080s, to 8,820 million (2). However, unmitigated climate change would, by the 2080s, further increase PAR-M by another 257 to 323 million (2). Thus, by the 2080s, halting further climate change would, at best, reduce total PAR-M by 3.5% [=100 x 323/(323 + 8,820)] (3). On the other hand, reducing carbon dioxide emissions with the goal of eventually stabilizing carbon dioxide at 550 ppm would reduce total PAR-M by 2.8% (2) at a cost to developed nations, according to King, of 1% of GDP in 2050 (p. 177), or about $280 billion in today's terms (4). But malaria's current annual death toll of about 1 million could be halved at an annual cost of $1.25 billion or less, according to the World Health Organization, through a combination of measures such as residual home spraying with insecticides, insecticide-treated bednets, improved case management, and more com!
prehensive antenatal care (5). Clearly, implementing such measures now would provide greater malaria benefits over the next few decades than would climate stabilization at any level. It would also reduce vulnerability to malaria from all causes--man-made or natural--now and in the future (3).”

This is a powerful point that deserves a response. Does it make sense ethically and scientifically to invoke malaria as a primary justification for climate mitigation? King’s extremely weak response is to avoid the issue:

“There is no real choice between action on climate change and action on poverty, disease, hunger, and other millennium development goals. These are part of the same sustainable development agenda. Climate change is already affecting developing countries, and it is the poorest regions of the world--such as Africa and Southeast Asia--that are most at risk. The many people who have died and the millions now homeless through the monsoon flooding in Bangladesh will bear witness to that. This kind of event can be expected to become more frequent and more extreme as global warming accelerates, exacerbated by rising sea levels.”

Goklany’s more general conclusion on the importance of vulnerability reduction is well supported by our own research. He writes:

“Similarly, reducing present-day vulnerabilities to the other risk factors mentioned by King (i.e., hunger, water shortage, and flooding) could well provide larger benefits at lower costs over the next few decades than would climate change mitigation efforts that go beyond so-called "no-regret" actions, that is, actions that are worth undertaking on their own merits unrelated to any climate change-related concerns (e.g., elimination of subsidies for fossil fuel usage or land clearance) (3).”

Goklany’s letter is much stronger when he discusses what we ought to be doing on malaria, rather than what we ought not to be doing on energy policy. Goklany misses the fact that the same sort of argument that he presents on vulnerability can also be applied to energy policy, i.e., there are powerful reasons to address energy policy, and climate mitigation is but one of them

The reality is that justifications advanced by folks like King for climate mitigation matter a great deal. They matter for resource allocation decisions on climate policies as well as on science policies. Decisions must be made because allocated because money, time, attention, etc. are scarce, and contrary to what King says, choices about priorities have to be made.

But there is a deeper reason why justifications matter having to do with symbolism, science, democracy, and the framing of problems in a way that motivates particular actions. If the justifications used to advance a particular cause don’t stand up to close scrutiny, then it probably makes sense to rethink policy as the actions advocated may not address the concerns explicit in the justifications. Further, when justifications do not match results, it raises the possibility that those doing the justifying have some unstated agenda. This opens the door for gridlock and a lack of accountability in the decision making process.

Of course, I am squarely in the camp that thinks that climate mitigation policies are presently hopelessly misjustified, but I also believe that that there are strong and valid justifications for changing our approach to energy policies in ways that will reduce the human influence on climate. The biggest challenge facing real (not symbolic) progress climate policy today is not political or technological, but in how we think about the problem.

Scientists and the Politics of Global Warming

Let’s do an experiment …

Last week Von Storch et al. published a paper (registration required, PDF) in ScienceExpress that claimed that the so-called “hockey stick” temperature record of the past 1,000 years is flawed (for a popular summary of the “hockey stick” see this BBC story and for scientific details see the home page of Michael Mann. Yesterday in the New York Times Andy Revkin provided a nice summary of the new paper and its scientific significance.

Last year when a paper by Soon and Baliunas (PDF) was published in the journal Climate Research that criticized the so-called “hockey stick” record of global temperature trends, I commented in an article by David Appell in Scientific American, “You'd be challenged, I'd bet, to find someone who supports the Kyoto Protocol and also thinks that this paper is good science, or someone who thinks that the paper is bad science and is opposed to Kyoto."

(Aside: Von Storch resigned (Thanks to D. Appell for the link) as incoming editor of Climate Research over CR’s handling of the Soon/Baliunas paper, and was paraphrased saying of Soon/Baliunas “[Their conclusions] may be true, Von Storch said, but it is not supported by evidence cited in the paper.”)

And I wrote of the CR dust up in a recent paper (PDF) on the politicization of science by scientists, “… advocacy groups opposed to the Kyoto Protocol predictably hailed the [Soon/Baliunas] research as “sound science,” while advocacy groups in support of the Protocol called the paper “junk science”. In this case, more troubling than the “cherry picking” of scientific results by advocates is that many scientist’s evaluations of the scientific merit of the Climate Research paper correlated perfectly with their public expressions of support or opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. Acceptance of the paper’s conclusions was equated with opposition to Kyoto, and correspondingly, rejection of the paper’s findings was equated with support for Kyoto.”

Today one advocacy group funded by the fossil fuel industry and on record as being against emissions reductions states bluntly in a moment of candor their view why this putatively scientific debate matters: “Why are so many researchers concerned with reconstructing a thousand years of Earth's climate history? Some will argue it's actually a political debate; to the winner goes the spoils - passage of or withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol by governments worldwide.”

So, in this highly politicized atmosphere, given how many scientists spoke out in support of or against Mann et al.’s “hockey stick” it will be very interesting to see reactions among scientists to Von Storch’s new paper. (It won’t be so interesting to see how advocacy groups react, as it will be completely predictable.) Specifically, given the close connection of support or refutation of the earlier paper with explicit political agendas, scientists who were critical of Soon and Baliunas may be very hesitant to comment on Von Storch et al., except in a negative way. Conversely, we can expect howls of support from those scientists who supported Soon/Baliunas. So, this suggests a few hypotheses to test in our little experiment:

1. From scientists critical of Soon/Baliunas and supportive of Mann et al. (and for the most part supportive of Kyoto), expect very little in the way of public comment on Von Storch et al.

2. From scientists supportive of Soon/Baliunas and critical of Mann et al. (and for the most part opposed to Kyoto), expect to be hearing lots of reaction to Von Storch et al.

In other words, let’s see if the scientists behave just like the advocacy groups. If these hypotheses are anywhere close to reflecting what goes on, we’ll have some good evidence for how it is that politics influences that practice of climate science. Here at Prometheus we’ll be watching and will report back soon.

Research Assistant Professor

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS, Denton, TX. Applications and nominations are invited for a two-year position as Research Assistant Professor within the Department of Philosophy and Religion Studies. AOS: Applied Philosophy, in areas such as the environment, biomedicine/bioethics, nanotechnology, engineering, and research ethics. AOC: Open. Experiences in working with scientists and engineers, policy analysts, web design, and in applying for grants are desirable. We anticipate that this position will teach 1 course a semester (spring, fall). Qualifications for the position include: a Ph.D. in Philosophy or in another area of the humanities.

Review of applications begins October 15. Search will continue until position is filled (pending budgetary approval), with a preferred hire date of January 1, 2005. Please send letter of application, C.V., and a list of references to Robert Frodeman, Chair, Department of Philosophy and Religion Studies, University of North Texas, P.O. Box 310920, Denton, TX 76201-0920. Inquiries are welcome at 940-565-2134 or: www.phil.unt.edu. UNT is an AA/ADA/EOE committed to diversity.

Ethics and the Anti-Matter Bomb

Keary Davidson writes in yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle about US Air Force research into using anti-matter for a wide array of weapons, engines, and power sources. The research is a long, long way from deploying any new technology, but still raises many questions fundamental to science policy. The dawn of the nuclear age brought the ethics of scientific advancement to public attention, a debate that continues today in the nuclear and bio-tech industries. Will society develop any technology available to them, or can effective brakes be placed on research? If so would we even want to slow technological progress? These basic philisophic questions appear in much STS literature, from Jacques Ellul's 1964 book The Technological Society to Francis Fukuyama's 2002 book Our Postmodern Future, but don't often appear in science policy debates. Yet how we answer these questions greatly affects the scope and design of basic science policy efforts. Should the research related to nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons be kept secret? Should policy try to contain stem-cell research? How can we minimize unintended consequences?

Data Quality & David Brooks

Update on NOAA/DQA ...

The Center for Regulatory Effectiveness, one of the groups responsible for pushing the Data Quality Act, links to this update on the status of attempts to exempt NOAA from the DQA.

David Brooks, Stalwarts, Dealers

David Brooks’ 2 October 2004 column in the New York times paints a picture of George Bush and John Kerry quite similar to my distinction between stalwarts and dealers.

Exemption Requested from Data Quality Act

The 29 September issue of the Wall Street Journal (p. 18) has a short editorial (subscription required) that observes:

“We've long been skeptics about the science behind the political campaign to regulate greenhouse gasses, so imagine our surprise to discover that some of the global warmists seem to agree. How else to read a paragraph that was included in a recent Senate spending bill exempting climate programs from having to pass scientific scrutiny? The legislative language excuses any "research and data collection, or information analysis conducted by or for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration" (the agency charged with monitoring climate change) from the Data Quality Act, a new law that requires sound science in policymaking. This is the sole exemption in the bill.”

I have no information on this requested exemption other than what the WSJ reports, however, if their interpretation of events has some truth to it …

“Nobody is rushing to take credit for the proposed exemption. But our sources say it was included at the request of Democrats on the Senate subcommittee that wrote the spending bill in question, but that now the exemption is getting the attention of Chairman Judd Gregg, who says he intends to remove it.”

… then whatever the underlying justification, the mere act of trying to win an exemption from the DQA is likely to enhance the legitimacy of the DQA as a “filter” on science and, in my view, may enhance rather than reduce the politicization of science. Stay tuned.