« November 2004 »

NYT as NSF Mouthpiece

I must have missed the announcement, but it appears that the New York Times has merged with the public affairs office of the National Science Foundation. In an article in today’s New York Times Robert Pear editorializes rather than reports, “Congress has cut the budget for the National Science Foundation, an engine for research in science and technology, just two years after endorsing a plan to double the amount given to the agency. Supporters of scientific research, in government and at universities, noted that the cut came as lawmakers earmarked more money for local projects like the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland and the Punxsutawney Weather Museum in Pennsylvania.”

The article includes quotes from no less than 5 advocates lamenting the budget cuts to the National Science Foundation, and gets no perspective from any independent voices, such as the AAAS R&D Budget and Policy Program. In a classic strawman argument the article plays the NSF cuts off of earmarks to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame ($350,000) and the Yazoo Backwater Pumping Plant in Mississippi ($12 million). The article attempts to politicize the issue by observing that “Senators Trent Lott and Thad Cochran, both Republicans, defended the project …” while “Melissa A. Samet, a lawyer at American Rivers, an environmental group, said “It’s a horrible project …”.”

The article fails to note that research within NSF actually received small cuts, with the bulk of the cuts coming from “education and human resources.” The article fails to observe that NSF sits in the same appropriations subcommittee as NASA, which received an unexpected and significant 5% increase, along with funding for Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development. Also, the article fails to engage the fact (shown in a graph accompanying the print version) that the NSF budget has already about doubled over the past decade. It also includes various statements about the practical value of NSF research, but does not reconcile this with the NSF’s mission to support science for science sake. The article does not address the fact that earmarks are an issue of science policy, and were discussed in depth by the late Congressman George E. Brown in the 1990s, and more recently by the AAAS.

Lets not mince words here – this article is one of the worst I have ever seen on an issue of science policy. It is all the worse for appearing in one of the nation’s leading newspapers.

Opening up Space Policy Debate

In the early 1980s James Van Allen criticized NASA for taking money from space science in order to shore up spending on the space shuttle program, calling the expected budgetary carnage “the slaughter of the innocents.” Today we see a very similar dynamic going on in NASA with space science once again being threatened. In a report released earlier this month, the American Physical Society characterized the situation as follows, “Very important science opportunities could be lost or delayed seriously as a consequence of shifting NASA priorities toward Moon-Mars.”

The APS recommends that NASA submit it plans to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) for a review. Of course the APS recommends going to the NAS because the NAS is a very strong supporter of science and has been the source of priority-setting activities for all of space science.

In an editorial yesterday, The New York Times noted, “In most years, there has been a budgetary wall between the manned space program and unmanned scientific programs, thus providing some protection for science when the inevitable cost overruns hit the more costly manned flight programs. Now NASA will have great freedom to pillage its scientific accounts to pay for the shuttle or space station or the president's Moon-Mars exploration program, or it can raid one manned program to help pay for another, all subject to final approval by Congress.” The New York Times also recommended that Congress consider terminating the Shuttle and the Space Station.

And the St. Petersburg Times writes in an editorial, “Americans may be mesmerized by the prospect of reaching new frontiers in space, but the nation has hardly had a debate about NASA's mission and the associated costs… But before the agency takes what could be a fundamentally new direction, the administration, Congress and the scientific community need to weigh more thoroughly how the president's plan would serve science and affect other domestic priorities.”

See also this editorial in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer.

Voices such as these suggest that it is time not just for a debate over goals of the nation’s space program but also the means for achieving those goals. NASA is but one of several agencies that has a space program, others include the Departments of Commerce and Defense. And NASA is but one of several agencies that supports earth and space science, others include the National Science Foundation and the Department of Commerce (NOAA). Perhaps it is time to reconsider how space programs in the government are organized. In particular, might there be reason to consider consolidating research for research sake in NSF, and research that is focused on improving government services in NOAA, and then focus NASA on human aeronautics and human space flight?

In the end it may well be decided that the current structure is the best or only one practical. However, space policy needs a healthy debate that engages a wide range of perspectives beyond the status quo. But this debate is only something that can occur with the participation and leadership of the President or Congress.

Budget Woes for NASA

One might wonder what woes an agency with a $16.2 billion dollar budget and $800 million increase from last year might have. Well for starters, NASA has $4.3 billion slated for shuttle return to flight, solely to finish construction of the International Space Station. Station is taking up another $1.8 billion this year, and a Hubble rescue mission, robotic or not, may take up to $2 billion more. That's half the budget before even thinking about the President's vision for the Moon and Mars. Most of this effort is going into completing 20 years of pyramid building in space; to complete an orbital platform with no clear mission, enormous costs, and uncertain scientific worth. Given NASA's history of cost overruns, how can we justify spending most of the budget on programs with small returns and big cost uncertainties?

Job Announcement: Post-doctoral Research Assistant

The Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes (CSPO) at Arizona State University (ASU) seeks a Post-doctoral Research Associate to assist with an NSF-sponsored 5-year joint project with the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado. The project, called Science Policy Assessment and Research on Climate (SPARC), will investigate the relation between science policy and climate policy decisions from two perspectives. First, SPARC explores how climate research agendas are developed and implemented, with a particular focus on understanding how the organization of climate research (“supply”) relates to the information needs of climate policy decision makers (“demand”). Second, SPARC investigates the relative magnitude of various sources of global environmental change in order to better understand the relation between the causes of global change and the priorities of the U.S. climate science portfolio. Key, cross-cutting themes in each of these efforts include the role and behavior of science policy institutions and the influence of ethics and values on science policy decisions.

The responsibilities of the post-doctoral associate will include but are not limited to:
1. conducting literature reviews and background research on impacts of climate change to ecosystems and on other drivers of change to these same ecosystems,
2. developing an initial sensitivity analysis of the relative importance of the impact of climate change on ecosystems and that of other drivers of ecosystem change, and
3. working with a panel of experts to map out the relevant set of impacts and causal relations and then to refine the sensitivity analysis on select ecosystems.

Required Qualifications: Recent Ph.D. in a related field, which may include but is not limited to political science, sociology, ecology, anthropology, geography, and other environmental sciences.

Desired Qualifications: Knowledge of global change science and policies, experience working on interdisciplinary projects.

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

Compensation: The initial appointment will be for one year with option to extend. The salary level is between $35,000-$40,000/yr depending on qualifications and experience.

Applications Procedure: The initial deadline is December 15, 2004; if not filled every two weeks until the search is closed. Submit: detailed letter of application stating qualifications, experience, and research interests and plans; detailed curriculum vitae; and the names and contact information for 3 references to Lori Hidinger, Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes, PO Box 874401, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-4401 or cspo@asu.edu. AA/EOE

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

Declare Victory and Move On?

The Kyoto Protocol is going to come into force. Yet many countries are failing to meet their emissions reductions targets. Thus, isn’t it a bit premature to be talking about Kyoto in the past tense?

“I don't want to water it down but (Kyoto targets) were the low-hanging fruits," Klaus Toepfer, head of the U.N. Environment Programme in a Reuters news story.

Clear Thinking on Climate Change

Oxford's Steve Rayner is one of the most brilliant minds around on the issue of climate change.  This document, which we are pleased to provide in full, is an invited memorandum to the Environmental Audit Committee of the United Kingdom's House of Commons.  The title of the memo is "The International Challenge of Climate Change: UK Leadership in the G8 and EU." Rayner writes,

"In the end, climate policy comes down to a question of values - not science. The decision to proceed with effective climate policies cannot wait for a dramatic precipitating event.  In fact, it's hard to visualize what such an event might be. But without one it seems that public pressures on government and private sector decision makers may not be sufficient to get them to take and sustain necessary actions. We also know that the public is more likely to be moved by disaster to support emergency relief than it is to offer sustained support for development assistance. Mobilizing public values rather than scientific consensus is the key to successful climate action. These may be good reasons to focus more attention than hitherto on adaptation policies that are more directly linked in the public imagination to the consequences of climate change than is the issue of emissions."

The entire memo should be required reading for anyone interested in the realities of climate policy and clear thinking in the face of those realities.  The whole memo can be found here.

Ian Axford Fellowships in Public Policy

For Study and Travel in New Zealand

The Commonwealth Fund of New York invites applicants for the 2006 Ian Axford (New Zealand) Fellowships in Public Policy.  The deadline for the receipt of applications is March 1, 2005.

The fellowships give outstanding American professionals the opportunity to study, travel, and gain practical experience in public policy in New Zealand, including first-hand knowledge of economic, social and political reforms, and management of the government sector. Two to three Fellowships will be awarded for six months, starting in January/February 2006.

The purpose of the Ian Axford (New Zealand) Fellowship program is:

•        to reinforce New Zealand/United States links by enabling Americans of high intellectual ability and leadership potential to come to New Zealand to gain experience and build contacts in the field of public policy development;
•        to help improve the practice of public policy development in the United States and New Zealand by the cross-fertilization of ideas and experience in the two countries; and
•        to build a network of public policy experts on both sides of the Pacific.

Applicants must be U.S. citizens and have at least five years experience in their profession.  There are no formal age limits, but the focus of the fellowship is on mid-career development, and successful applicants are likely to be in their early thirties to early fifties. Candidates’ proposals for study while in New Zealand must address one of the following fields of public policy: education and training, youth and families, workplace and employment, indigenous peoples, health care, environmental management/climate change, information technology, innovation in science and technology, public sector reform/program evaluation in the government sector, economic/business development, human capital development, transportation and communications, coordination of energy/national resources.

Each fellowship includes roundtrip airfare to New Zealand for the fellow, a dependent partner and/or children to age 18 years, and a monthly living and travel allowance.  Candidates are encouraged, where possible, to be on full or partial paid leave from their places of employment.

For information for candidates and application, see The Commonwealth Fund’s website at www.cmwf.org/fellowships. For further questions, contact: Phuong Trang Huynh, The Commonwealth Fund, One East 75th Street, New York, NY 10021-2692 (telephone: 212.606.3851, email: pth@cmwf.org).

Wanted: Honest Brokers

The Journal of the American Medical Association has published an important set of articles on the drug approval and post-approval surveillance process. In their overview article Fontanarosa et al. characterize the general problem as follows:

“Physicians and patients expect that when medications are prescribed correctly for labeled indications and are used as directed, these medications generally will have beneficial effects and will not cause significant harm. This confidence in pharmaceutical products reflects trust in the effectiveness and integrity of the drug approval and monitoring process… However, the current approval process for drugs and biological agents in the United States has come under intense scrutiny, most notably because of concerns about influence from industry… In addition, an investigation of 18 FDA expert advisory panels revealed that more than half of the members of these panels had direct financial interests in the drug or topic they were evaluating and for which they were making recommendations.

The drug review process has been described as structurally similar to many decisions made by other regulatory agencies, such that it is characterized by high uncertainty, avoidance of observable error, and low (reputational) reversibility, with drug recalls harming the reputation of the FDA for a faulty approval decision, and often severely affecting the manufacturer. Given that new products are the financial lifeblood of pharmaceutical companies, the stakes are raised higher due to intense lobbying by interested parties such as health professionals and patient advocacy groups, as well as pharmaceutical and technology companies, so it is no wonder that, in 2003, the pharmaceutical industry earmarked $4.9 million to lobby the FDA… While these concerns are noteworthy, they pale in comparison to the shortcomings and failures of the current imperfect system for postmarketing surveillance… Yet the major problem with the current system for ensuring the safety of medications is that drug manufacturers are largely responsible for collecting, evaluating, and reporting data from postmarketing studies of their own products. This approach has many inherent problems. For instance, it appears that fewer than half of the postmarketing studies that manufacturers have made commitments to undertake as a condition of approval have been completed and many have not even been initiated. Moreover, despite the mandatory adverse event reporting system for companies subject to the FDA’s postmarketing safety reporting regulations, drug manufacturers may be tempted to conceal available data that may signal the possibility of major risks. In some cases, the FDA and drug manufacturers may fail to act on that information and fail to conduct appropriate studies to examine a potential risk rigorously and promptly.”

The article concludes:

“The postmarketing surveillance system requires a long overdue major restructuring. Until that occurs—as indicated by the articles in this issue of JAMA, as epitomized by recent evidence of serious harms from widely used and heavily promoted medications, as demonstrated by the influence of industry over postmarketing data, and as illustrated by the lengths to which some manufacturers will go to protect their interests—the United States will still be far short of having an effective, vigilant, and trustworthy system of postmarketing surveillance to protect the public.”

Fontanarosa et al. are exactly right to recognize that the issues faced in postmarketing surveillance of drugs are part of a larger class of issues at the interface of politics, parochial interests, uncertainty, and science. They note that the FDA has asked the Institutes of Medicine to organize a study to “study the effectiveness of the United States drug safety system with emphasis on the post-market phase, and assess what additional steps could be taken to learn more about the side effects of drugs as they are actually used. The committee will examine FDA's role within the health care delivery system and recommend measures to enhance the confidence of Americans in the safety and effectiveness of their drugs.”

Given the attention being paid to advisory panel composition, it will be very interesting to see how the IOM comprises this panel.

This case highlights the need for honest brokers in important political issues with a scientific element. As Dr. Alastair Wood of Vanderbilt University, commented on the issue in today’s New York Times,

"When we have a drug problem it's analogous to a plane crashing off the coast of New York City, and being investigated by the air traffic controllers who controlled the flight and the airline flying the plane. They're not bad people, but it's not the way we do things in this country."

AAAS on 2005 Science Funding

As usual, the AAAS is the place to go for up-to-date information on research and development funding. On their website you find a detailed analysis of the 2005 S&T funding reflected in the FY 2005 omnibus spending bill.

Also from the AAAS, in conjunction with the Washington Science Policy Alliance, the AAAS is hosting a panel on Wednesday, December 1, 2004 on the "Impacts of the 2004 Election on Science and Technology." The panel will be at AAAS headquarters in Washington, DC and while admission is free, an RSVP is required. Details here. If any Prometheus readers attend, we’d welcome a report which we will be happy to post here (with or without attribution, as you’d prefer.)

A False Dichotomy

John E. Porter, chairman of the NAS panel that issued a report earlier this week on presidential appointments to advisory panels noted an important distinction in their guidance that policy/political perspective should not be considered in the empanelment process.

"Policy perspectives are appropriate for those placed on committees for their policy insights, but it is not a relevant criterion for selecting members whose purpose is to provide scientific and technical expertise."

This perspective suggests that there is independence between one's political views and one's views on science. Perhaps on some, largely non-controversial issues this is the case. But if the subject is important enough politically so as to warrant a presidential advisory committee, then it is likely that there will be a diverse set of scientific perspectives on the issues, and these are well correlated with political perspectives.

Chris Mooney provides an excellent example of this dynamic, citing a column by Peter Beinart at The New Republic (subscription required). Mooney quotes him as follows:

"In a diverse democracy, there must be a common political language, and that language can't be theological. Sometimes, conservative evangelicals grasp this and find nonreligious justifications for their views. (Christian conservatives sometimes argue that embryonic stem cells hold little scientific promise, or that gay marriage leads to fewer straight ones. On abortion, they sometimes cite medical advances to show that fetuses are more like infants than pro-choicers recognize. Such arguments are accessible to all, and thus permit fruitful debate.)"

As different political interests seek to justify their claims in the language of science, putative scientific debates become in effect political debates. Who can possibly believe that the debate about any part of the climate issue is at its core a scientific debate?

To illustrate the difficulties associated with the NRC guidance on advisory panels consider this challenge. Lets say that the president wanted an advisory panel on hurricanes and climate change. Who should be appointed to that panel? In this context the policy and political perspectives of most experts is either well known in advance, or the significance of their stance on hurricanes and climate change for political outcomes is well known. There is no way to isolate "pure" scientific considerations in this case, or many others with similar characteristics across science. One needs to detach from reality to think that a policy forbidding the consideration of policy/political perspectives can be effectively implemented in practice.

NRC on Advisory Committees

Yesterday the National Research Council released a report on the presidential appointments in areas of science and technology, including the empanelment of science advisory committees.

The report recommends, "It is inappropriate to ask [prospective panelists] to provide nonrelevant information, such as voting record, political-party affiliation, or position on particular policies." The NRC justifies this position, in part, with the following statement:

" ... even for committee member selected for reasons unrelated to expertise, political-party affiliation and voting record do not necessarily predict their position on particular policies and should not be used as a means to balance committee perspectives."

This is an incredible statement coming from an NRC committee that is obviously carefully selected to maintain a political balance in its membership. Unless the NRC is suggesting that political and policy positions should be considered only in smoky back rooms, they are suggesting that expertise and politics/policy can be cleanly separated, and that the former are "nonrelevant" - a position in all of its dimensions well-understood to be utopian or delusional by those folks who study such things in the STS community.

The NRC recommendation is a recipie for continued politicization of science in the advisory commmittee empanelment process.

Hyperbole and Hyperbole Police

A particularly interesting example of hyperbole on the climate issue was sent in by John Fleck (Thanks!). The incident is interesting no so much because of the hyperbole itself, but because scientists, including some closely affiliated with the IPCC, were willing to take a public stand on the hyperbolic statements.

Here is an excerpt from the New Zealand Herald article that discussed the incident:

""The winner of one of New Zealand's top science medals, Professor Peter Barrett, has backed off a controversial claim that humanity faces extinction within 100 years because of global warming.

Dr Barrett, who was presented with the Royal Society's Marsden Medal in Christchurch last night, gave the Christchurch Press notes for his acceptance speech in which he planned to say: "If we continue our present growth path we are facing extinction - not in millions of years, or even millennia, but by the end of this century."

After a storm of criticism, he changed the word "extinction" in his speech last night to "the end of civilisation as we know it".

Dr Barrett, 64, the director of Victoria University's Antarctic Research Centre, has used ancient air particles trapped in Antarctic ice to show changes in carbon dioxide are linked with changes in the polar ice sheets and the Earth's climate. His work has been widely cited in the world's scientific journals.

But his own colleagues were embarrassed yesterday after his initial speech notes were reported. "I certainly wouldn't be using that language," said Dr Jim Salinger, the lead author for the Australia and New Zealand chapter of the next global assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

Good for Jim Salinger and good for the IPCC.

Job Announcement: Division Director

COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES
DIVISION DIRECTOR - LIBERAL ARTS AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

The Colorado School of Mines (CSM) solicits applications for the
Division Director of Liberal Arts and International Studies (LAIS). This
position will carry the rank of professor, and offers the unique
opportunity to work in an interdisciplinary humanities and social science
environment at a world-class engineering and applied science institution.
LAIS teaching and research emphasize emerging programs in international
political economy, science and technology policy, applied environmental
humanities, and writing. As the Division's chief academic and
administrative officer reporting to the Executive Vice President for
Academic Affairs/Dean of Faculty, the Director is responsible for all
aspects of leadership, management, planning and operations.

Further details about the position are available at
http://www.is.mines.edu/hr/Faculty_Jobs.shtm, with information on LAIS at
http://www.mines.edu/academic/lais/, and CSM at
http://www.mines.edu.

Applicant qualifications include:
* An earned doctorate, preferably in some discipline of the humanities or
social sciences.
* A successful record of relevant experience, with pertinent teaching or
research achievements. Interdisciplinary and international experience is
also desirable.
* Proven academic administration and management experience.
* Abilities to work with other CSM leaders to develop innovative,
multi-disciplinary education and research programs in the humanities,
social sciences, and arts.
* Strong leadership, communications, interpersonal, and team-building
skills.

Applicants must send a letter of application, resume, brief statement of
immediate professional goals, and names and addresses of three
professional references to Colorado School of Mines, Office of Human
Resources, Search #04-171240, 1500 Illinois Street, Golden, CO 80401.
Review of applications will begin by January 3, 2005.

CSM is an EEO/AA employer and is committed
to enhancing the diversity of its campus community. Women, minorities,
veterans, and individuals with disabilities are encouraged to apply.

Hyperbole Watch

Following up from a post last week we thought it might be useful to post examples of excessive hyperbole on the climate issue – from all perspectives on the issue. We’ll do this when we see them or when you send them in. Here are a few:

Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas writing for Tech Central Station 11 November 2004 say, “A recent study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research by scientists from Princeton and Duke Universities indicates massive wind farms would significantly increase local surface drying and soil heating, which in turn would impact agricultural or range use on or near the wind farm… Wind farms may not be as benign to the environment and weather as its promoters say”. Question for Drs. Soon and Baliunas: Why so quick to highlight the implications of this single climate modeling study, when in the past you have criticized such models as not being “sufficiently accurate” to guide policy?

"You can kiss the planet goodbye," James Gustave "Gus" Speth, dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, in The Courier-Journal, Louisville, Kentucky, 13 November 2004. Speaks for itself.

Sheila Watt-Cloutier, the chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference (ICC), speaking of the United States and arctic peoples in a 13 November 2004 BBC news article, "The short-term economic policy of one country should not be able to trump the entire survival of one people." The BBC article states, “Indigenous people from the Arctic have urged the US to cut greenhouse gas emissions to slow down the current thaw of the polar ice.” Questions for the cryospheric community: What is the relationship between U.S. economic policies and the rate of arctic ice changes? Can we modulate future arctic ice thickness with economic policies? Any studies on these questions?

Senior Staff Scientist/Northeast Climate Project Manager

UCS is seeking an experienced scientist/project manager to lead work to bring sound science to bear on building support for strong state and regional climate policies in the Northeast United States.

Responsibilities: Lead project to develop, produce, and effectively communicate the results of a multidisciplinary assessment of projected impacts of climate change on the Northeast U.S. Manage all aspects of the project, including:

* Developing region-specific climate projections based on the latest global climate models
* Identifying the climate-sensitive issues and sectors on which to focus the assessment, taking into account both strategic and scientific considerations
* Developing and managing a team of independent, collaborating experts from universities and research institutions across the region in the research, writing, publication, and outreach components of this project.
* Exploring and possibly establishing formal or informal partnerships with other institutions.
* Developing and guiding strong report production, release and outreach plans.
* Crafting proposals and reports for foundations in coordination with UCS development staff.

Establish and maintain strong working relationships with relevant experts in other institutions. Identify and develop opportunities to motivate others to use current state-of-the-art climate projections to develop additional impacts case studies. Serve as spokesperson on climate science and impacts in the Northeast for media, public, scientific and policy forums.

Coordinate work of UCS climate science team to maintain effective communication, share resources and information, and ensure high-quality, up-to-date and effectively represented climate science information on UCS products.

Qualifications: Position requires a Ph.D. in climate or related global change science, excellent project management skills, and a demonstrable ability to understand the public policy aspects of climate change and the role of technical analyses and advocacy in shaping public opinion and policy debates. Supervisory experience is highly desirable.

Further details and application information are available at http://www.ucsusa.org/ucs/about/page.cfm?pageID=888.

Pontifical Academy of Sciences

Did you know that the Roman Catholic Church has its own academy of sciences? I sure didn’t. The Pontifical Academy of Sciences, located in Rome and dates its origins to 1603, has the following mission:

“The Pontifical Academy of Sciences is international in scope, multi-racial in composition, and non-sectarian in its choice of members. The work of the Academy comprises six major areas: Fundamental science; Science and technology of global problems; Science for the problems of the Third World; Scientific policy; Bioethics; Epistemology.”

There is also a Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences.

Earlier this week Pope John Paul II gave a speech to participants in the plenary session of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that touched on a wide range of science policy issues. Here are a few of the most interesting excerpts and my commentary.

The Pope strongly believes that scientific research should serve societal ends, in a manner that seems completely consistent with the perspectives of historian Lynn White Jr. (in PDF):

“The creativity which inspires scientific progress is seen especially in the capacity to confront and solve ever new issues and problems, many of which have planetary repercussions. Men and women of science are challenged to put this creativity more and more at the service of the human family, by working to improve the quality of life on our planet and by promoting an integral development of the human person, both materially and spiritually.” At another point the Pope says: “Indeed, the inexhaustible bounty of nature, with its promise of ever new discoveries, can be seen as pointing beyond itself to the Creator who has given it to us as a gift whose secrets remain to be explored. In attempting to understand this gift and to use it wisely and well, science constantly encounters a reality which human beings "find". In every phase of scientific discovery, nature stands as something "given."”

But the Pope also appears to share with Milton Friedman, interestingly enough, the idea that research should be conducted without any external influences – it should be a pure search for the truth, what has at times been called “basic research”: “If scientific creativity is to benefit authentic human progress, it must remain detached from every form of financial or ideological conditioning, so that it can be devoted solely to the dispassionate search for truth and the disinterested service of humanity.” Presumably government support for science, which has financial and political constraints upon it, would also be excluded under this perspective.

Like we’ve said here before, science policy is everywhere.

A Nation Undivided: Misperceptions about Moral Values

If you have turned on the news or picked up a paper at any point in the days since the election, you have surely heard that 22% of exit-polled voters in last Tuesday's election held "moral values" as the most important factor in their choice for president. This statistic, while suspect, has produced a firestorm of discussion about the state of the nation by those eager to determine the surefire explanation for the victory of the Republicans this time around.
And out of this discussion has emerged the overt assumption that values belong to one of the two major parties, and that those values are inextricably linked to faith. Some quotes to that end:

-From Thomas Friedman's Nov. 4 column:
'"The Democrats have ceded to Republicans a monopoly on the moral and spiritual sources of American politics," noted the Harvard University political theorist Michael J. Sandel. "They will not recover as a party until they again have candidates who can speak to those moral and spiritual yearnings."'

-From Todd Purdum Nov. 4 News Analysis:
Rahm Emanuel, representative from Illinois asserted that the democrats "need a nominee and a party that is comfortable with faith and values. And if we have one, then all the hard work we've done on Social Security or America's place in the world or college education can be heard."

- From Jeffrey Bell and Frank Cannon, Oct. 11 Weekly Standard:
"If you had to pick a single reason why the Democratic party is weaker at all levels than at any time in the last 50 years, it is the transformation of moral-values issues into an overwhelming Republican asset."

These are just a few of the many election-related proclamations that values lie on the other side of the aisle from the Democratic Party. Some analysts have taken these proclamations a step further and have declared that the foundation of American democracy, "Enlightenment values - critical intelligence, tolerance, respect for evidence, a regard for the secular sciences" have in fact dissolved with the election of George W. Bush. (From Garry Wills NYTimes op-ed).

With this and the previous assertions, analysts on both sides of the aisle define the Democratic Party as the party of reason and evidence and the Republican Party as the party of values and faith. And each side surrenders to a land divided.

But I argue that this surrender is both misinformed and dangerous. It assumes that values can be one-sided, that value-free decisions are possible, and that Democrats operate in this value-free realm. None of these assumptions are true.

Every decision that we make from the individual to the national level is a commitment to one set of values over another. And each of us, regardless of our political or religious affiliation, makes this commitment from some set of base values with which we view the world. To define moral values as a republican strong-hold is to misconstrue the nature of decision making. Democrats do not make decisions on scientific information alone, and likewise Republicans do not make decisions on values alone.

If we assume that they do however, we divert our policy discussions away from real issues and value debates to the sort of polarizing science v. faith debates implied above. Science and values do not lie opposite each other. When we claim that they do, as Garry Wills did above and again in his assertion that America is now defined by "fundamentalist zeal, a rage at secularity ., [and] fear and hatred of modernity," we falsely simplify the decision making process.

To illustrate: with regard to climate policy on a national scale, the two candidates had opposing views, both influenced by values. President Bush promoted further research and voluntary emissions reductions, as a means not to harm the economy. In making this decision, he determined that the nation can best achieve well-being through sustained and unburdened economic growth. Senator Kerry on the other hand promoted the development of renewable energy sources and an increase in fuel efficiency standards. Value-wise, he determined that the well-being of the nation lied in environmental preservation as a first priority and he did not see limits on growth as a barrier to the well-being and wealth of the nation.

Real decisions like this one are far too complex for a simple values v. reason distinction. This decision comes down to a value dispute between environmental preservation versus economic freedom, both of which ultimately strive for well-being. If we label it as such, we steer clear of the polarizing claims that Senator Kerry understands scientific fact and rightly keeps values out of his decision, or that President Bush's position is devoid of logical explanation.

When we debate policies and their associated values, we must consciously avoid the current desire to establish a false science versus values dichotomy within the nation. Let's engage the value debate differently. Let's be honest about all the values at play.

A Hyperbolic Backlash

On occasion here at Prometheus we've observed that within the scientific community proponents of action to mitigate climate change have an increasing tendency to misjustify, overstate, or misuse science in support of their agenda. By engaging in such hyperbole, the scientist-advocates are, ironically enough, adopting some of the exact same tactics that opponents of action to mitigate climate change have been criticized for by many of the exact same proponents of action.

For example, today's Seattle Times contains an article that provides a window into the conflict that is festering within the scientific community about using hurricanes, and in particular the 2004 hurricane season, as a justification for changes to energy policies. Here is an excerpt:

""Four hurricanes in a five-week period could be a harbinger of things to come," said Dr. Paul Epstein, associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School. Epstein is among a group of scientists from Harvard and the National Center for Atmospheric Research - a consortium of 68 universities funded by government and private grants - who argue that a rise in global sea temperatures is putting more moisture into the air, increasing the chances not only for more intense hurricanes but also for more rain and severe storms throughout the year. And they say this is only the beginning. Warming, they contend, is an underlying factor contributing to droughts in the
Midwest, heat waves in Europe and typhoons in Japan. Other scientists dispute that gloomy appraisal... "You can never attribute a single season, or even several seasons, to something like global warming," said Gerry Bell, a meteorologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Climate Prediction Center. Bell and other NOAA scientists say it's wrong to blame warming for an increase in the number or severity of recent storms... Bell said that blaming global warming for recent storms is overlooking the obvious. "It's like if you see someone take a blowtorch to a house and the house burns down, then arguing that it was the summer heat that caused the fire and overlooking the blowtorch," Bell said. "We don't need to be looking for some amorphous signal that may or may not be there.""

Based on my own research, even if global warming has or will affect hurricanes it is a misjustification to assert that this supports changes in energy policies. The requisite corollary to this statement is that there are plenty of other good reasons for climate mitigation. And recently behind the scenes, I have become aware that this debate over hurricanes is having some implications for scientists within the IPCC and how some policymakers perceive the activities of scientists taking overt advocacy positions.

In addition, today a UK-based group called the International Policy Network (IPN) released a report titled, "The Impacts of Climate Change" which observes:

"The views of pundits and politically motivated activists from myriad disciplines are often aired in the debate about climate impacts. Raising fears of future harms, these people promote proposals which, if implemented by policymakers, would often be more detrimental to humanity than the alleged harms they seek to prevent."

The authors of this report have identified what they believe is some hyperbole in the climate debate and are using that hyperbole as an opening to advance their own political agenda. It is important to note that the IPN mission statement tells us a lot about their political perspective:

"International Policy Network believes that markets and their underlying institutions harness human potential better than any other institutional arrangement, and are the best way to address the poverty and tragedy faced by many people in the world." Their report seeks to head off ad hominem attacks on their work at the outset, writing in the introduction:

"... pundits and activists are able to offer a moral certainty to policymakers that scientists cannot likewise offer. Undoubtedly, some of the former will cast aspersions on the motives of those who contributed to this document. In their minds, those who choose to challenge the 'conventional wisdom' of human-induced climate apocalypse are either the mouthpieces of big corporations, or they are deluded, or both. Other critics will regurgitate the old chestnut that 2500 scientists of the IPCC have reached a consensus. Or, more absurd, 'most scientists' say this or that ... To those who choose the ad hominem approach to criticism: read this report and investigate the scientific literature The motivation of this report is to redress the balance in this debate, and to inspire
policymakers and others to take a more balanced approach."

Let me state that in no way do I endorse the political agenda of the IPN or their report on climate change. But I can say that in the areas of the IPN report that I have expertise (and 4 of my papers are referenced in the report's Section 5) they have not misused my work.

Criticisms such as those reported in the Seattle Times and the IPN are made possible by the hyperbolic excesses of those pushing for certain political outcomes related to climate change. A danger of using science to justify a political agenda is that, by itself, the science may not compel a certain outcome, and thus there are strong incentives to push the science into the realm of hyperbole. The consequences for both science and policy can be serious, with a loss of legitimacy at risk for the former and gridlock for the latter.

I remain optimistic that the IPCC scientific community will to some degree police the public hyperbole, at least among its own, but so far with only a few exceptions the community has remained mute.

Professors and Policy

The November 5, 200 Yale Herald has a thoughtful article about the role of professors, and Yale professors in particular, as contributors to governmental policy making. The article notes, “One difference between Yale and schools such as Harvard and Princeton is the lack of a professional program in public policy. This goes part way in explaining the disparity between the levels of cooperation in the government.” The article includes a range of perspectives, and is worth a read. It is online here.

Career Opportunity: Program Officer

Board on Atmospheric Sciences & Climate
The National Academies

The Board on Atmospheric Sciences & Climate is seeking an exceptional person with strong scientific expertise and an interest in applying science in the policy arena. A Program Officer (sometimes called Study Director) is responsible for all aspects of implementation of the Board’s work – designing studies, working with agencies and committees of experts, analyzing complex issues, and preparing reports. It’s a dynamic work environment – the National Academies’ staff of more than 1000 people address all the issues in today’s headlines and more, from stem cell research to alternative energy sources to climate change.

Qualifications: Ph.D. or equivalent knowledge is preferred, but Master’s degree or equivalent knowledge with 3 years of related experience will be considered. Requires ability to review and analyze scientific literature; good organization, interpersonal, and leadership skills; and ability to work productively in a team environment. Excellent oral and written communications skills are essential. Background in a variety of fields within the areas of atmospheric sciences, meteorology, and climate will be considered. The job is located in Washington, D.C. Some travel is required.

Responsibilities:
• Plan, develop, and direct technical and policy studies related to a diversity of scientific issues in the atmospheric sciences, meteorology, and climate.
• Manage the study process, including organizing meetings of scientific experts; gathering and analyzing information for projects; guiding committee selection process and evolution of committee reports; and keeping projects on time and within budgets.
• Effectively express complex technical and policy information in various written forms, including status reports, project summaries, and detailed committee reports.
• Guide reports through review, publication, and dissemination.
• Interact with agency personnel, policy makers, and senior scientists.
• Assist in preparation of prospectuses and proposals and work on special projects.
• Supervise the work of support staff.

For more information, visit www.national-academies.org/basc. To apply, send a resume and cover letter explaining your interest in the position to Chris Elfring, Director, Board on Atmospheric Sciences & Climate at celfring@nas.edu. Send a copy of your application to Rob Carlucci, Office of Human Resources, at rcarlucc@nas.edu. Please include the job number (040215-2) on your application. No phone calls, please. The National Academies is an affirmative action/equal opportunity employer.

Ghost of the Golden Fleece

Johns Hopkins Magazine has a lengthy and excellent article on recent debate on politics and science and its impact on researchers at Johns Hopkins. The article includes a very interesting description of the effort of a few members of Congress and a conservative advocacy group to strip NIH funding for a few research projects focused on topics that they disagreed with. Here are few excerpts from the article and my commentary:

"For more than two years, NIH has been under serious political pressure to justify, and in some cases discontinue, its support of research in areas problematic to social and religious conservatives, pressure that is unprecedented, according to many scientists and science advocates"

The article then suggests that the process of peer-review of individual proposals is guided only by science:

"Central to the process [of allocating NIH research funds] is objective evaluation solely on a proposal's scientific merit. Politics, philosophy, religious doctrine - none are supposed to sway the selection of approved applications. Scientists, not politicians or political appointees or advocacy groups or lobbyists, decide who gets funded."

This statement may well be true at the panel evaluation level, but up the food chain the processes of allocating research funds to NIH and across different programs in NIH is very political, and this is as it should be. People with diseases and their representatives advocate for more research to their cause, and NIH itself argues for more funds in the budget process based on the societal benefits expected from the research. To suggest that NIH decision making is "objective" or guided only by scientists is to play right into the hands of those who say that societal values should play a larger role in decisions about science.

This point is clear in a few quotes in the article from floor debate in the House in 2003:

"In July 2003, the House was debating the annual appropriation when Rep. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.) took the floor of the House and proposed an amendment to the bill that would prohibit fulfillment of five research grants already approved by NIH [Toomey] said on the floor of the House, "Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues, who thinks this stuff up? And worse, who decides to actually fund these sorts of things? Well, unfortunately, the NIH has done so." He added, "And as for those who suggest that we should not interfere with the process by which the NIH decides how to allocate their funds, let me strongly disagree. We have an affirmative obligation in this Congress, as the body that controls the purse strings of the federal government, to supervise and provide oversight."

Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.) rose to defend the studies listed in Toomey's amendment: "I have served on the subcommittee that deals with NIH for a long time, and the one thing I came to understand very quickly is that the day that we politicize NIH research, the day we decide which grants are going to be approved on the basis of a 10-minute debate in the House of Representatives with 434 of 435 members who do not even know what the grant is, that is the day we will ruin science research in this country."

When Toomey's amendment came to a roll-call vote, it lost - but only by two votes, 212-210. The NIH cow appeared to be sacred no longer. Researchers and advocates of publicly funded science were startled by the narrowness of the amendment's defeat."

The effects of Congressional intrusion into the details of NIH science policy decision making are captured well in the following reactions by an NIH researcher and representative of

"[Johns Hopkins' David] Celentano notes the increased attendance at NIH research meetings by politically appointed administrators, and by others: "All of a sudden, we were seeing at the table representatives of the faith community, who were observing these grant reviews. We were told that they'd been invited to the table 'from downtown,' meaning the highest level of HHS. A number of my colleagues said it was incredibly uncomfortable because they'd be discussing a grant and these faith-based people were asking questions."

[Andrea] Lafferty [executive director of the Traditional values Coalition] believes that scientists should be willing to answer such questions. She approves of more citizen involvement in peer review and advising. "There's an arrogance in science. Many people who are scientists don't believe in God because they believe they are God. That's part of the problem. They treat people with any kind of faith as stupid or ignorant, and it's not true."

One reaction in NIH to the increasing politicization of NIH research was recounted by another Johns Hopkins researcher describing how a NIH project officer suggested at a meeting that scientists could get around external scrutiny:

"At that meeting, a project officer stood up and said, 'We have to tell you that there is a new policy at NIH, and the policy is that if any of the following words or terms are in your grant title or abstract, we're going to send it back to you to take them out.' Then she proceeded to list the words: sex worker, injection drug use, harm reduction, needle exchange, men who have sex with men, homosexual, bisexual, gay, prostitute. It was unbelievable. We were literally looking around the room, like, You're kidding me. Everyone sat in silence. I raised my hand and said, 'We're proposing to do a training program in harm reduction throughout Southeast Asia. That's one of our main activities over the next five years because the data tell us that injection drug use remains a problem and there's more injection drug use transmission happening in this region. I want to do that. It's the right thing to do. How do we proceed?' And she said, 'Don't make me speak to you about this in public. There are spies everywhere.' This is at NIH! This is the United States of America! This is not China! I spoke to her afterwards outside the room and she said, 'Look, you can say what you want in the body of the grant. We don't think anybody is going to get to that level. But the title and abstract are part of the database that's searchable by these people, and we're trying to help you avoid not getting funded.'"

It seems to me that if scientists try to get around questions of the relevance or value of their work by mischaracterizing it or throwing a head fake in the abstract or title, then they are just asking for further challenges. Judith Auerbach, vice president for public policy at the American Foundation for AIDS Research, seems to have judged this situation about right:

""[The critics] ask questions about who makes decisions about what science gets funded, and do those people reflect the general interest of the taxpayers. Now that's a legitimate question. I don't think any of us would argue that accountability by federal agencies for programs that spend federal tax dollars is unreasonable. But how you define that accountability and how you go about assessing it is where the problem lies.""

For the scientific community the challenge then is not to seek to win a public, political battle over the right of certain groups to participate in the science policy process, but instead to channel advocates' desire to influence science-related decision making into means of participating in science policy that lead to a healthy connection of science and policy and are not destructive to either the practice of science or its connections with societal needs. While this is obviously easier said in the abstract than done in practice, efforts to engage advocates on the playing field of politics rather than science policy could lead to outcomes for science far worse than the public termination of a few grants at NIH.

Read the whole article here.

Call for Papers

Science & Technology in Society:
An Interdisciplinary Graduate Student Conference

Sponsored by:
The National Science Foundation George Mason University
The George Washington University
Virginia Polytechnic Institute

When: April 23rd – 24th, 2005
Where: American Association for the Advancement of Science Headquarters, Washington, DC
Abstract Deadline: January 31st, 2005

This annual conference provides a forum for ideas on theory and application of science and technology (S&T) as components of global society. Graduate students from a variety of disciplinary and interdisciplinary programs are invited to present their research on S&T in contexts ranging from local to global, public to private, micro- to macro-scale, speculative to legal, and history to future. In addition to presenting papers, students will have the opportunity to interact with each other and prominent scholars and professionals related to their field(s) of interest. Previous speakers have included Daniel Kleinman, Sandra Harding, and Al Tiech, just to name a few. We expect to draw scholars of similar caliber for the upcoming conference.

The conference organizing committee welcomes submissions of abstracts (up to 250 words) for a 10-15 minute presentation. Abstracts need to be submitted via email to stglobal@vt.edu by January 31st, 2005. Acceptance of abstracts will be given by March 1st, 2005. Final papers will potentially be included on the conference website. We seek submissions from graduate students studying topics related, but not limited to the role of S&T in the following thematic areas:

Globalization, International Regulation
Environment, Biodiversity and Sustainable Development
The Knowledge-Based Economy
Civil, Ethical and Legal Issues
National Security and Defense Applications
Government, Private and Academic Investment
S&T in Non-Western Cultures
Historical and Social Dimensions of S&T
Revolutionary or Non-Traditional Directions in S&T
Network and Industrial Organization
Biotechnology
Policy Implications of S&T
Information Technology
Foresight/Forecast in S&T
Technology and Human Development
Nanotechnology

Information concerning area lodging and registration will be made available on the conference website by January 31, 2005. Travel funds are available for a limited number of presenters. Students in need of travel funds should indicate so when submitting their abstract. For further information, please visit the conference website at: http://www.gwu.edu/~cistp/stglobal.

Politics and the IPCC

Recently we discussed actions of the director of the IPCC and political advocacy, “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.”

Well a recent story from the Environmental News Network suggests that R. K. Pachauri, Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has continued to engage in political advocacy. Here is an except from the story:

“Although saved recently with Russian help, the Kyoto pact on global warming offers too little to arrest climate change and governments should adopt more radical solutions, the top U.N. climate expert said. "My feeling is that we will probably need to do more than most people are talking about" to combat climate change, said Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He welcomed ratification of the Kyoto pact by Russia's lower house of parliament, paving the way for the long-delayed 1997 accord to enter into force in the 126 nations that approved it, even though the world's greatest polluter, the United States, pulled out in 2001. "This mustn't lull us into thinking that the problem is solved," Pachauri said. "Kyoto is not enough. We now have to look at the problem afresh." Kyoto is a first step towards curbing emissions of gases like carbon dioxide, mainly from burning fossil fuels, that scientists blame for trapping heat in the atmosphere like the panes of glass in a greenhouse. Rising concentrations could melt icecaps, swamp low-lying coastal regions, and trigger catastrophic changes to the planet's climate with more volatile weather from typhoons to droughts. Pachauri urged the world to shift strategy from Kyoto's reduction targets for greenhouse gases to long-term global targets on how much of the gases the atmosphere should contain.”

Perhaps most troubling is that Dr. Pachauri explicitly linked his work under the IPCC to efforts in support of political advocacy:

“Pachauri leads work to produce a 2007 U.N. climate report based on research by more than 2,000 scientists, updating a 2001 assessment that concluded there was "new and stronger evidence" that human activities were to blame for rising temperatures. "My hope is that this (2007 report) will be able to fill gaps, reduce uncertainties, and produce a much stronger message," said Pachauri, who is based in New Delhi.”

These statements echo similar comments made by Dr. Pachauri in 2002 following his appointment as IPCC Director:

“There was a need for a dialogue on what commitments nations should make in a second wave after Kyoto, he said. "I think that the science must provide a compelling reason and a logic to take those steps, and this is what I hope the IPCC will be able to do in the future," he added.”

If the IPCC exists solely to motivate action on a particular policy alternative, then it risks becoming an instrument of marketing for decisions already made. This is a long way from where the IPCC was in 1990 when its Working Group III operated under a mandate to empower decision makers by “lay[ing] out as fully and fairly as possible a set of response policy options to global climate change and the factual basis for those options.” It is not at all clear what options on mitigation and adaptation are available for dealing with climate change in the post-Kyoto period, much less their relative costs and benefits, and if the IPCC determines what option should be advocated prior to an open and informed discussion, then it risks morphing into just another interest group selling a preferred solution on climate change, and in the process frittering away its science-based authority and legitimacy.

Folks in the IPCC ought to think carefully about continuing down the path of abandoning their role as honest broker.

A Perspective on Science and Politics in the US

Writing in The Guardian a few days ago, Ian Sample has an interesting article on the role that many scientists have taken in this year’s presidential election. He writes,

“The build-up to next week's US election has seen a strange transformation take place in the world of science. The traditional strategy of keeping heads well down when it comes to politics has given way to outright activism. More scientists than ever have waded into the electoral fray, pegging their allegiance firmly to the Democratic presidential candidate, John Kerry.

To many, the mobilisation of scientists in favour of Kerry is inevitable, a consequence of the Bush administration's policies on stem cells and climate change. But some scientists believe that by aligning itself so strongly with a particular party, science may have set itself up for a fall. "When the community gets on the political bandwagon, they lose control of how the facts are used," says a source within the US National Academy of Sciences, speaking on condition of anonymity.”

Sample raises an interesting question: What happens when the favored political candidate misuses science?

“While support for Kerry among academic scientists is apparently still strong, the downside of pledging their allegiance is beginning to become clear. The Democratic vice presidential candidate, John Edwards, made many scientists wince when he spoke at a recent rally in Newton, Iowa. "If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to get up out of that wheelchair and walk again," he said, referring to the potential therapies that embryonic stem cells might one day offer.

"What's sad is that when he claimed stem cells would enable people to leave their wheelchairs, there wasn't one protest from any of those Nobel prizewinners about such a misuse of science in a campaign statement," says [former House Science Committee Chairman Robert] Walker [a Republican]. He says that Kerry's speeches regularly give the impression that viable stem cell therapies are just a few years away, when most scientists believe they will not be a reality for much longer.

The Iowa rally wasn't the only time that scientists frowned at science being peddled at political meetings. In previous speeches, Kerry has stated that millions of people could be cured by stem cell therapies. The figure is a misrepresentation of data produced by the US National Academy of Sciences, the source said. The list simply gave estimates of the number of people with a range of medical conditions from Parkinson's disease to severe spinal damage. "I was cringing, but it was the Kerry campaign people that distorted the facts."

For now, it seems the scientific community is biting its tongue. "Once the scientific community gets on the side of one candidate or the other, and that candidate goes out making mis-statements about science, is the community obliged to correct them? They're not going to if they want them to win." For the scientific community, the legacy of backing Kerry is likely to hit home some time after the election when the public realises that science may have been hyped throughout. Only then will scientists know whether backing Kerry was more trouble than it was worth. "The bottom line is that the scientific community is experiencing pain enduring this president, so a lot of people would say that no matter what the repercussions, it's worth it."”

On November 3, 2004 (or whenever the election is over!) there will be much work to do at the interface of science and politics.

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS, Denton, TX.

Applications are invited for a tenure track position (Assistant Professor) within the Department of Philosophy and Religion Studies, to begin fall of 2005.

AOS: Environmental Philosophy/Ethics and/or Religion and Nature/Ecology.

AOC: Open, but the department has needs in the philosophy of science, aesthetics, and logic. The department, the leading program in environmental philosophy in the United States, seeks a dynamic individual who is interested in exploring how their area of expertise intersects with contemporary cultural and societal issues. Experience and/or interest in working with scientists and engineers, policy analysts, is desirable. Normal teaching load is 2-2.

Qualifications include a Ph.D. by August 1, 2005. The department offers a MA in philosophy with a concentration in environmental ethics, a BA in philosophy, and an interdisciplinary minor in religion studies. It is awaiting approval of a PhD in philosophy.

Located in the Dallas-Ft Worth Metroplex, the university has more than 31,000 students.

Review of applications begins December 1, and will continue until position is filled. Please send letter of application, C.V., and a list of references to Philosophy Search Committee, Department of Philosophy and Religion Studies, University of North Texas, P.O. Box 310920, Denton, TX 76201-0920. Information about the department can be found at www.phil.unt.edu, and inquiries are welcome at 940-565-2134 or philosophy@unt.edu. UNT is an AA/ADA/EOE committed to diversity.