- Prometheus: Science Policy: General Archives

Contents:

July 31, 2008

Science and Technology Policy Researchers and Practice: Do They Inform Each Other?

I wanted to note for our readers the essay titled "History of Science and American Science Policy" from the current (June 2008) issue of Isis, the journal of the History of Science Society. Full citation:

Wang, Zuoyue and Naomi Oreskes. 2008. "History of Science and American Science Policy," Isis, 99:2 (June), 365-373.

The essay is part of the journal's Focus section, which in this issue asks "What is the Value of History of Science?" The other essays explore how the History of Science has or could influence other areas of scientific activity. While I found value in each of the essays, there are two things I wanted to post related to this particular example.

One thing that struck me as I read about the work of historians of science in the policy sphere in the late 1950s and 1980s is their absence in the 22 years since the 1986 study sponsored by the House. Add to that relative absence of other scholars dealing with science and technology policy in the practice of same, and I'm persuaded there's a whole lot of knowledge transfer not going on that could.

That it doesn't happen (or isn't obvious) in science and technology policy research makes me wonder if the academic field is doing much more than perpetuating itself. Since only a small percentage of their students need go into academic careers to sustain their numbers, they don't have to work that hard.

If I'm wrong about this, what should I be reading and where should I be looking? I'm not talking about government reports like those produced by the Congressional Research Service or the deified Office of Technology Assessment; nor do I mean reports written by think tanks, the National Academies or other non-academic, non-governmental bodies. They are written in a process and with a goal distinct from that of most academic research. I am looking for scholarship from science and technology policy researchers that has been effectively transferred to practitioners? In my work conducting policy analysis related to computer science, I'm rarely asked or encouraged to go to the academic literature unless it's in computer science. There are many scholars who conduct evaluation work of science and technology programs for various agencies, but that work rarely places specific programs into larger contexts or provides critical analyses beyond the specific program in question.

Now, I don't place this issue squarely at the feet of academic researchers. I've seen little indication from practitioners that they are seeking information that academic research can provide, or even know much about the bodies of knowledge that they can use for their work. I doubt there's a sole cause behind this, as the pressure to perform or produce, the difference between policy-relevant and academic knowledge, the lack of awareness of what's going on in academic research, and the time-scale differences between the two sectors all have some influence on why these two groups don't talk that much. But it seems to me a screaming inefficiency that there isn't some greater effort to transfer knowledge, or communicate ongoing research and ongoing questions between the two groups.

As an aside, in the essay by Zuoyue and Oreskes, I see yet again this revelation to at least one of the authors that policymaking is oh so different from what they do and/or what they expected. As somebody who attempts to work in both policy research and policy practice, my expectations may be too high. But it just strikes me as really naive that congressional hearings or similar activities are such an eye-opening experience to highly educated people ostensibly interested in policy. That they haven't bothered to at least take a peak at what they might be getting into before testifying or researching congressional decision-making really reinforces all those isolationist stereotypes associated with the ivory tower. It's politics, for crying out loud. You expected it to resemble a judicial trial or a research workshop? Maybe I shouldn't be so surprised that knowledge isn't flowing between science and technology policy researchers and practitioners.

Posted on July 31, 2008 06:30 PM View this article | Comments (2)
Posted to Author: Bruggeman, D. | Science Policy: General

July 15, 2008

Too Many Atmospheric Scientists . . . Surprise, Surprise

In the current issue of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society John Knox concludes (PDF):

. . . if the projections are accurate: the number of undergraduate meteorology degree recipients will increasingly exceed the number of meteorology employment opportunities into the next decade. Thus, given recent trends and future projections, the growth of the U.S. undergraduate meteorology population is potentially unsustainable in terms of bachelor’s degree–level employment within meteorology.

With respect to the job market for meteorologists he finds another solid indication of a glut:

Meteorology graduates’ salaries in this national database are much closer to those in the traditionally glutted and underpaid humanities fields than to salaries for graduates with computer science, physics, geology, or mathematics degrees.

Knox indicates that this situation has developed because the atmospheric sciences community has ignored the demand side of the equation when pressing for an ever increasing supply of students, and may foreshadow a similar glut at the graduate level:

the quantitative results of this article can be construed to indicate that we have entered a period of chronic oversupply of undergraduate meteorologists. This oversupply has arguably come about because the mechanisms that generate interest in our field (e.g., unprecedented media emphasis on weather) are mostly uncoupled to the mechanisms of demand. Media coverage of weather and climate topics can inspire throngs of students to pursue meteorology as a career; it is specifically cited by UNC Charlotte meteorologists as a reason for their program’s spectacular growth (www.charlotte. com/274/story/103334.html). But widespread media attention does not magically create future employment opportunities for these students within meteorology. If, in turn, this situation translates into a future boom in graduate school enrollments and Ph.D. production, the current parlous state of “grantsmanship” in our science as described by the critiques of Carlson (2006) and Roulston (2006) would seem tame by comparison.

In the same issue, Jeff Rosenfield, Editor-in-Chief of BAMS editorializes (not online, at p. 773) that he was “surprised” by the data. He should not have been. In 2002 I engaged in a series of exchanges on the pages of BAMS on exactly this question in response to a paper by Vali, Anthes, et al. warning of a shortage of PhD atmospheric scientists. They argued that one solution was to boost the undergraduate ranks in the atmospheric sciences:

we as a community should seek ways to increase the number of qualified applicants. Because the number of atmospheric scientists required under any reasonable scenario is small compared to the total number of students in undergraduate education, a modest increase in the effort to recruit students from other disciplines could have a major impact in a relatively short period of time.

In response, I argued that any discussion of a shortfall in supply of atmospheric sciences professionals needed also to be accompanied by some understanding of the market demand for people trained with this expertise, something that Vali , Anthes, et al. neglected to discuss, and Knox identifies as a root factor in the present mismatch of supply and demand. I argued that the atmospheric sciences were risking committing the exact same mistake made by the NSF when it proclaimed a looming shortage of scientists in the 1990s. I concluded:

The science and technology community generally experienced loss of credibility in the 1990s when a number of prominent figures claimed a looming shortage of scientists. Leaders in the atmospheric sciences are in a position to use experience to avoid such errors in future assessments of the labor market. In particular, considerable care must be taken in raising expectations of potential students and policymakers about the future prospects for employment.

In reply, Vali and Anthes dismissed the importance of any consideration of demand, raised the "idealistic" vision of the free pursuit of knowledge, and ended with a jingoistic appeal to the need for more native U.S. scientists. To this I rejoined that there was indeed data available that portended a potential oversupply of atmospheric scientists, and this data was ignored at some risk. No one should be surprised at the current labor market situation for atmospheric scientists.

Now it turns out that the community faces an oversupply of undergraduates, depressed salaries, and a potential loss of credibility. Of course, the entirely predictable next step in this situation will be for the atmospheric sciences community to bemoan the fact that research budgets have not kept pace with the supply of trained atmospheric scientists, and call for an increase in federal R&D to create new opportunities. And in this way, the politics of science funding go round and round.

July 10, 2008

Accountability and Federally Funded Research - Not Mutually Exculsive

Among the many different old, ill-formed, and just plain inaccurate tenets found in science and technology policy rhetoric is the notion that accountability for federal research funds only means one thing: an overly simplistic metric of dollars per discovery (much, much easier said than done). The most recent example of this can be found in the August 2008 issue of Seed magazine. In an interview found on pages 22 and 24 of that issue (titled "Foundation Building," not yet available online), Dr. Colwell notes, in response to a question about difficulties in building support for curiosity-driven basic research, answered:

Well, I didn't really get the question, "How many discoveries are you going to make this year if we give you the money?" but there was an implication too often that they wanted to have some sort of accountability. That is, if you spent x number of dollars, you would get y number of discoveries. Fortunately good sense and intelligence prevailed.

Accountability is a good thing, particularly accountability where taxpayer money is involved. But the way Colwell defines accountability forces her to speak of it as though it is a bad thing. Not a great example of good sense. And not an isolated incident.

So, agreeing that a measure of dollars per discovery is an ineffective measure of the impact of research spending (and probably a difficult metric to capture), how should we consider accountability for federal research money?

My first observation is that this discussion is usually framed in terms of what accountability should not be. Another relevant point is that what the scientific communities would consider as being accountable for their money or using it effectively will not completely overlap with what the federal government will consider accountable or effective.

All that said, the NSF, like all federal agencies, is obligated to submit Performance Reports with each Budget Request. So the FY 2007 Report was submitted with the FY 2009 Request. You can access it through the NSF website.

Reviewing the FY 2007 Performance Report Highlights, many of the research and education goals are handled through external expert review, per recommendations from a 2001 National Academies report, Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act for Research: A Status Report (full disclosure: I helped staff the report). The recommendations in that report encouraged that scientific research be evaluating on criteria of quality, relevance and leadership. Now there are assumptions behind those criteria that have not been really debated or questioned outside of the scientific community. But this is a measure of accountability, so for Colwell to suggest that there isn't is odd, and to not mention the means by which NSF tries to assess its effectiveness is to miss an opportunity to boost the perception of those scientists and engineers beating their tin Ehrlemeyer flasks for federal research dollars.

To the extent practical, democratic government functions better for its citizens the more transparent it is. Scientific communities fight this for fear of micromanagement. To celebrate and advertise the assessment measures for scientific research can help strengthen the perception of those politicians and policymakers outside the House Science and Technology Committee that are at best indifferent to the fate of the scientific and technological enterprise in the U.S.

I don't expect such a recognition of assessment to purge the linear model from the halls of Congress, nor do I expect it to open the eyes of people to the point that science funding is no longer an afterthought in the appropriations process (the deficit model is an even bigger cognitive block than the linear model). I do expect a better ability of people to see what is happening with scientific research dollars, and perhaps detect changes to the workforce (grant trends - including personnel support - are probably the easiest metrics to capture about research) in a way that can move policy arguments past the collections of anecdotes that often pass for data.

Posted on July 10, 2008 05:17 AM View this article | Comments (0)
Posted to Author: Bruggeman, D. | Science Policy: General

July 07, 2008

What U.S Competitiveness Crisis?

For some time we have noted the tendency of some in the S&T community to claim that a crisis exists in United States Competitiveness, with the solution being large and immediate government investments in R&D budgets. Others, including Paul Krugman and Amar Bhidé argue that the notion of "competitiveness" is itself incoherent placing claims of a crisis on dubious claims.

A new report out by The Rand Corporation, titled U.S. Competitiveness in Science and Technology (PDF), seeks to shed some light on this debate, asking : "So, who is right? Is U.S. leadership in S&T in jeopardy?"

The answer they come up with is "No":

The United States continues to lead the world in science and technology. . .
Taken in concert, these statistics suggest that the United States is still a premier performer in S&T and grew faster in many measures of S&T prowess than did Japan and Europe. Developing nations such as China, India, and South Korea, though starting from a small base, showed rapid growth in S&T, and, if that growth continues, the United States should expect its share of world S&T output to diminish.

High growth in R&D expenditures, triadic patents, and S&E employment, combined with low unemployment of S&E workers, suggest that the United States has not been losing S&E positions to other countries through outsourcing and offshoring.

It is an interesting report and a valuable contribution to the debate. My view of the long series of claims that the U.S. is experiencing a competitiveness crisis reflect a flawed understanding of data and analysis in this area, a willingness to exploit jingoistic rhetoric for political gain, or a crass effort to boost R&D budgets based on an argument that sells well in Washington. The reality is probably a combination of all three.

But even if the U.S. is not experiencing a competitiveness crisis, complacency is not really an option. The Rand report makes a number of sensible suggestions:

* Establish a permanent commitment 􀁴􀀁 to a funded, chartered entity responsible for periodically monitoring, critically reviewing, and analyzing U.S. S&T performance and the condition of the S&E workforce.
* Facilitate the temporary and indefinite stay of foreigners who
graduated in S&E from U.S. universities . . .

* Facilitate the immigration of highly skilled labor, in particular
in S&E, to ensure that the benefits of expanded innovation,
including spillovers, accrue to the United States and to ensure
the United States remains competitive in research and innovation.

* Increase capacity to learn from science centers in Europe, Japan,
China, India, and other countries to benefit from scientific and
technological advances made elsewhere.

* Continue to improve K–12 􀁴􀀁 education in general and S&T education
in particular, as human capital is a main driver of economic
growth and well-being.

June 29, 2008

Science and Technology Receive Money in Supplemental

A casualty of the budget 'compromise' for fiscal year 2008 (October 1, 2007-September 30, 2008), funding for science and technology agencies like the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Department of Energy's Office of Science, may get a reprieve in the supplemental funding legislation that just passed the House of Representatives.

Supplemental funding bills, at least for the last few years, have focused on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This time, $161.8 billion of the bill will focus on those wars, and there will be $24.7 billion of discretionary spending, covering things like flood relief for the Midwest, and continued levee repair in that area and the Gulf Coast.

Part of the bill will cover science and technology funding, not completely making up for the cuts to the FY 2008 requested totals these agencies suffered in this year's failure to pass the federal budget on time. Per ASTRA, a science advocacy organization focused on the physical sciences, the totals in this bill for science are approximately $400 million (first item as of this writing). AAAS places the total figure at $338 million (probably due to differences in what the groups count in their research and development funding totals).

However, what was once abnormal, irregular budgetary practice has become the norm. I would not expect the FY 2009 budget to be passed by the beginning of that fiscal year, and the budget may not be approved until after the election.

Frustrated? Disappointed? Contact your Senators and Representatives and complain. Then do it again in a few weeks.

Posted on June 29, 2008 03:39 PM View this article | Comments (0)
Posted to Author: Bruggeman, D. | Science Policy: General

June 24, 2008

Science and Technology Policy Report Roundup

A perfectly non-scientific sampling of reports on science and technology policy in the United States, some from organizations that may not be familiar to everyone.

The RAND Corporation - A long-standing science and technology research company, RAND started with national security issues and has branched out into many different areas. Until the early part of this decade, they ran the Science and Technology Policy Institute, and its predecessor, the Critical Technologies Institute, for the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

U.S. Competitiveness in Science and Technology - This monograph is a nice contrast to the occasionally overheated rhetoric about the impending collapse of the U.S. science and engineering enterprise. It notes the continued strengths of American research and development, noting that our leadership should not be taken for granted. Another interesting note (at least to me) was the notion that globalization can work both ways. from the research summary at the link above:

Counterintuitively, globalization and the rise of science and technology capability in other nations may prove to be economically beneficial to the United States overall. A future with more technologies invented abroad can benefit the United States, since domestic use of new technology, whether invented in the United States or elsewhere, can result in greater efficiency, economic growth, and higher living standards.

Adapting and adopting new technology - whether developed in the United States or elsewhere - is a useful skill in maintaining a competitive edge. That's an idea worth exploring and repeating.

The American Academy of Arts and Sciences - Not to be confused with that other AAAS, this Academy is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is nearly 70 years older, and draws from all fields when selecting its members.

The ARISE Report - ARISE stands for Advancing Research in Science and Engineering. The report is from the Academy's Initiative on Science, Engineering and Technology which is concerned about science literacy and the interactions of science, technology and society. The report's recommendation focus on encouraging high-risk research and supporting young researchers. While the second one may seem a no-brainer, I appreciate the attention provided the first concern. As forward thinking as universities can be, they are still very conservative institutions (in the traditional sense, not the contemporary left-right sense). The same can be said of the scientific communities that provide reviewers for government proposals. I think this report could have been stronger in its recommendations to peer reviewers about being more responsive to high-risk or transformative research, as well as being more supportive of early career researchers.

Woodrow Wilson Center - Named for the president, the center hosts a number of different projects meant to encourage policy scholarship in a number of areas.

OSTP 2.0 - Critical Upgrade A report from earlier this month that urges that the Office of Science and Technology Policy be better utilized. The recommendations are mostly nothing new: appoint a national leader in science and engineering as the OSTP Director, make the appointment quickly, and make high quality appointments to PCAST and related advisory boards. The new recommendation is to establish a Federal-State Science and Technology Council to share information between the states and the federal government. Two of the report's authors are former OSTP staffers.

Funding the Foundation: Basic Science at the Crossroads - A conference report from the center's Science, Technology, America and the Global Economy project. The report is based on an address by Dr. Shirley Ann Jackson, President of Renssalaer Polytechnic Institute, and a panel discussion of academic and industrial leaders in physical sciences. If you've followed the arguments before, during and after the release of Rising Above the Gathering Storm, the basic arguments here will be familiar to you.

Posted on June 24, 2008 09:00 PM View this article | Comments (1)
Posted to Author: Bruggeman, D. | Science Policy: General | Technology Policy

May 15, 2008

Comparing Candidate Policies on Science and Technology

Over the next week I intend to make some posts about the science and technology policies of the three remaining major party candidates. With an eye toward generating discussion, I want to take a moment and note links to the candidates' policies on science and technology. I am focusing on the candidates' own statements or position papers from their websites. There are plenty of comparison websites, and they have their own perspective on the issues (and what 'counts' as science and technology issues).

This is intended as only a starting point. If I'm missing some resource that should be in the list below, please let us know in the comments.

Links after the jump, but two points worth noting. It's rare to see all of a candidate's positions related to science and technology all in one place. It's even more rare to see them categorized as such. You're more likely to see references to innovation and competitiveness or more issue specific areas (such as climate change and economic competitiveness).

Additionally, many campaign speeches and press releases are ill-described in search results or lists of media on these websites. I may very well have missed a relevant speech because the tagline was "Senator X Remarks at Iowa Jefferson-Jackson/Lincoln Day Dinner" and not "Senator X Remarks on Federal Research and Development Budgets"

Warning: Links to main sites for the candidates may redirect to a contribution form. If this happens, look for the skip button.

Senator McCain:
Remarks on climate change
Climate Change Plan
Remarks on energy policy

Senator Clinton:
Hillary Clinton's Innovation Agenda
Innovation Agenda press release
Ending the War on Science
Speech on Scientific Integrity and Innovation
Remarks on energy and the environment
Speech on improving infrastructure
Food Safety Plan

Senator Obama:
Energy and the Environment
Speech on Energy, October 2007
Speech on Energy, May 2007
Speech on Energy Independence, September 2006
Speech on Energy, February 2006
Speech on Energy, September 2005
Speech on Energy and Climate Change
Technology and Innovation
Science
Remarks on Innovation and Education
Transportation

Posted on May 15, 2008 11:06 PM View this article | Comments (0)
Posted to Author: Bruggeman, D. | Science + Politics | Science Policy: General

May 12, 2008

NCAR Downsizes Social Science and Policy Research

I spent 8 years as a staff scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in their social science group, where I saw little support for this important area of research. So the news that NCAR has decided to downgrade and scatter its meager social science resources comes as no surprise. Though at a time that the world more than ever needs such research, the decision is clearly short sighted. Because NCAR is base-funded by the National Science Foundation, it certainly would be appropriate for NSF to investigate the decision to diminish the role of social science and policy research at NCAR, and why it has been deemphasized at a time when policy makers more than ever need such knowledge.

Here is how NCAR announced the news in an email last week, which one insider characterized to me as being "blindsided":

To All Staff,
NCAR is facing significant financial challenges. The NSF base budget has risen at a rate less than the cost of business in each of the past six years. Increasingly, this has put major stresses on the NCAR budget. In response to this prolonged budget stress, NCAR and UCAR management have been taking measures to allocate budgets based on NCAR strategic priorities and NSF mandates. We have also had to reduce direct and indirect costs. This included the reduction in staff of 36 NCAR positions over the past four years.

Even with these adjustments, we continue to face significant budget pressures. In response to immediate FY08 budget shortfalls and the outlook for FY09, additional actions are required to address the problem. One important move that we will be taking this week is to dissolve the Societal-Environmental Research and Education Laboratory (SERE) and administratively move the Advanced Study Program (ASP), Institute for the Study of Society and the Environment (ISSE), an Center for Capacity Building (CCB) into other parts of NCAR. This will save immediate and recurring direct and indirect costs, capitalize on economies of scale in other labs, and enhance synergy and collaboration through new partnerships. Unfortunately, this will result in reductions in staff in the SERE Director's Office.

Next steps include:

* ISSE will receive administrative and management support through the Research Applications Laboratory (RAL).
* ASP will become a stand-alone Program that reports to the NCAR Director's Office.
* CCB will also become a stand-alone Program that reports to the NCAR Director's Office

We want to emphasize that these changes in no way diminish UCAR's and NCAR's commitment to ASP, ISSE, and CCB. Despite the current budget challenges, we remain dedicated to our vision of developing leadership in the social science components of climate and weather research, creating societal and policy-relevant research and information products, and conducting research on human-environment interactions.

Rick Anthes and Tim Killeen

Posted on May 12, 2008 12:44 AM View this article | Comments (0)
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | R&D Funding | Science Policy: General

March 10, 2008

State Science and Technology Policy Advice

I wanted to make note of a National Academies report, State Science and Technology Policy Advice: Issues, Opportunities, and Challenges: Summary of a National Convocation, recently released in pre-publication form. (Essentially, this is an early draft of the report, uncorrected proofs.)

As the title says, this is the summary of a national convocation on providing science and technology policy advice to the states. It was held last October, and from the looks of the project website, it was the first of a planned series of convocations. The 2007 event focused on energy, the environment and economic development.

Personally, I welcome projects like this, which emphasize that science and technology policy in this country is not limited to the federal government. It is arguably more complicated at the state level, in part due to a relative lack of infrastrucutre and the intermingling with economic development policy. But with continued pressure on federal science and technology budgets, and states taking a lead on various science and technology issues (see California with stem cells and the Northeast with its emissions compact), state capacity in science and technology policy is more and more important.

My only caution is that this project focuses on what Harvey Brooks called "science for policy" - scientific and technological advice for various policies. An equally important part of science and technology policy is developing, analyzing and assessing policies for science and technology - "policy for science." It's not so easily separable from science for policy - unless you're an academic.

Posted on March 10, 2008 06:38 PM View this article | Comments (0)
Posted to Author: Bruggeman, D. | Science Policy: General

March 06, 2008

Blogging - Even Daniel Greenberg Does It

The Chronicle of Higher Education has a blog connected with its Review section. Called Brainstorn: Lives of the Mind, it collects the wisdom and musings of scholars in several fields. Among them is Daniel Greenberg.

If you're a scholar of science policy, his name should be familiar. If it isn't, stop reading blogs and check out his books. Perhaps best known for his book The Politics of Pure Science, Greenberg has written several books and articles about the American system of scientific research, mostly about how it is funded (or not) at the federal level.

If you're still not sure about whom I speak, titles of his recent posts should suggest the tenor of his work:

Would a Department of Science Be an Improvement?"
Delusions on the Frontiers of Science
We've Got a Monster on the Loose: It's Called the Internet

Whether you agree with him or not, Greenberg is worth reading. We could all use a contrarian viewpoint from time to time.

Posted on March 6, 2008 08:26 PM View this article | Comments (0)
Posted to Author: Bruggeman, D. | Science Policy: General

March 02, 2008

Information Request - NSF and a Lack of Data Protection

Update - 3/3 I managed to find the relevant GAO report. It turns out that I was mistaken to assume that the report was released within a few days of the news report. The GAO document was released in late January. However, the relevant agencies are only listed in the report. They are not singled out.

Original Post

When a issue involving science and technology policy - if only slightly - makes the local news in DC, my ears perk up (sometimes even literally). Last weekend there was a local news report about government agencies' general failure to implement Office of Management and Budget recommended procedures for protecting the data they keep. The Washington Post and other news providers picked up the story.

(For the record, this is one of many things I keep an eye on for my day job. If I could confirm what's alleged below, I'd probably blog about it for the job, but it's worth posting here for a couple of reasons.)

First, while most of the 24 agencies surveyed did poorly, only two failed to implement any of the recommended policies for securing information: the Small Business Administration and the National Science Foundation. I'm not raising a hue and cry on this point right now because I've run into a block - I can't find the underlying documentation from the Government Accountability Office confirming the scorecard referenced in the report. So if there are readers that can speak to the source of the claims by GAO that the NSF failed to implement any of the recommendations, I'd love to see it.

Additionally, it's quite possible that the problem has been addressed. The NSF Chief Information Officer, George Strawn, is quoted by the Post as saying "contrary to the GAO report, his agency has implemented all or part of all five measures."

Of course, the problem with the scorecard demonstrates how ill-prepared most agencies are to protect the information they keep. I do not single out the government here, the rash of data breaches over the last few years has hit the private sector as hard as the public sector.

What's annoying is that the recent GAO testimony on information security doesn't have this information (or I'm looking in the wrong place), and the NSF website has absolutely nothing on this report (and I am looking in the right places there). It may have been several years since NSF has had to deal with negative publicity (or wanted to try), but the way to do it is not by keeping silent. It appears that the public face of the agency - on the website anyway - is all about the results of research funding. Personally, some publicity about how well the agency operates would go a long way to reminding people that not only does NSF fund good work, but also that it does a good job administering the operation. We - the science, science policy and science advocacy communities - may accept without question that science is done right and above board. But the public doesn't know us, and frequent reminders are common courtesy and good government.

Posted on March 2, 2008 10:42 PM View this article | Comments (0)
Posted to Author: Bruggeman, D. | Science Policy: General

February 29, 2008

A new blog on water policy and science, technology, law and so on

So many blogs, so little time! Here's another interesting blog from our students, this one on water policy and its intersection with a myriad of scientific and other issues. Recent posts have addressed riparian issues, acid mine drainage, and "National Science Day". Check it out here. Comments welcome!

Posted on February 29, 2008 04:33 AM View this article | Comments (0)
Posted to Science Policy: General

New blog on the Endangered Species Act and science policy

Introducing you to a blog from one of our students on the science policy of the Endangered Species Act. The blog asks questions such as "how much science do we need?" and "how do we balance different values"? Check it out here. Comments welcome!

Posted on February 29, 2008 04:27 AM View this article | Comments (0)
Posted to Science Policy: General

January 28, 2008

Two New Blogs to Check Out

Like anyone needs a longer personal blogroll, but here are two that might be worth a look.

William Briggs is a statistician, a delightful writer, and provocatively skeptical about all sort of subjects in exactly the way that scientists should be skeptical. His new blog is extremely thoughtful. For example, he has a post up today titled, "Is climatology a pseudoscience?" and provides a nuanced, and yes, provocative answer.

A new group blog called Science Policy Development has just started up on the heels of the recent NAS Science and Technology Policy Graduate Student Forum. There is plenty of room in the blogosphere for more discussions of science policy and I am hopeful that this group maintains an active presence in science policy discussions.

Posted on January 28, 2008 03:22 AM View this article | Comments (0)
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Hodge Podge | Science Policy: General

January 17, 2008

2008 Edition of Science and Engineering Indicators Out Now

Yesterday I attended the official release of the 2008 edition of Science and Engineering Indicators, the biennial compendium of facts, figures, charts and graphs on the U.S. science and engineering enterprise (there is international data, but its typically presented for context). It's produced by a subcommittee of the National Science Board, with the support of the NSF Statistics staff. You can read the press release and wade through the online version to see all the details.

As part of their effort to continually adjust (I don't want to judge whether it's improved or not) the message presented by the Indicators, this edition was accompanied by two additional documents. One of them is a Digest of charts and graphs that various science advocacy groups will flog over the next two years to argue how badly their disciplines are being screwed in the research budget. (They are, but that's for another post - tune in Friday). There is also a policy document about R&D and international competitiveness. Those who have followed the discussions in this area won't see a lot of new material, simply updated arguments with the perpetual sky is falling perspective. The policy document is a relatively new addition to Indicators. This follows a similar document with the 2006 edition that focused on STEM education.

While the document is presented as a policy-neutral object, there are always hidden assumptions and presumptions that are useful to tease out. Just ask some questions, like what's missing? For example...

One of the charts in Chapter 7, Science and Engineering: Public Attitudes and Understanding, reports on the responses to a survey question. The bottom chart in Figure 7-11 (page 7-26 in Chapter 7)covers how well people think government is funding basic research. (Let's put aside for the moment the problems with the idea of "basic research").

The data indicate an upward trend in the percentage of people who think government is funding too little basic research and a downward trend in the percentage who think government is funding too much.

What's missing is that the percentages over the timeframe reported never add up to more than 50-52 percentage points. So while more people are getting behind the idea of more government funding of basic research, nothing is said in the figure or the associated text about half the people either not knowing about government funding of basic research or not caring.

I'm sure this isn't the only part of Indicators where what isn't there can be as important (or at least as interesting) as what is included. In other places this could be attributed to selective research and criticized as such. But since this information is considered a significant resources in framing science and technology policy arguments, it is perhaps more important to review, critique, and provide feedback on the data and statistics found in Indicators.

Posted on January 17, 2008 10:36 AM View this article | Comments (2)
Posted to Author: Bruggeman, D. | Science Policy: General

January 07, 2008

Deja Vu All Over Again

The Washington Post had a excellent story yesterday by Marc Kaufman describing NASA’s intentions to increase the flight rate of the Space Shuttle program. This is remarkable, and as good an indication as any that NASA has not yet learned the lessons of its past.

According to the Post:

Although NASA has many new safety procedures in place as a result of the Columbia accident, the schedule has raised fears that the space agency, pressured by budgetary and political considerations, might again find itself tempting fate with the shuttles, which some say were always too high-maintenance for the real world of space flight.

A NASA official is quoted in the story:

"The schedule we've made is very achievable in the big scheme of things. That is, unless we get some unforeseen problems."

The Post has exactly the right follow up to this comment:

The history of the program, however, is filled with such problems -- including a rare and damaging hailstorm at the Kennedy Space Center last year as well as the shedding of foam insulation that led to the destruction of Columbia and its crew in 2003. . . "This pressure feels so familiar," said Alex Roland, a professor at Duke University and a former NASA historian. "It was the same before the Challenger and Columbia disasters: this push to do more with a spaceship that is inherently unpredictable because it is so complex."

John Logsdon, dean of space policy experts and longtime supporter of NASA, recognizes the risks that NASA is taking:

Every time we launch a shuttle, we risk the future of the human space flight program. The sooner we stop flying this risky vehicle, the better it is for the program.

Duke University’s Alex Roland also hit the nail on the head;

Duke professor Roland said that based on the shuttle program's history, he sees virtually no possibility of NASA completing 13 flights by the deadline. He predicted that the agency would ultimately cut some of the launches but still declare the space station completed.
"NASA is filled with can-do people who I really admire, and they will try their best to fulfill the missions they are given," he said. "What I worry about is when this approach comes into conflict with basically impossible demands. Something has to give."

It is instructive to look at the 1987 report of the investigation of the House Science Committee into the 1986 Challenger disaster, which you can find online here in PDF (thanks to Rad Byerly and Ami Nacu-Schmidt). That report contains lessons that apparently have yet to be fully appreciated, even after the loss of Columbia in 2003. Here is an excerpt from the Executive Summary (emphasis added, see also pp. 119-124):

The Committee found that NASA’s drive to achieve a launch schedule of 24 flights per year created pressure throughout the agency that directly contributed to unsafe launch operations. The Committee believes that the pressure to push for an unrealistic number of flights continues to exist in some sectors of NASA and jeopardizes the promotion of a "safety first" attitude throughout the Shuttle program.
The Committee, Congress, and the Administration have played a contributing role in creating this pressure. . . NASA management and the Congress must remember the lessons learned from the Challenger accident and never again set unreasonable goals which stress the system beyond its safe functioning.

One would hope that the House Science Committee has these lessons in mind and is paying close attention to decision making in NASA. It would certainly be appropriate for some greater public oversight of NASA decision making about the Shuttle flight rate and eventual termination. Otherwise, there is a good chance that such oversight will take place after another tragedy and the complete wreckage of the U.S. civilian space program.

For further reading:

Pielke Jr., R. A., 1993: A Reappraisal of the Space Shuttle Program. Space Policy, May, 133-157. (PDF)

Pielke Jr., R.A., and R. Byerly Jr., 1992: The Space Shuttle Program: Performance versus Promise in Space Policy Alternatives, edited by R. Byerly, Westview Press, Boulder, pp. 223-245. (PDF)

Posted on January 7, 2008 12:21 AM View this article | Comments (0)
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Risk & Uncertainty | Science Policy: General | Space Policy

January 05, 2008

My Comments to Science on Hillary Clinton's Science Policy Plans

I was recently asked by Eli Kintisch at Science to comment on Hillary Clinton's recent discussion of science policies. Eli quotes a few of my comments in this week's Science, which has a special focus on the presidential candidates. My full reaction to Eli is below:

Hi Eli-
The document seems typical for this early stage of the campaign -- that is, it blends a heavy dose of political red meat, with the entirely vacuous, with hints of some innovative and perhaps even revolutionary new ideas, accompanied with a range of budget promises that almost certainly can't be met. But most significantly is the fact that she has put some science policy ideas forward to be discussed, which is far more than most other candidates of either party have done related to science.

*The red meat is all of the "I'm not George Bush" type statements, such as the stem cell proposal and re-elevation of the science advisor position.

*The vacuous includes the comment that you starred on political appointees. The meaning of this statement depends entirely on the definition of "legitimate basis" and "unwarranted supression" -- well, what is "legitimate" and "unwarranted"? -- as written it is a political Rorschach test, which can be good politics but certainly does nothing to clarify the specific science policies she would enact. Also, the idea that civil servants and scientists are free from politics in regulatory decision making probably needs more thinking through -- but balancing accountability and expertise probably requires more wonky discussion than a campaign sound bite can provide.

*The most innovative idea is the $50 billion strategic energy fund, which is short on details, but promises real money to an area desperately in need of support. This stands out as something really new and potentially very exciting.

*The promises that probably can't be met include keeping the Shuttle contractors in business while pursuing a new human spaceflight program, while at the same time fully funding earth sciences research and a new space-based climate research program, while putting NIH on a doubling trajectory over the next 10 years, not to mention a bit for aeronautics and the $50 billion for energy research. Good luck finding room in the R&D budget for all of that. But again, more politics than science policy, this time aimed at more specific constituencies looking to see that their concerns get some play.

The biggest criticism I have is the comment about the NIH budget, which her husband set on a doubling trajectory and which was completed under Bush. To suggest that NIH has suffered a lack of support is not a great argument. Also, a minor criticism, the part about the U.S. national assessment on climate change says that Bush hasn't released one for 6.5 years, but Clinton/Gore took more than 7 years to release theirs. The national assessment is more political red meat, and probably tangential to where the action is on climate issues anyway.

Hope this helps, please follow up if clarification is needed . . .

Best regards,

Roger

Roger Pielke, Jr.
University of Colorado

Posted on January 5, 2008 10:16 AM View this article | Comments (0)
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Science + Politics | Science Policy: General | Technology Policy

December 07, 2007

STS Acting with Science, Technology and Policy

The title refers to the theme of the 2008 joint meeting of the Society for the Social Studies of Science (4S) and the European Association for the Study of Science and Technology (EASST). The two associations hold joint meetings every four years. The conference is scheduled for August 20-23 in Rotterdam , the Netherlands . The call is available online.

I’m a member of 4S (actually I was, I apparently let my subscription lapse without notice), but have yet to attend one of their conferences. Budget considerations are the prime reason, but the other factor has been what I see as a lack of attention to science and/or technology policy (which is common to the other STS societies I belong to), save for occasional analyses focusing on Europe . I’d encourage those who disagree with my characterization to comment and help me plumb the depths of my ignorance.

I did give this event extra consideration – even with the added travel expense – from the following passage in the call:

STS-approaches are no longer only relevant for understanding the production of science, technology and innovation; they also are relevant for understanding the co-production of science and technology with policy, democracy, law, and the organization of health care, among other major institutional matters. Similarly STS researchers have become increasingly involved with practices of technology development, policymaking, legal decision-making and governance in different fields, such as science and technology policy, environmental regulation, and health care. The balance between observation and participation seems to have changed in these consequential practices of ‘acting with’. Such engagement is currently a major topic of discussion within the STS field. Several workshops, editorials and special issues have already been published or are under way. The ‘acting with’, or interventionist approach is likely to have consequences for research methodologies, for researchers’ obligations toward different publics, and for the kind of products STS-researchers deliver. In addition, like other aspects of science and technology, interventions by STS researchers are themselves subject to contingencies and negotiations that can lead to unanticipated consequences.

I think the first sentence is false...

STS was always relevant to the interactions of science, technology, policy, and all the other forces mentioned in the second part of the sentence. So I am pleased to see mention of this trend. In my opinion, it hasn’t ‘crossed the pond’ very well, so I would not be surprised to see this focus on participation – on ‘acting with’ – to be driven by the European membership of these organizations.

I am concerned by how this interventionist approach is demonstrated. In conversations I’ve had with STS scholars (one of which you can read at The World’s Fair blog (scroll down to the comments to find the conversation), I find that we can be talking past each other about what it means to be ‘acting with.’ I hope to figure out why this happens in future discussions (and blog posts), but I suspect there are some ideological differences at play, as well as an interesting difference of perspectives on what is and isn’t (and what should and shouldn’t be) political in this ‘acting with.’

Where the 4S/EASST conference is concerned, I'll be interested to see what happens. But as for me going, there's a U.S. conference that overlaps, so I will probably not be going to the Netherlands.

Posted on December 7, 2007 04:37 PM View this article | Comments (0)
Posted to Author: Bruggeman, D. | Science Policy: General

November 15, 2007

The Science Advisor at 50

I've got a Commentary in this week's Nature on the President's science advisor. Here is a link to the PDF.

Tomorrow I'll be appearing on NPR's Science Friday to discuss the piece and the past 50 years of presidential science advice. Please tune in at 3PM EST!

Posted on November 15, 2007 02:07 AM View this article | Comments (1)
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | R&D Funding | Science + Politics | Science Policy: General

November 13, 2007

More Intellectual Disrobing, Please

No calls for burlesque here…the phrase is a quote from John Dewey in his book Experience and Nature (1925, Chicago: Open Court):

"An empirical philosophy…is an intellectual disrobing. We cannot permanently divest ourselves of the intellectual habits we take on and wear when we assimilate the culture of our own time and place. But intelligent furthering of culture demands that we take some of them off, that we inspect them critically."

In my last post, and some of my others on Prometheus, I have – if only implicitly – been encouraging such periodic, if not perpetual, divestiture and inspection. I want to do the same with this post. Instead of a call to rethink the perpetual appeals for a president that pays attention to science, I want to look at calls for revisiting science policy. I am in favor, but I think such proposals are, ironically, in need of the very intellectual disrobing they are advocating.

As an example, I point out this New York Times profile of former National Academy of Engineering President Bill Wulf on the occasion of his departure from that post earlier this year. (I should note that I did work for the National Academies, and staffed two different panels Dr. Wulf participated in.) While much of his comments focus on what he calls the ecology of innovation (something I may visit in a subsequent post), I want to point out some of his complaints about technology policy that could use some intellectual disrobing. That they take place in the midst of calls for essentially the same thing is not unique in policy.

Wulf is interested in revisiting various innovation policies, and while it may not be the intellectual disrobing Dewey had in mind, acknowledging changing times and circumstances should be encouraged, even more generally than in the following:

"At least every once in a while we should stand back and say what was the intent of intellectual property protection, what was the intent of the export control regime, what was the intent of antitrust? And in the light of today’s technology, what’s the best way to achieve that?"

Great questions, and my experience and study with each of these policies demonstrates that the intents behind these policies can change over time. Their consequences certainly do. We see some skin here. But we're only going from t-shirt and long pants to tank top and board shorts (or a evening gown to a blouse and pencil skirt). Another Wulf quote shows an intellectual habit worth examining.

"Or take what he called “the idiocy” of enacting short-term tax credits for research and development. “R and D takes many years,” he said. “If companies invested this year to take advantage of the R and D credit and then the next year it went away, they would have to stop the research and they would have wasted money.”
He says this is why corporate leaders tell him “with near unanimity” that tax credits have little influence on their decisions."

The habit here is the tendency to presume that policies that affect science and technology were designed, developed or implemented with science and technology in mind. This is tax policy, and while no more of a rational area than any other part of policy, it does not necessarily follow that encouraging research is the first or only intention of such a policy. If the last sentence of this quote is any indication, the R and D tax credit does not influence corporate R and D policy. That seems unlikely (and groups such as the Business Roundtable would take issue), but it does not make such policies "idiocy."

What Wulf, and all of us, ought to do to properly disrobe - intellectually, of course - is not only to ask about the intent, consequences and outcomes of science and technology policies, but of interests that would influence relevant policies. This influence isn't always obvious, because it is often indirect - the policy is designed for goals outside of science and technology.

When I write interests I am thinking a bit differently than when Roger spoke of values when he suggested that we ask "So What?" in a recent Bridges column. He was writing about political disputes involving science, but particularly where appeals to truth were involved. The interests I speak of can include contested values, but also disputes about the purpose of various policies and the consequences of policy choices. Unintended consequences don't have to connect to any particular values to affect the outcomes of science, technology, or innovation. But our intellectual habits often presume intention or purpose where there may be none. To better understand those circumstances we need to question our presumptions, interests and values, to shed our intellectual clothes and scrutinize the surroundings.

Anybody know a good tailor?

Posted on November 13, 2007 09:13 PM View this article | Comments (1)
Posted to Author: Bruggeman, D. | Science + Politics | Science Policy: General

November 07, 2007

NAS Student Forum on Science and Technology Policy

Full details here . . .

On January 4-5, 2008, the National Academies are sponsoring a two-day public forum intended for students, postdoctoral fellows, and recent graduates interested in studying and careers in science and technology policy.

The forum will feature both invited presentations and interactive discussions that will bring together a cross-section of government, academia, and industry to address practice and opportunities of the science and technology profession.

Apply here!

Have questions or comments? Email us at studentforum@nas.edu

Posted on November 7, 2007 06:50 AM View this article | Comments (1)
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Science Policy: General

September 06, 2007

Atlanta Conference on Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy 2007

Do you know what governments need when they turn to the science, technology, and innovation policy research community for models and research results? Can you tell them what works, what doesn’t, and under what circumstance?

Are you scratching your head for answers as you adjust to the shifting landscape of global innovation? Georgia Tech invites you to learn from leading experts at the Atlanta Conference on Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy 2007 in October.

Test models of innovation. Explore emerging STI policy issues. Share research results through

Keynote addresses—Sheila Jasanoff of the Kennedy School at Harvard University and Luc Soete of UNU-MERIT, Maastricht;
State of the Field Plenary speakers—Kaye Husbands Fealing of the National Science Foundation and Philippe Larédo, ManchesterBusiness School and ENPC, Paris;
research by the innovation studies community, and
networking opportunities.

Topics focus on emerging issues of science, technology, and innovation in global economy and society and include:

Innovation in new forms and formats; markets, organizations, and industries in transition;
Emerging global networks of scientific communication;
Workforces and workplaces of science and technology; career opportunities for scientists and engineers; and
Government policies for encouraging knowledge based—and learning economies, North and South.

Explore the Challenges and Opportunities for Innovation in the Changing Global Economy on Friday-Saturday, Oct. 19-20, at Georgia Tech Global Learning Center.

Click here for the most up-to-date information.

Posted on September 6, 2007 02:06 PM View this article | Comments (1)
Posted to Science Policy: General

August 20, 2007

Center interim Director Dr. William Lewis testifies before House Committee

Center interim Director Dr. William (Bill) Lewis testified at an oversight hearing before the House Committee on Natural Resources on July 31. The topic was "Crisis of Confidence: The Political Influence of the Bush Administration on Agency Science and Decision-Making". Dr. Lewis testified about his experience as chair of the Committee on Endangered and Threatened Fishes in the Klamath River Basin ("Klamath Committee"). His testimony is available here.

Posted on August 20, 2007 11:26 AM View this article | Comments (0)
Posted to Science Policy: General | government

August 17, 2007

A Technology Assessment Revival?

A recent Issue of the American Institute of Physics' Science Policy News revisited a topic addressed in one of the earliest Prometheus posts - the Office of Technology Assessment, or OTA. You can review a brief history and archived reports online. Ever since its demise in the mid 90s there has been a regular attempt to revive the body, which provide technology assessment and related policy analysis to Congress. Legislation has been introduced on more than one occasion to revive the body, or some similar capacity, but the bills have not gotten very far in Congress.

The AIP piece notes that in the House and Senate Appropriations Committee Reports that accompanied their respective Legislative Branch Appropriations bills, there is language to provide the Government Accountability Office with technology assessment capacity. As usual, the amounts differ between the two chambers, but it is a relatively small amount ($2.5 million in the House report, $750,000 plus four full-time employees in the Senate report). Read the relevant sections of the Senate report (pages 42-43) for a better idea of what this technology assessment function might resemble.

Given limited budget resources, and lingering baggage from the demise of the OTA, placing technology assessment in the GAO has its advantages. The agency has a strong reputation for non-partisanship and independence. It has a small group of expertise within its Center for Technology and Engineering. It has tested a pilot technology assessment program since 2002, with at least 3 reports produced so far:

Technology Assessment: Protecting Structures and Improving Communications during Wildland Fires. GAO-05-380. Washington, D.C.: April 2005
Technology Assessment: Cybersecurity for Critical Infrastructure Protection. GAO-04-321. Washington, D.C.: May 28, 2004.
Technology Assessment: Using Biometrics for Border Security. GAO-03-
174. Washington, D.C.: November 15, 2002.

Please don't pop the champagne corks just yet. The language is connected to appropriations bills that have not been approved - yet. Previous efforts to provide similar resources to GAO have met with limited success. This kind of approach has been tried since at least the FY 2002 budget, usually getting cut from the final appropriations bill. The House Science Committee hearing from last July showed few serious Congressional signs of interest in developing a new body for technology assessment, or a technology assessment function for an existing body. And this committee is the closest thing to a consistent source of support the science and technology policy community has on the Hill.

So again, a policy outcome desired by many in the science and technology policy fields could fail. Unlike the recently passed competitiveness legislation (which took two sessions and a concerted behind the scenes effort with industry), it would be especially self-serving to generate a National Academies Report arguing for increased technology assessment capacity. If this is truly needed, how should the community make its case (its tactics), and what is the case to make (its argument)?

Posted on August 17, 2007 10:43 AM View this article | Comments (0)
Posted to Author: Bruggeman, D. | Science Policy: General

July 04, 2007

To go from RAGS to legislation

[David Bruggeman is a frequent contributor so we finally gave him an author tag. Click on his name to see all his posts. -eds]

One of the less publicized legislative efforts this year is the second attempt to pass parts of the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), introduced by President Bush in his 2006 State of the Union address. Many of the pieces of the ACI were recommended in the widely cited National Academies Report Rising Above the Gathering Storm. The parts of ACI that attracted the most attention of science and technology community were the goals of doubling the budgets for NSF, the Department of Energy's Office of Science, and the research accounts of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Those increases were part of the President's FY 2007 Budget Request, but failed due to the inability of Congress to pass most of the budget for that year. The FY 2008 request shows the Administration still committed to doubling those budgets over 10 years. But the Executive Branch cannot implement the full ACI without legislative action.

Efforts to enact other parts of the ACI have not been as forthcoming. Three bills introduced in 2006 (two in the House, one in the Senate) to strenghten and expand federal programs to encourage more students to major in Science, Technoogy, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines, as well as expand early career awards for researchers, withered on the legislative vine (although the House legislation did make it out of committee). Very similar legislation was introduced again this year, and as the Democrats have made some noise about an innovation agenda, there has been some progress. Currently both the House and Senate have passed legislation which awaits a conference to hammer out the differences. Both bills can be examined in detail through the THOMAS website maintained by the Library of Congress.

The House legislation, HR2272, is an omnibus bill containing pieces of earlier legislation. HR2272 includes reauthorization legislation for both NSF and NIST, reauthorization of the High Performance Computing Act, and language to increase education programs encouraging more majors in STEM disciplines (and for more of those majors to teach at the K-12 level) and programs to support early career researchers in physical science disciplines. The early career research awards would be through both the NSF and the Department of Energy.

The Senate bill, S761, would include most of the same provisions. The differences, to the extent I can discern them, have to do with specific numbers - funding, number of grants/fellowships/etc. Both bills also mandate various studies on STEM education and innovation, as well as some kind of coordinating mechanism for the federal government with respect to improving innovation. Hopefully those efforts, if enacted, could be informed by (and help guide) the nascent federal research programs on the science of science policy and innovation. But I'm a dreamer.

Each bill contains a previously discontinued federal technology program administered by NIST. (If some readers find this sufficiently interesting, it may be worth a separate post). The Senate bill reinstates the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Technology, a kindred program to EPSCoR, the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research. In each case, the program aims to improve the competitiveness of states that have historically received fewer federal dollars. The House bill creates what they call the Technology Innovation Program (TIP), but this appears to be a renaming of the Advanced Technology Program (ATP). ATP has been heavily criticized as ineffective, corporate welfare, or both. It is intended to help bridge a funding gap - the so-called 'valley of death' between initial development and commercialization. ATP would have been fully defunded by now, but the failure to enact the FY 2007 budget for NIST gave ATP another year of life - and forced NIST to continue a program it had prepared to dismantle. A surface comparison shows little difference betwen the TIP and ATP, and language allows for continuation of current ATP awards under the TIP.

While this legislation is much further along compared to this time last year, there is no guarantee that there will be a bill to sign by the end of the year. A conference has yet to be scheduled, while both bills have been ready since late May. As science and technology policy have rarely, if ever, been a high legislative priority, these bills may take a long time to get to the President's desk. While the Administration is generally supportive of the doubling, they have expressed dissatisfaction with the new programs and additional costs in the legislation. As President Bush rarely uses the veto pen, this may be an empty threat. But this is not yet a finished project.

Posted on July 4, 2007 06:49 AM View this article | Comments (0)
Posted to Author: Bruggeman, D. | R&D Funding | Science Policy: General

May 04, 2007

Proxmire alive and well reports Enquirer

There was a minor storm in the science community over the past couple of days as two Republican House members offered amendments (here's one, here's the other) to the NSF authorization bill (H.R. 1867) to strip funding for existing projects.

This kind of debate has been going on for decades, really since the beginning of post-WWII science policy, but it's important to revisit the issue. Should Congress step in for peer-review panels of experts in determining project funding? Maybe. It's an open values question that we are constantly rehashing, and for good reason. Elected politicians should constantly question how the taxpayer's money is spent. That's their job. But should individual Members perhaps read past the title and abstract of a project they object to when speaking on the House floor? Probably.

The latest iteration of this long-running fight is covered well by Jeffery Brainard in a Chronicle of Higher Ed story posted today.

Posted on May 4, 2007 10:31 AM View this article | Comments (0)
Posted to Author: Vranes, K. | Science Policy: General

April 13, 2007

Baby Steps Toward a Science of Science Policy

Two events in February demonstrated an effort to revisit the assumptions behind the processes and study of innovation. The NSF announced aProgram Solicitation in their new program on the Science of Science and Innovation Policy. Submissions are due May 22. This has been in the works at NSF since 2006, and is at least in part a response to the Office of Science and Technology Policy Director John Marburger's call for a 'science of science policy.' This idea was explored previously on Prometheus. Besides the NSF program, there is a Department of Commerce advisory committee I posted about earlier that is working on how to better measure innovation.

I think both programs are good steps toward a better understanding of science policy, but are at best preliminary steps. (Any judgments about a program that has yet to receive its first grant proposals are by their nature preliminary, so please bear with me). I'll address this in just a bit, but first some details on the two programs.

The Advisory Committee on Measuring Innovation in the 21st Century held their first meeting February 22 in Washington, D.C. The agenda, members, and other relevant documents can be found online. The group is focused on business and economic measures, as befits a Department of Commerce work. Much of the meeting was thinking out loud, working out what exactly the committee would develop. After discussion encompassing the different kinds of innovation, as well as the different ways companies measure that innovation, the group came to some preliminary points of consensus:

The committee will develop a group of metrics, the core of which will focus on productivity - total output per unit of total input, not the traditional output per hour measurement.

The committee will examine changes to the system of national accounts - the series of economic statistics gathered by several different agencies.

Measures will cover the different kinds of innovation: user centered, firm focused, incremental, radical, process, product, etc.

The NSF Program Solicitation for the Science of Science and Innovation Policy (SciSIP) Program anticipates granting 20-30 awards in this cycle. Located in the Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences, "SciSIP will underwrite fundamental research that creates new explanatory models and analytic tools designed to inform the nation‚Äôs public and private sectors about the processes through which investments in science and engineering (S&E) research are transformed into social and economic outcomes. SciSIP‚Äôs goals are to understand the contexts, structures and processes of S&E research, to evaluate reliably the tangible and intangible returns from investments in research and development (R&D), and to predict the likely returns from future R&D investments within tolerable margins of error and with attention to the full spectrum of potential consequences."

A tall order, and this solicitation will hopefully be the first of many to really pull all of these pieces together (and support all those innovation scholars casting about for grant money). This iteration of the program focuses on Analytical Tools and Model Building, appropriate first steps for what could be an long-term exploration. There are also two special criteria for proposals: Fit to SciSIP (how the project will add to the fundamental knowledge base and Multidisciplinarity and Interdisciplinarity (encouraged but not required).

The NSF solicitation is, in my opinion, written as though they are trying to build a new body of scholarship. But such a body of knowledge and scholars is out there, and could use a solid aggregation and synthesis. But that's not breakthrough research, and by conventional wisdom not the Foundation's business. The NSF has also been burned (or is at the very least timid) when engaging with policy relevant research (see their workforce estimates from the early nineties). Because of those points, I am concerned that this program won't go as far as it needs to accomplish its ultimate goals: "developing usable knowledge and theories of creative processes and their transformation into social and economic outcomes as well as developing, improving and expanding models and analytical tools that can be applied in the science policy decision making process". (Boldface mine) Research without consideration of policy applications is one thing. But this solicitation states that policy considerations are relevant, and the NSF does not have a history of making those connections very well. How will this play out in grant applications, proposal review and awards? I'm skeptical the NSF, or the researchers applying to it, will be quick to adjust.

Both the NSF and Department of Commerce efforts are good programs that could change the way we consider innovation and policies meant to encourage it (although the implementation of the NSF program could fail to meet its intended goals - its early). But the effort to better understand investments in scientific and technological research goes beyond innovation, even beyond science and technology research. It also involves policy research, and without having that as part of the entire process, we will not have a science of science policy, but more science of innovation. It's unclear that this is being considered. I asked Dr. Marburger what the next steps were in developing the science of science policy, and he referred me to ongoing efforts in Europe. I hope that enterprising institutions and individuals can take the work done here and grow it into a true science of science policy.

Posted on April 13, 2007 07:49 AM View this article | Comments (0)
Posted to Author: Bruggeman, D. | R&D Funding | Science Policy: General

The House Science and Technology Committee - More than Just a Name Change

With a reputation for bipartisan cooperation, the House Science and Technology Committee (formerly the House Science Committee) continues to be a strong supporter of federal research and development. But things have changed with the new Congress. Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN), the new chair, finalized the changes in late Januray. Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) is the new Ranking Member.

Per a press release available on the committee's website the Science and Technology Committee now has 5 subcommittees during the 110th Congress. This is one more than in the previous Congress. The new addition is the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, which is chaired by Rep. Miller (D-N.C.), and Rep. Sensenbrenner (R-WI, and former committee chairman) is the ranking member. They have already held hearings on Office of Management and Budget involvement in agency regulatory development and the influence of agency media policies on scientists. The full committee has already demonstrated its interest in oversight with its own hearings and other activities focused on the executive branch.

The other four committees remain essentially the same as before, with slight name changes to better reflect their jurisdictions. They are as follows:

Subcommittee on Technology & Innovation
Chairman David Wu (D-OR)
Ranking Member Phil Gingrey (R-GA)

Subcommittee on Research & Science Education
Chairman Brian Baird (D-WA)
Ranking Member Vern Ehlers (R-MI)

Subcommittee on Space & Aeronautics
Chairman Mark Udall (D-CO - Boulder)
Ranking Member Ken Calvert (R-CA)

The committee website is still getting its sea legs, so to speak (as are many Congressional websites), so some pages will link to old or outdated information. In fact, the header for the current webpage still reads as though it were the Democratic minority's website from the 109th Congress. A list of current committee members online.

Posted on April 13, 2007 07:46 AM View this article | Comments (0)
Posted to Author: Bruggeman, D. | Science Policy: General | government

February 04, 2007

Implementing Science of Science Policy: Different Approaches

Sparked in part by remarks from the president's science adviser (noted in Prometheus), the National Science Foundation has made some efforts to develop a program addressing the "science of science policy." While not the top priority of the Foundation, and like much of its work, delayed by federal budgetary issues, it doesn't appear to be much more than a research program focused on innovation studies (you can read a program prospectus online. While useful, such studies are arguably only part of what might constitute a "science of science policy"

Something more on point to the initial request (based in a concern for finding out how well the research investment has paid off) has emerged from the Department of Commerce. In early December the Secretary of Commerce formed an advisory panel on measuring innovation (the initial press release, Supplementary Information File, and Charter are available online.

From the Recent Activities webpage of the Economics and Statistics Administration (the panel's home within the Department - even separate from the Technology Administration)

"The Measuring Innovation in the 21st Century Economy Advisory Committee will help develop ways to measure innovation so that the public and policy makers can understand better its impact on economic growth and productivity. The committee will study metrics on effectiveness of innovation in various businesses and sectors, and work to identify which data can be used to develop a broader measure of innovation's impact on the economy."

So the commercial/financial considerations that underly research investments will apparently have a hearing in this panel. Not to say that they couldn't in whatever NSF proposal eventually emerges, but the relevant research community seems a bit allergic to such things. It also brings to the discussion a group many Prometheus readers may not recognize at all (Dale Jorgensen and Donald Siegel are the academics I recognized, and Steve Ballmer and Sam Palmisano were the CEOs I knew).

While advisory panels have their own trials and tribulations (which I observed many times when I worked at the National Academies), I'm encouraged to see other parts of the government enter the discussion.

The Advisory Committee is schedule to hold its first hearing on February 22nd. I'm cautiously optimistic.

Posted on February 4, 2007 09:51 AM View this article | Comments (0)
Posted to Author: Bruggeman, D. | Science Policy: General

January 05, 2007

Lahsen and Nobre (2007)

A Summary, by Myanna Lahsen

Lahsen, Myanna and Carlos A. Nobre (2007), "The Challenge of Connecting International Science and Local Level Sustainability: The Case of the LBA," Environmental Science and Policy 10(1) 62-74. (PDF)

This paper identifies some central challenges involved in bringing about applications-oriented research and associated institutions related to sustainability on the basis of “global change science”, using the Large Scale Biosphere-Atmosphere Experiment in Amazonia (LBA) as an example. The LBA is an integrated regional study carried out by an international science program – indeed, the largest program in international scientific cooperation ever focused on the Amazon region. Over the last decade, the LBA has carried out over 120 studies and contributed quantitative and qualitative understanding of the functioning of tropical ecosystems and their linkages to the Earth System. It has produced over 700 peer-reviewed publications, the vast majority in international science journals. Additionally, LBA has trained hundreds of young scientists, most of them from Amazonia. In this and other ways, it has self-consciously sought to improve past models of “scientific colonialism” involving Northern-funded science experiments in less developed countries which did little, and usually nothing at all, to improve the knowledge and infrastructure in the latter (note: henceforth, “North” and “South” refer to the global North and South unless otherwise specified).

The LBA fell short in other respects, however, in particular in its explicit goal to produce sound scientific understanding in support of sustainable development. Deforestation of the tropical forests of Amazonia has increased to clearly unsustainable levels and at great social and environmental cost. Sustainable management of ecosystems requires appropriate public policies and regulatory frameworks. Yet translating the scientific knowledge created in LBA into public policies has proven to be much more difficult than its planners anticipated. Key to overcoming the obstacles is greater knowledge and capacity to develop and disseminate appropriate technologies and methodologies for sustainable management of the environment. Few developing countries are making substantial investment to develop this capacity. This is of huge consequence as the funding-structures, interests and incentive structures – and even the knowledge base – of developed-country-dominated international scientific efforts are inadequate to meet present challenges. The LBA serves to illustrate this inadequacy.

Aside from merely identifying humans’ environmental impact, the LBA’s mission, as stated in its planning document, was to help safeguard the Amazon’s basic ecological processes. In addition to its scientific capacity building component, the sustainability dimension is the most obvious point where LBA research could bring benefits at the national and local levels. It is also the least developed dimension of the LBA. An independent mid-term review concluded that the program had performed weakly in the area of identifying and developing social, political and economic implications of the findings, especially as concerns sustainable development in the Amazon region.

One may trace part of the root problem to resource disparities between the global North and South at the levels of human and material resources related to knowledge production and mobilization. These disparities complicate the science-policy interface in less developed countries (Lahsen in press; Lahsen forthcoming (a); Lahsen forthcoming (b) and as such can weaken the effectiveness of efforts to assess and combat human-induced climate and associated effects. It also limits the level of participation and input of less developed countries in international scientific programs and policy efforts, allowing Northern nations, and especially the United States, to overwhelmingly dominate the production and framing of science underpinning international environmental negotiations. Studies suggest that this dominance can translate into political gain and that it at times weakens less developed country representatives’ trust and regard for international environmental assessment and negotiation processes (ibid).

Simply modeling science agendas in the South on those in the North would be a mistake to the extent that this would perpetuate the evaluation criteria and incentive structures that result in high quality research, yes, but without the necessary connection to applications at the regional, national and local levels. Had an Amazon-based institution led the LBA from the planning stages on, for instance, this would not have guaranteed that sustainability concerns would have been more central. Brazilian scientists – especially in the richer South of the country but also those in the Amazon – are increasingly hooked into international science and subject to the same incentive structures as their Northern peers.

Ways must be found to link excellence in research more tightly to urgent environmental and societal problems, attending to the perverse effects of presents incentive structures and heeding insights captured in calls for “sustainability science” (Cash, et al., 2003; Clark 2003; Clark and Dickson 2003; National Research Council 1999).

References:

Cash, David W., William C. Clark, Frank Alcock, Nancy M. Dickson, Noelle Eckley, David H. Guston, Jill Jäger and Ronald B. Mitchell (2003), `Knowledge Systems for Sustainable Development,' Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 100, No. 14, 8 July, pp. 8086-8091.

Clark, William C. (2003), Institutional Needs for Sustainability Science link in PDDF

Clark, William C. and Nancy M. Dickson (2003), `Sustainability Science: The Emerging Research Program,' Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 100, No. 14, 8 July, pp. 8059-8061.

Fogel, Catheleen A. (2002), `Greening The Earth With Trees: Science, Storylines And The Construction Of International Climate Change Institutions,' Doctoral Dissertation (Environmental Studies: University of California, Santa Cruz).

Lahsen, Myanna (in press), `Distrust and Participation in International Science and Environmental Decision Making: Knowledge Gaps to Overcome,' in Mary Pettinger (Ed.), The Social Construction of Climate Change (Ashgate Publishing).

Lahsen, Myanna (forthcoming (a), `Knowledge, Democracy and Uneven Playing Fields: Insights from Climate Politics in - and Between - the U.S. and Brazil,' in Nico Stehr (Ed.), Knowledge and Democracy (Transactions Publishers).

Lahsen, Myanna (forthcoming (b), dependent on acceptance of completed revisions). "Science and Brazilian environmental policy: The case of the LBA and carbon sink science" Climatic Change.

Posted on January 5, 2007 01:33 AM View this article | Comments (8)
Posted to Author: Others | Climate Change | Science Policy: General

January 04, 2007

New Publications: Reconciling the Supply of and Demand for Science

Dan Sarewitz, Steve Dovers, and I have guest edited a special issue of Environmental Science & Policy which is titled Reconciling the Supply of and Demand for Science, with a focus on carbon cycle research. The papers in this special issue have just been published, and since each of the papers has an author or co-author here at our Center we are happy to provide links below to the full set of papers in the order that they appear in the special issue. Over coming days and weeks we may prepare focused posts on a few of the papers. Meantime, have a look, feedback appreciated!

Dilling, L., 2007. The opportunities and responsibility for carbon cycle science in the U.S., Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 10, pp. 1-4. (PDF)

Sarewitz, D. and R. A. Pielke, Jr., 2007. The neglected heart of science policy: reconciling supply of and demand for science, Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 10, pp. 5-16. (PDF)

McNie, E., 2007. Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature, Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 10, pp. 17-38. (PDF)

Lövbrand, E., 2007. Pure science or policy involvement? Ambiguous boundary-work for Swedish carbon cycle science, Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 10, pp. 39-47. (PDF)

Dilling, L., 2007. Towards science in support of decision making: characterizing the supply of carbon cycle science, Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 10, pp. 48-61.(PDF)

Lahsen, M. and C. A. Nobre, 2007. Challenges of connecting international science and local level sustainability efforts: the case of the Large-Scale Biosphere–Atmosphere Experiment in Amazonia, Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 10, pp. 62-74. (PDF)

Logar, N. J. and R. T. Conant, 2007. Reconciling the supply of and demand for carbon cycle science in the U.S. agricultural sector, Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 10, pp. 75-84.(PDF)

Posted on January 4, 2007 07:38 AM View this article | Comments (0)
Posted to Climate Change | Science Policy: General

December 15, 2006

The Importance of Evaluation

A story in the New York Times today on the effectiveness of colonoscopy highlights the importance of evaluating the effectiveness of action. One of the biggest areas of study in academic policy research is evaluation, and the federal government has an entire agency that focuses on evaluation in the Government Accountability Office.

But in policy as in medicine – as the colonoscopy case illustrates -- it is amazing how often evaluation of the effectiveness of action is overlooked or simply not done. Evaluation matters because it indicates what is working and what works. In the case of colonoscopy, improved health outcomes are apparently achieved with only a minor change in medical practice.

Posted on December 15, 2006 12:26 AM View this article | Comments (1)
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Health | Science Policy: General

December 14, 2006

New Bridges Article on 110th Congress

The December issue of Bridges is out, and it includes my column, this time on what we might expect on science and technology policy from the 110th Congress.

But do read the whole issue. Bridges is one of the top publications you'll find anywhere on science and technology policy.

Posted on December 14, 2006 11:12 AM View this article | Comments (2)
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | R&D Funding | Science + Politics | Science Policy: General

December 08, 2006

Inside the IPCC's Dead Zone

Climate scientist James Annan has related a tale of angst and suffering as a result of peer reviews that will, in broad terms, sound familiar to most academics. His experience raises a question that I’d like to ask of the folks familiar with the IPCC.

I have no idea what James’ paper is about, except that it argues that very high values of climate sensitivity can be ruled out, which I take it is contrary to the views of some others in the field. This situation leads me to consider several general questions about the IPCC:

How does the IPCC handle information that appears after its deadline for citation of peer-reviewed papers that may contradict literature which appears before that deadline?

Doesn’t this create a potential conflict of interest for contributors to the IPCC who are reviewing papers that appear during the drafting process?

Take hurricanes and climate change for example. Whatever the IPCC reports next March, it certainly won’t be as current as the recent WMO consensus report because the IPCC cannot cite literature that appeared after some point early in 2006, and the WMO can. And I'd bet there will be more studies released between now and march. On hurricanes the IPCC may wind up creating confusion by taking the scientific discussion back to early 2006 when in reality much has happened since. Similarly, its discussion of climate sensitivity and other areas could, in principle, suffer from the same lag effects. Now James’ paper was rejected, and for all I know, correctly. But on highly sensitive topics, I find myself agreeing with the AAAS – trust alone is no longer enough.

Posted on December 8, 2006 09:18 AM View this article | Comments (13)
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Climate Change | Science Policy: General | Scientific Assessments

November 29, 2006

AAAS Report on Standards of Peer Review

The AAAS has released a report motivated by several recent fraudulent papers that have been published in Science. The report suggests tightening the review process for certain types of papers. Here is an excerpt from the report (available here in PDF):

Science (and Nature) have reached a special status. Publication in Science has a significance that goes beyond that of 'normal' publication. Consequently, the value to some authors of publishing in Science, including enhanced reputation, visibility, position or cash rewards, is sufficiently high that some may not adhere to the usual scientific standards in order to achieve publication. Thus, the cachet of publishing in Science can be an incentive not to follow the rules. This problem has a significant impact on all of science, since trust in the system is essential, and since Science and Nature are seen to speak for the best in science. Furthermore, false information in the literature leads to an enormous waste of time and money in an effort to correct and clarify the science.
Science as a journal tries to select papers that will have high impact on both science and society. Some papers will be highly visible and attract considerable attention. Many of these papers purport to be major breakthroughs and claim to change fields in a significant way. However, because the content is so new or startling, it is often more difficult to evaluate the quality or veracity of the work than would be the case for a more conventional paper.

Papers in this class, particularly those that will receive public attention, can influence public policy or contribute to personal or institutional financial gain and thus warrant special scrutiny. In the immediate future, examples will likely come from the areas of climate change, human health, and particular issues in commercial biomedicine and nanotechnology. Progress in science depends on breakthroughs and in taking risks, both in research and in publishing. Nevertheless, it is essential to develop a process by which papers that have the likelihood of attracting attention are examined particularly closely for errors, misrepresentation, deception, or outright fraud. This examination should include especially high standards for providing primary data, a clear understanding of all of the authors' and coauthors’ contributions to the paper and a careful examination of data presented in the papers.

There is a major issue in the report left unaddressed, and this has to do with the following statement– "Science as a journal tries to select papers that will have high impact on both science and society." How does this selection process work? What are the criteria of “high impact”? What is the relationship of political positions taken by the Science editorial staff and the selection of papers for peer review and publication? If greater transparency makes sense for authors, then does greater transparency make sense for editors as well?

Posted on November 29, 2006 10:42 AM View this article | Comments (5)
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Science + Politics | Science Policy: General

October 27, 2006

Origin of Phrase --Basic Research--?

I am looking for the earliest reference to the phrase "basic research."

I'll start off the bidding with:

J. Huxley. 1935. Science and Social Needs. Harper & Bros. Publishers, New York.

Posted on October 27, 2006 04:04 PM View this article | Comments (6)
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Science Policy: General

October 26, 2006

Conference for Grad Students on Science Policy

Science & Technology in Society:
An International Multidisciplinary Graduate Student Conference

Sponsored by:
The American Association for the Advancement of Science
Arizona State University, Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes
George Mason University
The George Washington University
Virginia Tech

When: March 31 - April 1, 2007
Where: American Association for the Advancement of Science, Headquarters,
Washington, DC

Abstract Deadline: January 16, 2007

This annual conference provides a venue for graduate students from Science & Technology Studies, Science & Technology Policy, Environmental Studies/Policy and related fields to present and receive constructive feedback on their research. In developing the agenda for the conference, the organizing committee's primary goal is to create a forum that encourages intellectual exchange between STS, S&T Policy and Environmental Studies/Policy by assembling diverse and exciting panels around similar themes. As such, the committee will accept the strongest proposals on issues relevant to either field, and build the agenda around them. The agenda for last year's conference (www.stglobal.org) provides examples of common themes
and topics that may be covered this year. 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. Every year we invite prominent figures from both STS and S&T Policy to deliver keynote addresses. Because we draw participants from all over the world, this conference is an excellent opportunity for young scholars aspiring to work in academic, governmental, or non-governmental settings to build both national and international networks for future research and collaborations.

The conference organizing committee welcomes submissions of abstracts (up to 250 words) for a 15-minute presentation. Please submit abstracts and contact information to our website at www.stglobal.org by January 16, 2007. Notification of abstract acceptance will be given by February 7, 2007.

Information concerning area lodging and registration is posted on the conference website. Travel funds are available for a limited number of presenters. Indicate your need for travel funds when submitting your abstract. For further information, either e-mail abstract@stglobal.org or visit the conference website at www.stglobal.org.

Posted on October 26, 2006 11:24 AM View this article | Comments (0)
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Science Policy: General

October 12, 2006

Expertise in Biodiversity Governance

Last week I had the opportunity to participate in an excellent workshop on the role of expertise in biodiversity governance. The workshop was an exercise in the design of a new science-policy organization/institution. The workshop was titled "International Science-Policy Interfaces for Biodiversity Governance" and was held at the UFZ Centre for Environmental Research in Leipzig, Germany. At the workshop participants produced a set of consensus recommendations for the role of an institution that would provide expert advice in the international arena of biodiversity policy.

The main motivation for the workshop is a current consultation seeking such recommendations, called IMoSEB, organized by the French government. You can find our workshop recommendations here in PDF, and also below in HTML. Your comments on the recommendations and the more general challenge of exert advice in the area of biodiversity would be welcomed.

Leipzig Workshop Recommendations for a Knowledge-Policy Interface for Biodiversity Governance

4 October 2006

This document contributes to ongoing debates, including the IMoSEB consultation process, seeking to identify the optimal niche and conditions for the creation of an independent and effective international knowledge-policy interface1 for biodiversity governance. A knowledge-policy interface is essential to support more effective biodiversity-related decision making and societal responses to the challenges of achieving sustainable development.

Mandate:

• Synthesize and communicate a knowledge base on biodiversity in support of decision making and implementation
• Bring together and acknowledge diverse understandings, perspectives, and values regarding biodiversity loss and change
• Create a mechanism for dialogue and exchange among holders of diverse knowledge and knowledge systems (i.e., all forms of traditional and modern knowledge and science)
• Foster deeper understanding of the ways in which biodiversity loss and change transcend scales (spatial, temporal, etc.) and jurisdictional boundaries
• Through its activities enhance and improve abilities to collect, exchange and disseminate knowledge and information, and promote actions in favor of better biodiversity management at all levels
Outputs and outcomes:
• Scenarios of human futures and biodiversity loss and change, in relation to poverty, food security, economic growth, water security, conflict, human health, energy, climate change, etc. illuminating policy options, choices, and strategies available to diverse actors
• Periodic assessments of:

o existing biodiversity knowledges, including identification of gaps in existing assessments,
o status and trends on biodiversity,
o strategies and options for response,
o policy effectiveness,
o capacity at all levels of decision making
o biodiversity knowledge-policy interfaces, and
o cross-issue linkages (e.g., poverty, food security, economic growth, water security, conflict, human health, energy, climate change)

• Analyses of the causes of biodiversity loss and change, including key aspects of political economies2, and the necessary elements of societal transformation to redress these causes
• Stock-taking and management of biodiversity knowledge, including for global trends, indicators, and monitoring systems

1 We use the phrase “knowledge-policy interface” to acknowledge that information and expertise relevant to policy must include all forms of knowledge.

2 In this context we understand political economy as the analysis of economic and political dynamics, power structures, regulations, policies and dominant ideologies that affect biodiversity and people’s relation to it.

• Comprehensive outreach and communication strategy in support of dialogue and action
• Identification of knowledge gaps and feedback into research policies and priorities
• Identification of gaps in capacity for linking biodiversity knowledge to action at all levels of decision making and implementation
• Creation and dissemination of tools and methodologies for assessments, analyses, and other means of connecting knowledge and policy

Process:

• Ongoing, dynamic, and independent process that brings together diverse forms of knowledge, expertise, and science
• Ensure that process is legitimate and has appropriate institutional support and authorizing environment
• Establish secure funding stream from multiple sources
• Engage governments, private sector, civil society, scientific community, indigenous communities, international organizations and conventions, etc., in the design and operation of the mechanism
• Networking process that links and builds upon—and does not reinvent or duplicate—diverse existing networks of biodiversity expertise and policy
• Innovating process that identifies and seeks to fill gaps in existing networks of biodiversity expertise and policy
• Catalyze nested networks and activities at national and sub-global (e.g., local, regional, trans-jurisdictional) levels
• Process that ensures interpretation and translation among relevant languages, cultures, and knowledge traditions
• Provide regular opportunities for appropriate internal and external evaluation and review
• Establish small and effective coordinating mechanism (e.g., governing board) that includes appropriate balance and diversity across geography, sectors, stakeholders, expertise, etc.

Questions requiring further reflection

Participants agreed that future consultations will require careful consideration of the following key questions given the reality of trade-offs among democratization of expertise, stakeholder involvement, political legitimacy and accountability, funding mandates, scientific excellence, trust and credibility, etc.:

• What is the appropriate form of funding, institutional framework, and authorization of the mechanism by governments, international conventions, and the United Nations system while maintaining independence?
• What are the appropriate means for developing the network described above?
• How to link the mechanism to the needs of the various international conventions?

Further information

More information on the Leipzig workshop, including a full report is available at http://www.ufz.de/spi-workshop

Posted on October 12, 2006 05:58 AM View this article | Comments (6)
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Biodiversity | Science Policy: General

September 26, 2006

Follow Up on Royal Society Letter

Last week we discussed a letter from the Royal Society to ExxonMobil. The interesting discussion that followed focused on the role of scientists in general and national academies specifically in contested political issues that involve science. The issue continues to devleop. Apparently, according to Benny Peiser, the author of the Royal Society letter to ExxonMobil is no longer employed by the Royal Society. The Royal Soceity has not said anything publicly that I am aware of -- eagle-eyed readers please share what you learn.

David Whitehouse, formerly with the BBC, has shared another letter with Benny Peiser, which Benny included in his CCNet mailing list today. I have reproduced Dr. Whitehouse's letter below which provides an overview and analysis of the events of the past week.

Dear Benny,

I confess to having pulled the occasional media stunt in my time (all in the cause of good journalism of course) to get a story aired but I think that the climate change debate over the past week is a good example of how manipulating the media can result in unexpected consequences for those who hang on to the tail of this particular tiger, and frankly how some people ought to be a bit more accurate when they pontificate to the public.

As far as I can see it went like this:

Tuesday 19th September.

Posted on George Monbiot's website and the Guardian's website
(http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/09/19/the-smoke-behind-the-deniers
-fire-3/) was a column which reported that the Royal Society had had enough of those spreading misinformation about climate change. Monbiot adds, "As I reveal on Newsnight (a BBC TV Current Affairs Programme) tonight, the Society has now attempted to strike at the heart of this campaign by sending its first official letter of complaint to a corporation - the oil company Exxon. And yesterday its president, Lord Rees, sent the Telegraph what must be one of the most damning letters it has ever received."

However, Monbiot's polemic did not air on Newsnight on Tuesday but went out on Wednesday instead. Personally, I thought it was sloppy and lacked intellectual rigour. It was what is termed an "authored" piece which means it is a personal view and not dictated by the BBC's standards of fairness and impartiality. Nethertheless, Exxon's request to have a similar time to put its case was turned down by Newsnight. Monbiot's piece included a brief interview with Bob Ward, filmed at the Royal Society. It was followed by a fruitless discussion hosted by Jeremy Paxman between a scientist and a representative of a US lobby group. The most memorable thing about it was Paxman's repeatedly telling the American chap that "you are not a
scientist." I was rather disappointed not to see an interview with Lord Rees about his letter to the Telegraph.

Oh, by the way, Monbiot has a book to plug, "Heat - How to Stop the Planet Burning." (I think the title is all I need to know but I will read it.)

Now I wonder if the fact that Monbiot's Newsnight rant was a day later than he said it would be upset the choreography of this story's emergence?

Wednesday 20th September.

The front page of the Guardian carried details of the now infamous letter by Bob Ward (Senior Manager, Policy Communication, Royal Society) referred to in Monbiot's column which was sent to Exxon on 4th September. The Guardian Science Podcast available later described this story as an 'exclusive!' On the front page the Guardian mentioned no qualms about the ethics of the Royal Society's actions.

On the BBC Today radio programme that morning there was a discussion about GM technology that involved Lord May, former Chief Scientific Advisor to H.M. Government and past President of the Royal Society. After this debate the presenter asked him about the Guardian story. To my mind Lord May's response was extraordinary and demonstrated the problem in the debate. I wasn't impressed by his accuracy.

Lord May said that in 2005 the science academies of the G8 nations plus India, China and Brazil said that the "basic facts of climate change are certain." Actually they did no such thing. As Bob Ward pointed out in his letter to Exxon what the G8+ actually said was "it is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities." To my mind the words "likely" and "most" do not equate with certainty. Lord May went on to chastise those who "misrepresent the certainties of science" presumably unaware that he had done exactly that! [For reference the IPCC say the same thing - "most of the global warming over the past 50 years is likely due to the increase in greenhouse gases - note the key words "most" and "likely."]

Lord May went on to say that the fact that "humans are changing the climate" is as certain as gravitation or evolution. I find this statement surprising even though it is an obvious one as it is recognised by all that humans are changing the climate - what is in debate is the question is the magnitude of the change. Then a spokesman for Exxon, Nick Thomas (Director Public Affairs Exxon) was brought into the discussion who stated Exxon's position which, to my mind, sounded like a fair summary of the G8+ position and the IPCC position (we agree that the word is warming, that CO2 concentrations are increasing, that glaciers are shrinking and that CO2 emissions are certainly one of the contributors to climate change, we recognise man's activities are responsible for climate change.) This statement didn't quite go as far as many would wish but, given the uncertainties in the science, it was OK, I thought.

But Lord May was unconvinced. He maintained that this contradicted the US National Academy of Sciences and that what he had heard from Nick Thomas was a "misrepresentation of the facts." Having listened to the exchange several times I have to say I think Lord May is wrong about that.

The Guardian story aired on BBC News TV throughout the day (Wednesday 20th) pretty much in the form that the Guardian had used, i.e. the Royal Society - upholder of the consensus - had had enough of lies and misinformation spread by the likes of a big bad energy company like Exxon. There the story would perhaps have lain except for the next edition of the BBC's Today radio programme.

Thursday 21st September.

The Today programme asked if the Royal Society was right to police the scientific consensus this way. Bob Ward defended his actions. You can read the transcript of that discussion in a recent CCNet.

Later.

The coverage thereafter was different, as those who have read CCNet in recent days have seen. Dominic Lawson writing in the Independent on the 22nd wondered if the release of the Royal Society's letter on the 20th was anything to do with Monbiot's book?

Heaven forfend, Bob Ward wrote in a letter to the Independent on the 25th in which he says, "I can absolutely refute Lawson's laughable suggestion that it (presumable the letter) was part of a campaign to promote George Monbiot's new book."

I think this is another example of the sleight of hand that Bob Ward employed in his letter to Exxon. Even if the initial impetus for the letter had nothing to do with Monbiot, it is surely stretching belief beyond credulity that its appearance on the front page of the Guardian at the same time as Monbiot's column and Newsnight piece was unrelated!

So what was achieved?

Bob Ward made the big mistake of writing such a letter to Exxon in completely the wrong way, allowing it to be made public and becoming the topic of discussion. When a senior manager of policy communication becomes the story and not the policy itself, it is, as Alistair Campbell discovered, not a good thing. The Royal Society looks bad having tried to enforce a consensus even though, as many have pointed out, they must have been aware of the role of consensus in science. It also looks bad having sent such disgraceful (and counterproductive) letters to journalists. We also learnt that even those authorities who have scaled the august heights of science and are laden with honours are not immune to being sloppy with the facts and with a false impression of the "certainties of science."

But perhaps the cause of science has been advanced during this week for it has forced a discussion and appraisal of how so-called sceptics are being treated in this important debate and steered the global warming debate towards a scientific course and away from the rocky shoals of you are either for us or against us. It has made many examine the role of the Royal Society in scientific debate and public relations and, perhaps most importantly, once again we have been reminded that as far a science is concerned being an authority, individual or corporate, ultimately means little.

Also Monbiot does have some words of wisdom one can take away from this mess: "Be wary of self-appointed experts." Exactly.

David Whitehouse

Posted on September 26, 2006 07:21 AM View this article | Comments (25)
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Science Policy: General

September 25, 2006

Interview and Podcast

"Are you a climate skeptic?"

This is how the Daily Camera, our local Boulder paper, opened an interview with me, parts of which appeared in today's paper. You can hear my answer to this question, and many better questions (but maybe not better answers;-), in a 20 minute podcast of the entire interview, available here (mp3). The reporter, Todd Neff, did a nice job. He was quite familar with some of the recent discussions on Prometheus and his questions in the interview reflected that.

Posted on September 25, 2006 01:44 AM View this article | Comments (2)
Posted to Science Policy: General

August 29, 2006

Revisiting an Old Steve Schneider Quote

All of this discussion of ends-means reminds me of an inscrutable quote from Stanford's Steve Schneider:

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This "double ethical bind" we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
Schell, J. 1989. Our fragile earth, Discover 10:44-50.

For some people this quote has been interpreted as providing a green light for making bad policy arguments (in Schneider's terms not being "honest") in support of desired political ends (in Schneider's language being "effective"). Others have pointed to the last sentence and emphasized Schneider's personal hope for honesty and effectiveness to coexist. In my view the quote is underdetermined, and thus it makes little sense to try to adjudicate these differnt perspectvies.

For my part the action is in fact in the second-to-last sentence -- "Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." By acknowledging a balance between effectiveness and honesty, Schneider clearly recognized that his hope for honesty and effectiveness to happily coexist would in reality not always be the case, and trade-offs would have to be made. This is the nature of Schneider's "double ethical bind" - how to balance means or ends when both cannot be championed at once? Schneider says that resolving this bind is a personal decision for each scientist.

In large part, my recent posts on ends-means address this exact same "double ethical bind" between ends and means. It is my perception that in contemporary science policy -- including but not limited to climate policy -- many scientist have decided to resolve the double ethical bind in favor of championing ends over means. Given that science deals with means and not ends, if my perception bears anything close to an accurate assessment of the current state of science in politics, then it would seem of concern to the sustainability of the scientific enterprise. The thoughtful and respectful exchanges with a few leading scientists in the comments of relevant posts here have not changed my perceptions.

Posted on August 29, 2006 10:06 PM View this article | Comments (24)
Posted to Science Policy: General

August 25, 2006

Pop Quiz

Some friday fun:

The follow quote refers to what:

"I guess this is just people holding the correct [political] opinion for the wrong [science/intelligence] reasons and let's accept it with gratitude."

A. Dick Cheney commenting upon learning that a majority of Americans believe that 9/11 is related to Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

B. A commentator at Real Climate upon learning that a majority of Americans believe that the Katrina disaster was caused by global warming.

Hey what is a little public misunderstanding of policy arguments so long as it helps your political agenda?! ;-)

Posted on August 25, 2006 09:21 AM View this article | Comments (37)
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Science Policy: General

August 24, 2006

Scientific Advice at NASA

The recent resignation of three scientists on the NASA Advisory Panel raises some interesting questions about the nature of advice versus decision making and the interests of those providing the advice in the outcomes of the decisions by those receiving their input. Science magazine makes this all a bit more concrete with some of the details of the brouhaha:

NASA Administrator Michael Griffin yesterday read the riot act to the outside scientists who advise him, accusing them of thinking more of themselves and their research than of the agency's mission. Griffin's harsh comments come on the heels of the resignation of three distinguished scientists from the NASA Advisory Council (NAC), two of whom have questioned Griffin's plan to dramatically scale back a host of science projects (Science, 12 May, p. 824). "The scientific community ... expects to have far too large a role in prescribing what work NASA should do," Griffin wrote council members in a blistering 21 August message. "By 'effectiveness,' what the scientific community really means is 'the extent to which we are able to get NASA to do what we want to do. "
The outside engineers, scientists, and educators on the council traditionally offer advice on the agency's policies, budget, and projects. Placed in limbo for nearly a year after Griffin took over as NASA chief in spring 2005, the NAC was reorganized this spring under the leadership of geologist Harrison Schmitt, a former U.S. senator and Apollo astronaut who is gung ho about President George W. Bush's plans to send humans back to the moon and to Mars. Schmitt replaced Charles Kennel, director of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, California, who resigned last week from his post as chair of the council's science committee. Two other NAC members--former NASA space science chief Wesley Huntress and Rice University Provost Eugene Levy--resigned last week in response to a direct request from Griffin that they step down.

Schmitt and members of that committee have clashed repeatedly in recent months over the role of science at the space agency. In a pointed 24 July memo to science committee members, Schmitt complained that they lacked "willingness to provide the best advice possible to Mike," refused to back Griffin's decision to cut research funds for astrobiology or recommend an alternative cut, and resisted considering the science component of future human missions to the moon. "Some members of the committee," he concluded, "are not willing to offer positive assistance to Mike."

Both Levy, a physicist, and Huntress, an astrochemist now at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, say they support human space exploration but fear that science is now taking a back seat after years of a careful balance between human and robotic efforts. NASA spokesman Dean Acosta acknowledged that the scientists and Schmitt "weren't working well together," and that Griffin telephoned Huntress and Levy last week to ask for their resignations. Griffin's memo points to what he calls "the inherent and long-standing conflict-of-interest" by scientists giving advice to an agency on which they depend for funding. And he gives them a clear way out. "The most appropriate recourse for NAC members who believe the NASA program should be something other than what it is, is to resign."

Huntress says Griffin told him that his advice exceeded the council's charge. "This is a different NAC. Our advice was simply not required nor desired," Huntress told Science. The current council, he adds, "has no understanding or patience for the science community process." Kennel, who had been named chair of the NAC's science committee, was unavailable for comment, but Norine Noonan, a former NAC member and dean of math and science at South Carolina's College of Charleston, called Griffin's action "very distressing" for scientists. "If we can't have a robust debate at the NAC level," she says, "then where in the heck is it supposed to happen?"

Posted on August 24, 2006 07:23 AM View this article | Comments (7)
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Science Policy: General | Space Policy

August 23, 2006

Dan Sarewitz on Research Questions for Science of Science Policy

Anything Dan Sarewitz writes is worth reading. Here (PDF) is a short essay he prepared for a recent NSF workshop on the "Science of Science Policy" in which he discusses what such a research agenda might look like. Here is an excerpt:

1. We need a conceptual framework, perhaps analogous to "national innovation systems," that can help put some boundaries around, and illuminate structure and dynamics within, the complex institutional setting for knowledge creation and use aimed at goals other than wealth creation.
2. Given that public investments in research are usually justified in terms of particular, desirable outcomes, we need to develop generalized approaches for systems-based institutional analysis and mapping that would allow such justifications to be contextualized and tested simply for plausibility. (For example, we might want to test the idea that more fundamental knowledge about the climate system is important for catalyzing a global technological shift to a decarbonized energy system.)

3. As Toulmin realized 40 years ago, science policy discourse often focuses on trade-offs between various scientific fields, rather than between science and other approaches to a particular social need or goal. Because we don’t understand research institutions ecologically, we still lack a decent analytical basis for understanding the role of research within a broad portfolio of potential policy interventions aimed at some goal. Mapping institutional ecologies of knowledge creation, use, and value could provide a foundation for developing new decision tools that allow policy makers to confront fundamental questions, such as: When is "more research" the right prescription? When is it unlikely to make a difference? What other factors are necessary for it to make a difference? When would a different intervention offer a more efficient or plausible route to a desired outcome? (For example, California voters might have benefited from a discussion of the variety of ways that the $5 billion allocated for CIRM might be applied to improving public health in the state.)

4. We do know that "institutions that do research" are embedded in different ways in broader institutional ecologies. In particular, certain types of research settings—e.g., agriculture; private sector software development; clinical medicine—have been identified as sites where feedback between knowledge creation and use is supposed to be strong. We need many, many more institutional case studies to help map out the variety of designs that are available, and to develop comparative frameworks and metrics based on the relations among institutional design, and knowledge creation, use, and value.

5. And of course we also need to reflect on where our own efforts fit in. "Bring back OTA" is not an adequate prescription. What are the loci of decision making where better understanding of, and discussion about, the institutional ecology of knowledge creation, use and value might make a difference? What types of insights, tools and products might decision makers find useful? This workshop strikes me as a huge opportunity to begin to enhance the public value of science policy and science studies research, but we need to start, needless to say, by attending to the institutional ecologies within which we now operate.

Posted on August 23, 2006 07:31 AM View this article | Comments (0)
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Science Policy: General

August 14, 2006

If “Science of Science Policy” is the answer, then what is the question?

In June, the Bush Administration issued guidance (PDF) for R&D in the FY 2008 federal budget, observing,

The combination of finite resources, the commitment to the American Competitiveness Initiative, and a multitude of new research opportunities requires careful attention to funding priorities and wise choices by agency managers.

OK, then, what does it mean for people who make decisions about science funding to make “wise choices”? The memo continues, explaining that “wise choices” refers to R&D programs that advance national goals through agency missions and priorities. In other words, R&D investments are a means to other ends:

As has been reiterated previously in these annual memos, agencies must rigorously evaluate existing programs and, wherever possible, consider them for modification, redirection, reduction or termination, in keeping with national needs and priorities. They must justify new programs with rigorous analysis demonstrating their merit, quality, importance and consistency with national priorities. Agencies may propose new, high-priority activities, but these requests should identify potential offsets by elimination or reductions in less effective or lower priority programs or programs where Federal involvement is no longer needed or appropriate.
In general, the Administration favors Federal R&D investments that:

• advance fundamental scientific discovery to improve future quality of life;
• support high-leverage basic research to spur technological innovation, economic competitiveness and new job growth;
• align with the efforts of the Academic Competitiveness Council and the National Math Panel to enable superior performance in science, mathematics and engineering education;
• enable potentially high-payoff activities that require a Federal presence to attain long-term national goals, including national security, energy security, and a next generation air transportation system;
• sustain specifically authorized agency missions and support the missions of other agencies through stewardship of user facilities;
• enhance the health of our Nation’s people to reduce the burden of illness and increase productivity;
• ensure a scientifically literate population and a supply of qualified technical personnel commensurate with national need;
• strengthen our ability to understand and respond to global environmental issues and natural disasters through better observation, data, analysis, models, and basic and social science research;
• maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of the science and technology (S&T) enterprise through expansion of competitive, merit-based peer-review processes and phase-out of programs that are only marginally productive or are not important to an agency’s mission; and
• encourage interdisciplinary research efforts that foster advancement, collaboration and innovation on complex scientific frontiers and strengthen international partnerships that accelerate the progress of science across borders.

That is all fine and good, but how does a decision maker looking at alternative possible research portfolios determine if choosing one possible approach represents a “wiser” approach than another possible approach? The Administration memo answers this question by highlighting the importance of a “new science of science policy”:

Determining the effectiveness of Federal science policy requires an understanding of the complex linkages between R&D investments and economic and other variables that lead to innovation, competitiveness, and societal benefits. An interagency process has been established and is now encouraged to promote and coordinate individual agency and collaborative actions needed to develop “new science of science policy” for better assessing the impact of R&D investments, defining appropriate metrics for measuring this impact, understanding the effect of the globalization of science and technology, and improving the basis for national science policy decisions.

The question to be addressed by a “science of science policy” is thus:

What choices do we have in comprising R&D portfolios (from the national - or even international - aggregate to that of the individual program manager in a particular agency, company, or other organization) and what are the expected societal (and more parochial) outcomes associated with each alternative?

Posted on August 14, 2006 10:35 AM View this article | Comments (3)
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Science Policy: General

June 27, 2006

The Is-Ought Problem

Al Gore obviously hasn't read Andrew Dessler's book:

. . . if you accept the truth of what the scientific community is saying, it gives you a moral imperative to start to rein in the 70 million tons of global warming pollution that human civilization is putting into the atmosphere every day.

This is a fine example of the is-ought problem described by philospoher David Hume. ASU's Brad Allenby has explained why we should care about the is-ought problem in science:

. . . the elite that has been created by practice of the scientific method uses the concomitant power not just to express the results of particular research initiatives, but to create, support, and implement policy responses affecting many non-scientific communities and intellectual domains in myriad ways. In doing so, they are not exercising expertise in these non-scientific domains, but rather transforming their privilege in the scientific domains into authority in non-scientific domains.

Posted on June 27, 2006 03:55 PM View this article | Comments (11)
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Climate Change | Science Policy: General

June 15, 2006

Oversight Exemptions for NOAA?

Yesterday the House Science Committee, while passing an act formally codifying the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration into law (President Nixon created the agency via Executive Order), dealt with amendments over scientific integrity.

According to CQ.com, Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC) offered an amendment providing whistleblower protection for scientists and punishment for employees who tampered with science. The amendment would have also exempted NOAA from the Information Quality Act - legislation that allows the public to petition the government over flawed data. Another amendment, by Rep. Costello (D-IL) would have barred the White House from editing reports prior to submitting them to Congress.

Both amendments failed. Chairman Boehlert released a statement addressing his opposition to the amendments, which can be found here. He argues that the amendments would have prompted some difficult jurisdicitional scrambles (mainly with the Government Reform Committee and the Resources Committee - which also has NOAA oversight). He also argues, I think convincingly, that the amendment is written somewhat broadly, and placed in a bill related to an agency that is not, in the eyes of many, a particularly egregious offender in the debates over political interference in science.

While I understand the sentiments behind the amendments, I'm not in favor of potentially sabotaging legislation that is necessary. A large government agency without formal statutory authority? That needs to be addressed. And adding arguably tangential amendments makes it harder to pass such legislation. A desire for better science should not trump the need for good law.

Posted on June 15, 2006 10:10 PM View this article | Comments (5)
Posted to Author: Bruggeman, D. | Science Policy: General

June 08, 2006

Confusion on Science Censorship in US Federal Agencies

There may be a good explanation, but Warren Washington has expressed apparently conflicting views on science censorship in U.S. federal agencies. In today’s Rocky Mountain News Warren Washington, outgoing chairman of the National Science Board (which oversees the National Science Foundation), is quoted as follows:

The American public is not hearing the full story on global warming because Bush administration officials are muzzling government scientists, a top climate researcher said Wednesday.
Warren Washington, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, said that Bush appointees are suppressing information about climate change, restricting journalists' access to federal scientists and rewriting agency news releases to stress global warming uncertainties.

"The news media is not getting the full story, especially from government scientists," Washington told about 160 people attending the first day of "Climate Change and the Future of the American West," a three-day conference sponsored by the University of Colorado's Natural Resources Law Center. . .

Washington said in an interview that the climate cover-up is occurring at several federal agencies, including NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Forest Service. NOAA operates several Boulder laboratories that conduct climate and weather research.

I was in attendance at the workshop and heard Dr. Washington’s allegations. But unless he has some new information (which he might), but has not released, it is difficult to square these allegations with a recent report of the NSB on this issue. A report (available here in PDF, relevant section begins at p. 6) which was chaired by Dr. Washington found no evidence of suppression. Here is an excerpt:

. . . the Board has reviewed statutes, regulations, agency statements and internal documents related to this issue for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Energy (DOE), and Health and Human Services (HHS). In addition, the Board requested that the Inspector General (IG) of the National Science Foundation (NSF) poll her counterparts at these agencies for additional relevant information.
The Board would like to acknowledge and thank EPA, NASA, NIH, NOAA, USGS, USDA, and DOE for their responses to our request for information. . .

The survey of the agencies’ IGs indicated that no reports were issued to indicate scientific information was suppressed or distorted at the agencies involved with the Board’s review.

It may be that while there are no formal reports from within various agencies, suppression is nonetheless ongoing. However, I would hope that Dr. Washington would provide the evidence of such continuing suppression if he has it. Otherwise, the allegations of suppression risk undermining the credibility of countless hard-working government scientists and their agencies. As a NOAA spokesman said,

Jordan St. John, a NOAA spokesman, said the allegations against his agency are false.
"NOAA is an open and transparent agency," he said. "It's unfair to the people who work at this agency that this kind of characterization keeps being made. Hansen said it once, and it took on a life of its own and just keeps getting repeated."

But Washington insisted that government officials are "trying to confuse the public" about climate change and the scientific consensus that global warming is a real problem.

The only way to reconcile these different points of view is with data. Without data that suppression continues (beyond the well documented cases of Jim Hansen and the NOAA hurricane press release) it is hard to know what is being referred to. If I see Warren today at the conference, I’ll ask him. The NSB does offer a number of useful recommendations, which I provide here in full:

RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on our analysis, we offer the following recommendations:

• A Government-wide directive should be issued by the Administration that provides overarching principles and clearly articulates the requirement for all agencies to develop unambiguous policies and procedures to encourage open exchange of data and results of research conducted by agency scientists, while preventing the intentional or unintentional suppression or distortion of research findings and accommodating appropriate agency review. A developed set of principles should also state the concomitant responsibility of agency employees regarding the advocacy of public policy that might be implied by their research.

• Agency-wide policies covering the public disclosure of an agency’s research results should be issued and uniformly applied, widely communicated, and readily accessible to all employees and the general public. Like those recently released by NASA, these policies should unambiguously describe what is and is not permitted or recommended. Responsibilities for communicating research results by researchers, public affairs officers, policy makers, and other agency employees should be clearly described. A clear distinction should be made between communicating professional research results and data versus the interpretation of data and results in a context that seeks to influence, through the injection of personal viewpoints, public opinion or formulation of public policy.

• An objective dispute resolution mechanism for disagreements involving the public dissemination of agency research findings should be implemented. This will help ensure the public has access to the research and that scientific findings presented are credible and of the highest quality.

• A Government-wide review should be established to ensure that implementation of these recommendations is conducted in a manner that meets the high standards expected and is consistent across agencies.

From where I sit these make good sense, however, I will point out that this aspiration will forever be problematic: “A clear distinction should be made between communicating professional research results and data versus the interpretation of data and results in a context that seeks to influence, through the injection of personal viewpoints, public opinion or formulation of public policy.”

Posted on June 8, 2006 07:15 AM View this article | Comments (3)
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Science Policy: General

May 27, 2006

Playground! After School!

Does Science really need to devote letter space to content-free testosterone-laden exchanges that involve no science or science policy?

Donald Kennedy's Editorial "The new gag rules" (17 Feb., p. 917) was quite disturbing. I was offended, not by the unfounded allegations of conspiracy at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), but by the Editorial's reckless disregard for the truth.
Dean Acosta, NASA

His letter is short on facts but rich in rhetoric, presumably to support his central point: that public affairs types need to collaborate with scientists because the latter can't write well.
Donald Kennedy, Science

Posted on May 27, 2006 09:31 AM View this article | Comments (1)
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Science Policy: General

Appropriate Advocacy by a Science Association

We have at times here at Prometheus taken issue with scientific organizations that take advocacy positions on certain issues. Today we’d like to highlight a situation where the American Association for the Advancement of Science is engaging in advocacy quite appropriate to its mission and expertise – from its press release:

AAAS, the world’s largest general science society, is urging a British teachers association to withdraw a motion calling on its members to boycott Israeli scholars and academic institutions that do not publicly declare their opposition to Israel’s policies in the territories.
The boycott proposal is scheduled for consideration during the 27-29 May annual conference of the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education, the largest trade union and professional association for lecturers, researchers and others working in higher education and adult education in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. A vote is expected Monday.

What is the difference between the AAAS advocating for a withdrawal of the British teachers association boycott and, say, our previous criticisms of national science academies arguing for certain climate policies? There are three differences:

1. The boycott is a matter of “policy for science”. As the AAAS observes in its statement,

Free scientific inquiry and associated international collaborations should not be compromised in order to advance a political agenda unrelated to scientific and scholarly matters.

The governance of the scientific enterprise is squarely within the expertise and mission of the AAAS.

2. The statement from the science academies on climate change that I referred to went well beyond issues of the governance of science into issues of the governance of the economy, and even more broadly, the governance of global society. Science, and the expertise contained within science academies, which is a subset of expertise and opinion of relevance to climate change, is not a sufficient basis for arguing one course of action over another on climate change.

3. Climate change does not need more advocacy, but more options. When science academies engage in advocacy they eschew the role of honest brokers of policy options – a role that is sorely needed on climate policy because just about everyone n the skeptic-mainstream debate has decided to take sides rather than work toward creating new options that might break down opposition. In the case of the boycott the AAAS is very clear about its value commitments and the basis for its advocacy. It is not claiming that its position is grounded in science and suggests that its perspective is that of a special interest – that of an association interested on the advancement of science. This is entirely appropriate.

Good for the AAAS!

PS. This is my first blog posting from an airplane. Pretty damn cool.

Posted on May 27, 2006 08:43 AM View this article | Comments (0)
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Science Policy: General

May 24, 2006

Juice or No Juice? Who Decides?

With Barry Bonds under the specter of steroids allegations on the brink of passing Babe Ruth in home runs, on another subject of sports and technology Arthur Caplan has a thought-provoking op-ed in the San Jose Mercury News about a new effort to classify sleeping in oxygen tents as a doping violation. He writes:

Should the bureaucrats who set the rules for the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sports extend their critical eye to where athletes are allowed to sleep? This past weekend in Montreal, the bureaucrats, otherwise known as the World Anti-Doping Association, indicated that they are going to try to do exactly that. Bad idea. . .
Many athletes in amateur endurance sports such as skiing, running and cycling use altitude tents. These tents simulate thin mountain air. By sleeping in them, athletes who live at sea-level can get the benefits enjoyed by those who live in mountainous areas. Mountain air has less oxygen, so the body makes more red blood cells to compensate. Those extra red blood cells can provide a slight boost if you are running a marathon or skiing cross-country for 15 miles. That is one of the reasons the U.S. Olympic training facility is located in the Rocky Mountains at Colorado Springs, Colo.

So why is WADA worried about tents? There seems to be one main reason -- sleeping in a tent is a passive activity producing benefits that athletes do not "earn" or "merit." The idea that athletes ought to train to gain improvements in performance, not just lie snoozing in an artificial environment while their bodies make more red blood cells, is at the core of WADA's concern. WADA is worrying about tents not for reasons of safety or even fairness but on ethical grounds -- athletes should strive, not snooze, to succeed.

Linking the virtues to athletic success has some appeal. But when WADA uses a moral view of what makes sport worthwhile it is imposing a set of values rather than reflecting what athletes or the public want. Moreover, drawing a line at high-altitude tents is a boundary that cannot hold.

It is not possible to know who is sleeping in a tent unless WADA officials are prepared to get a lot more up close and personal with athletes than they are likely to tolerate. And if you ban altitude tents, are saunas, steam rooms, massages, ankle wraps and vitamins soon to follow?

Modern athletes long ago brought technology into their lives, and WADA holding its breath and pouting about those who are lazing around in altitude tents will not change that fact. We need to keep an eye on technology and its impact on sports. WADA has, however, nodded off at the switch with its threat to ban sleeping in altitude tents.

It would be a meaningless exhortation to say that athletics should be “pure,” and an unregulated playing field seems undesirable. How then should decisions be made about the role of science and technology in athletic achievements? Should some S&T sport policies be made democratically by government institutions, e.g., such as those focused on the Olympics or NCAA? Or should sport be a private affair internally policed, leaving open the possibility of competing professional sport leagues – the JMLB (Juiced- MLB) vs. the JFMLB (Juice-Free MLB)? (Though there is that anti-trust thing.)

I’m not sure what I’d recommend on where and how to draw lines in sport, but it does seem clear that the processed used to make decisions about S&T in sport are at least as important as the outcomes that result from such processes.

Posted on May 24, 2006 03:24 AM View this article | Comments (5)
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Science Policy: General

May 19, 2006

Tinkering at the edges of NSF (again)

I got two interesting emails from a high-traffic list I'm on. I'm not going to identify the list or the email authors, but the list includes lots of beltway and former beltway types that also have connections to science. First, parts of the emails, then some scintillating science policy discussion.

email 1:

Your help is needed in stopping an amendment that Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) is planning to offer TODAY that would direct the National Science Foundation (NSF) to make "physical science, technology, engineering and mathematics" priorities in its funding decisions.

In addition to being unprecedented Congressional interference into NSF functions that have for more than 50 years been set by scientists, the amendment would de facto set low priority for BIOLOGICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, and SOCIAL SCIENCES, as well as SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAMS. If adopted, this amendment could limit funding for these important fields.
The amendment is to be offered on Thursday May 18 during the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation's mark up of S. 2802 the "American Innovation and Competitiveness Act of 2006." A "mark-up" is when the committee considers amendments to legislation prior to sending a measure to the full Senate for a vote.

We urge you to contact your Senator's office right away (see below) and ask that your Senator oppose the Hutchison amendment and instead support an amendment from Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), which would remove the section about priority-setting at NSF from the bill. Lautenberg's amendment would be a positive change as it would allow the NSF the greatest latitude in making sound investments in fundamental research.

email 2:

I'm happy to report that this situation has improved.
In an attempt to increase America's economic competitiveness, Sen. Kay
Bailey Hutchinson (R-Tex.) originally proposed an amendment to Senate
Bill 2802 that would require NSF to give priority to research in the
physical sciences, engineering and mathematics. However, before
yesterday's markup, Senators Hutchinson and Lautenberg reached a
compromise. The final language encourages NSF to give priority to
research that contributes to innovation and competitiveness, but
recognizes that NSF should not be restricted from funding other areas of
research.

AAAS wrote to the members of the Senate Commerce, Science, and
Transportation Committee to urge the committee to "support peer-reviewed
research across the broad spectrum of disciplines as currently
administered by the National Science Foundation and other agencies."
More information, and the text of the letter, is at http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0518letter.shtml.

What's it all mean? First, let's dispense with the cry from the first email that this is "unprecedented Congressional interference into NSF functions that have for more than 50 years been set by scientists" because that's garbage. Let's not forget who created NSF (Congress), who reauthorizes NSF and makes appropriations for NSF (Congress), who must approve the top brass of NSF (the Senate), and who has tinkered at the edges of NSF since it's very start (Congress). If you don't believe that Congresspeople have been nibbling at NSF for a long time, you might start with a google search for "Senate Proxmire."

The item of actual interest here, however, is how we might read Sen. Hutchinson's intentions. The cynical would argue that she simply doesn't want the U.S. gov to fund social science research, especially when it's culturally messy or otherwise conflicts with her values. There is likely a strong component of that, but the arguments she put forth in a May 2 hearing and the actual language she agreed to in the compromise amendment, tell a different story. The Hutchinson/Lautenberg compromise "language encourages NSF to give priority to research that contributes to innovation and competitiveness." Interestingly, this compromise does two things:

1- brings Sen. Lautenberg into the fold of attempting to focus NSF on results, which was in part Hutchinson's priority (Sen. Lautenberg started by trying to derail the Hutchinson amdt outright without an alternative, as far as I know)

2- brings Sen. Hutchinson away from diminishing social science research for its own sake and pushes her toward a proactive (for results) focus rather than one reactive (against social science research)

Interestingly, the compromise amendment contradicts the comments of another strong conservative at the May-2 hearing, Sen. Sununu (R-NH):

Sununu added that “if you can identify an economic benefit [for research] you shouldn’t be funding it, that’s what we have a venture capital community for.”

If NSF tries to read both messages at once, the only conclusion it can reach is, "They want us to be useful and prioritize research that will have economic benefits, but if we can identify what those benefits might be [which, logically, they'd have to do to be effective under the Hutchinson/Lautenberg amendment] then we shouldn't be funding the research."

Curious. What's a poor NSF-thing to do?

The heart of the matter, it seems to me, is whether the government should only fund activities which clearly pay economic benefits, or whether the Fed should also be in the business of funding the interesting research that nobody else will fund (e.g., do wives or husbands initiate divorce more often?). Unfortunately for NSF, at the May-2 hearing Director Bement couldn't come up with a strong justification for continued social science research, other than "[Social sciences] compress the lead time from discovery to application." With an answer like that, I'm not surprised Sen. Hutchinson feels that social science research "burdens" NSF from focusing on what might be more useful.

[NOTE: cross-posted here.]

Posted on May 19, 2006 11:35 AM View this article | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Vranes, K. | Science Policy: General

May 12, 2006

Science Studies: Cheerleader, Marketer, or Critic?

A former colleague of mine used to say that social scientists were the equivalent of "lap dogs" for the broader scientific community.

By that, he meant that social scientists were around to entertain, look good, but nothing more. My experiences suggest that there is some element of truth in his description of the relationship of science studies with the broader scientific community, especially in those situations where the funding of the science studies scholars depends upon the largesse of the broader scientific community that they are working with. It is a difficult issue because one of the lessons from science studies research is the need for a close relationship with stakeholders, which for many science studies scholars are the scientists themselves.

I was motivated to blog on this after reading a column in the Philadelphia Inquirer by Arthur Caplan, a University of Pennsylvania bioethicist, discussing the challenges of putting limits on science. He observes,

The moral standoff that will quickly come to characterize the 21st century is becoming clear. It is not the teaching of intelligent design vs. evolution in American schools. Almost no one but biblical literalists takes the ID position with any seriousness as science. Nor will it be the heated squabble over embryonic stem-cell research. That scrum is actually over as well: Many nations around the world are doing this type of research, so the question is only where not whether.
The real battle - the battle that will come to occupy the moral center stage of American politics, morality, law, public policy, editorial pages, and water-cooler discussions - will be waged over where genetic engineering ought to take us and whether we are satisfied to leave it to scientists to guide us there.

Caplan acknowledges that "there here are plenty of reasons to worry about the misapplication and misuse of genetics." But even with such concern, Caplan quickly turns to a defense of the inexorable advance of research, and allaying of concerns about the role of scientists in shaping such advances,

Still it is a grave, grave mistake to argue that we must put all forms of genetic engineering off limits. Too much good will be lost. Our only hope of combating some of the worst pests and plagues that beset us and will torment our grandchildren is through genetic manipulation and engineering. The genetic revolution you and I are witnessing is humankind's last, best hope since it offers the prospect of more and safer food; the repair and elimination of genetic maladies like Tay-Sachs, juvenile diabetes, sickle cell disease, and hemophilia; the conquest of TB, malaria, avian flu, SARS, HIV, and many other plagues. And it will allow us to rebuild broken, worn out, or injured body parts.
Any of these alone would be enough reason to pursue genetic research. Together, they all but obligate us to do it. They are an all but unanswerable reply to those who say "No" to genetic research and engineering. Our society would be foolish and cruel to forbid or ban genetic research given the needs of the sick, starving, impaired and those of future generations for solutions and treatments. Will we really turn away from those who literally are dying before our eyes, or who will die before our children's eyes, simply out of fear of scientists guiding public policy?

Caplan offers a defense of scientific advancement much like the old saw, "guns don’t kill people, people kill people,"

I do not believe we have much to fear from the actions of any individual scientist. Few, contrary to the pope's concern, aspire to play God. Science has no tolerance for such fantasies.
Geneticists know how little they know individually and how hard it is to manipulate nature. Moreover, none of them, not even the best and brightest, is capable of transforming a discovery from the lab into the real world by himself or herself. That sort of power is reserved for the deity, governments or the market.

What the deity does is beyond our control. But what government or the market does or is allowed to do is very much a matter of politics, regulation and oversight. When theologians or members of the public point the finger of moral worry at scientists, they need to redirect it. It is governments and the marketplace that we need to shape and hold accountable for how genetic knowledge is or is not applied.

I generally agree with Caplan that genetic technologies may hold great promises and that almost every scientist is a good and decent person. But these general feelings about the science and scientists are no substitute for the fact that (a) genetic technologies may pose unknown risks (e.g., concerns raised about GMOs and the environment) and simply be morally wrong (e.g., chimeras), and (b) scientists, like any group in society, are not above democratic accountability.

Caplan suggests that the an unfulfilled role for scientists – and their science studies lapdogs – is to communicate the importance of research so that the public will allow it to go forward and support it.

What scientists need to do - and quickly - is come out of their laboratory lairs and be seen in public. You need to know about their aspirations, dreams, hopes, and values. You need to know they stand shoulder to shoulder with all of us in wanting a better world. They see a better future and a way to get there.
Genetic research in the hands of those who practice is not aimed at power, fame, ambition, or transforming oneself into a god. If it is about anything, it is about love: the love of life, the love of people, the drive to make a better life for the sick and those at risk of becoming so.

These last few statements are pretty incredible. The Hwang Woo-Suk and Gerald Schatten stem cell affair (see the University of Pittsburgh report in PDF) may have been an aberration but it did provide a window into a world where power, fame, and ambition are not so uncommon. In light of this recent experience, for an ethicist to suggest otherwise is a bit pollyannaish, and quite a bit too much cheerleadering from where I sit.

Caplan is of course right on when he asks us to

Hold your politicians accountable. Ask them to explain how funding for genetics is allocated and accounted for. Insist that they ensure that commercial interests do not succeed in keeping private genetic applications and products that might offend the moral sense of the community or, worse, our health and well-being.

But part of such accountability in my view is public engagement in the process of deciding on what research is and is not appropriate, not simply engaging abroader set of stakeholders in decisions about commercialization after the research is well underway or completed in the form of products. Along these lines, a perspective of "upstream engagement" has been discussed here in the context of the excellent work of a UK think tank called DEMOS. (Have a look at their most recent report on governing nanotechnology here.) Caplan goes too far when he asserts, "The genetic genie is out of the bottle. There is not much anyone can do to put it back nor, once we understand its potential for good, ought we to do so." There are many genies and many bottles. Deciding which genies to free and which to keep in their bottle is an important part of the democratic governance of science and technology.

Caplan’s piece reminded me of Langdon Winner’s comments about the societal aspects of nanotechnology in Congressional testimony in 2003. Winner had some strong things to say about science studies scholars,

The professional field of bioethics, for example, (which might become, alas, a model for nanoethics) has a great deal to say about many fascinating things, but people in this profession rarely say "no."
Indeed, there is a tendency for career-conscious social scientists and humanists to become a little too cozy with researchers in science and engineering, telling them exactly what they want to hear (or what scholars think the scientists want to hear). Evidence of this trait appears in what are often trivial excercises in which potentially momentous social upheavals are greeted with arcane, highly scholastic rationalizations. How many theorists of "intellectual property" can dance on the head of a pin?

One way to avoid the drift toward moral and political triviality is to encourage social scientists and philosophers to present their findings in forums in which people from business, the laboratories, environmental organizations, churches, and other groups can join the discussion. It is time to reject the idea there are only a few designated stakeholders that are qualified to evaluate possibilities, manage the risks, and guide technology toward beneficial outcomes.

As issues of science and technology continue to occupy an even more central role in important societal questions, there will be difficult questions raised about the role of science studies with respect to their relationship with science, politics, and policy. Science studies scholars will have to confront questions about what sorts of roles they ought to play and under what institutional, financial, and social dynamics. To oversimplify, what will it be, cheerleader, marketer, or critic?

May 11, 2006

Scientific Communication and the Public Interest

Often here at Prometheus we have made the argument that science does not take place in a vacuum. Efforts to communicate science to the public and policy makers are inherently social and political acts. The UK Royal Society has just released an important report titled “Science and the Public Interest” (PDF) which shares this perspective and discusses the challenges facings scientists communicating their results in the context of policy and politics. From the Preface, Lord Rees describes the significance of the report,

Usually, new research results are disseminated within the research community via conference presentations and journal papers; wider communication is usually an afterthought. However, the way this is done – by, for instance, press conferences or media releases – can strongly colour public reactions and attitudes, especially if there are immediate implications for people’s health or way of life. Recent episodes such as the high-profile discrediting of papers on cloning are likely to bring the quality and reliability of all research under greater scrutiny. And even when a result is firm, it is important to convey its impact fairly – neither over-hyping potential spin-offs, nor exaggerating potential risks.

The report argues that scientists have two primary responsibilities when communicating their science:

The first is to attempt an accurate assessment of the potential implications for the public. The second is to ensure the timely and appropriate communication to the public of results if such communication is in the public interest. These twin responsibilities should be embedded within the culture of the research community as a whole, and all practices should take them into account and respect them.

Communication of the significance of scientific results necessarily involves considerations that go well beyond the focus of the research that led to the results in the first place. I discussed this in a 2002 essay in Nature (PDF,

. . . it is essential to differentiate scientific results from the policy significance of those results. To illustrate the distinction, consider the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s conclusion that the global average temperature in 2100 will increase from 1.4 C to 5.8 C. Explaining what this scientific result means to the non-specialist may take some effort — it may require explaining the origins of the estimates, how ‘global average’ is defined, trends, conditions and the confidence levels of the projection. Yet, crucially, all this is different from an assessment of the significance of this conclusion for action (‘policy’), which depends on how the results (‘science’) are related to valued outcomes, such as human health, environmental sustainability, economic prosperity and so on.
Assessing the significance of science for policy requires a clear distinction of policy analysis from political advocacy. The former increases the range of alternatives available to decision-makers by clearly associating scientific results with a range of choices and outcomes. The latter seeks to decrease the range of alternatives (often to a single desired outcome). Because scientific results typically have a degree of uncertainty, and because a range of alternatives can achieve particular policy outcomes, commitment to a particular policy involves considerations that go well beyond science.

In its extremely valuable checklist for researchers seeking to communicate the Royal Society acknowledges that scientists may need assistance when seeking to describe the significance of their science for society:

7. Do you need any advice to help you to provide appropriate context for your results, and if so whom do you need to assist you?
8. How might your results be used by other individuals or organisations, such as campaigners or policy-makers?

Question 8 suggests raises a crucially important question but the report provides no guidance for scientists to help them determine what it means to act in the public interest versus as an advocate for a particular special interest group. For many scientists the route to influencing the public interest is simply align themselves with a “side” in a debate – based on money, politics, or other values. We see that a lot in the blogoshpere where people (including scientists) align themselves according to tribal-like affinities. This sort of self-segregation may lead to effective communication which is counter to public interests. We discuss such ideological self-segregation here. As an example, if all scientists align ideologically, as for instance the vast majority do on climate change, it may reduce science to simply a tool for marketing competing bad policy options, as scientists largely forgo the more effective role of introducing innovative new policy options into debate.

The Royal Society report is important because it highlights the importance of communication as an inevitable political and social act. It also provides valuable guidance for scientists seeking to communicate. However, it does not go far enough in providing guidance on how scientists might negotiate the minefield of special interests seeking to appropriate scientific authority for their special cause. Before communicating, scientists have choices in how they orient themselves and their institutions with respect to public interests and these choices can be as important as the process of communication itself.

Posted on May 11, 2006 07:18 AM View this article | Comments (16) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Science Policy: General

May 02, 2006

Nowotny on Curiosity and Control

Helga Nowotny, science studies scholar and Vice-Chair of the European Research Council’s Scientific Council, has an interesting op-ed in which she discusses the challenges of managing scientific curiously in the context of the broader society wishing to control the direction of science in various ways. Here is an excerpt:

The dilemma – and it is a decisive one – is that today we cherish the passionate curiosity of an Albert Einstein. But we still want to control the unforeseeable consequences to which curiosity leads. The dilemma must be overcome by allowing curiosity to be protected and supported, while trying to capture those of its fruits that will benefit society. How we accomplish this must be continuously negotiated in the public sphere. Irreducible contradictions will remain, and therein lie the ambivalence that characterises modern societies’ stance toward science.

Posted on May 2, 2006 02:31 PM View this article | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Science Policy: General

May 01, 2006

A Very Bad Dream Indeed

Did you catch this letter in yesterday’s New York Times? Titled "Scientists Speak Out About Guantánamo" the letter was signed by 19 scientists who identified themselves as members of the National Academy of Sciences, and as 4 Nobel laureates.

I pretty much agree with their politics on this issue, but I can’t figure out what it has to do with science or science in policy. They write,

Although this is not a scientific issue in the usual sense, we feel that to ignore it would be to abdicate our responsibility to the truth.

Well, I can’t imagine a better example of both the linear model (i.e., that truth dictates a particular course of action, see this PDF) and Brad Allenby’s concerns about "nightmare science," from his recent essay of that title which included this passage:

In short, the elite that has been created by practice of the scientific method uses the concomitant power not just to express the results of particular research initiatives, but to create, support, and implement policy responses affecting many non-scientific communities and intellectual domains in myriad ways. In doing so, they are not exercising expertise in these non-scientific domains, but rather transforming their privilege in the scientific domains into authority in non-scientific domains. Science is, in other words, segueing back into a structure where once again authority, not observation, is the basis of the exercise of power and establishment of truth by the elite.

Posted on May 1, 2006 02:20 AM View this article | Comments (57) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Science Policy: General

April 25, 2006

What We Discussed in Class Today

Science and Technology Policy – ENVS 5100
In Class Assignment
April 25, 2006

You will be divided into 3 groups. You have 3 case studies written in the form of assertions/arguments about professional roles and responsibilities. The cases are related to space policy, bioethics, and climate change.

Please read and discuss the cases until 12:30. We will the reconvene as a class and discuss the cases among the group.

Questions to consider:

Do you agree with the arguments made in the essays? Why or why not?

What implications are raised for the individuals involved in the cases?

What implications are raised for the institutions involved in the cases?

What advice would you give to the participants?

What would you do?

Posted on April 25, 2006 12:17 PM View this article | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Science Policy: General

April 20, 2006

New Article and Podcast

What does British philosopher Stephen Toulmin have in common with George Bush's science advisor John Marburger?

My latest column for Bridges is out and is titled, "Science Policy Without Science Policy Research." This time the folks at the Office of Science & Technology at the Embassy of Austria in Washington, DC have also produced a podcast, which can also be heard online. See the essay, hear the podcast, and learn the answer to the question posed above here. The entire issue of Bridges is worth your attention.

Posted on April 20, 2006 06:10 PM View this article | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Gathering Storm | Science Policy: General

April 19, 2006

Long Live the Linear Model

Scholars who study the role of science in society have long dismissed the so-called “linear model” of science as descriptively inaccurate and normatively undesirable. In fact, within this community, such discussions are often viewed as pretty old stuff. However, when it comes to practicing scientists and many policy makers, the knowledge of the science studies crowd seems pretty far removed.

The linear model holds that investments in basic research are necessary and sufficient to stimulate scientific advancements, motivate technology developments, and bring products and serves to the market, where society benefits. The linear model was championed in Vannevar Bush’s post-war science policy manifesto titled “Science: the Endless Frontier” and has been fundamental to modern science policy ever since. Here is a graphic I made up illustrating the linear model.

linear model.png

I am reminded almost daily at the depths to which the linear model shapes science policy, science advocacy, and science politics. Yesterday I came across an op-ed which used the linear model to argue for increased funding, at an exponential rate it seems, for health research, based on the linear model. Here is an excerpt:

In 2002, roughly one-third of the papers were from US research groups. By 2004, US groups accounted for only one-quarter of the publications. Government policy may be among the factors contributing to the gap between US and international publications in the field.
Why worry about this trend? The answer lies with our biomedical ''discovery machine," which operates on a seven-step assembly line:

1.) An academic scientist designs an experiment to answer an important question.

2.) The scientist applies to the government to fund the research.

3.) The money pays for students and fellows who conduct the research.

4.) The results are published in journals, which advance the field.

5.) An invention may result. This may lead to a patent, which then is licensed to a start-up company.

6.) With a monopoly granted by the patent, the company attracts venture capital. If it is successful, the company grows.

7.) Years later, the discovery becomes a therapy for patients.

It takes $28.8 billion, the annual budget of the NIH, to prime this machine. Every year, the money generates an astonishing amount of fundamental knowledge and thousands of biomedical discoveries. With no initial funding, this apparatus stops at Step 1.

With no money, what do the scientists do? They choose other careers. Worse, they leave to do research in other countries.

When scientists abandon their laboratories, a field can vanish. A scientific discipline is designed to grow exponentially. A professor will train a handful of students, some of whom go on to become professors and train more students. Some PhDs enter industry, where they lead projects and hire more trained workers. Funded properly, this collection of specialists becomes a formidable force, building research centers, driving innovation, and creating business sectors. The government front-loads the process; ingenuity and free enterprise takes care of the rest.

Scientists often get quite worked up when scientific knowledge is mispresented in the media, and rightly so. However, it seems that the bar is set quite a bit lower when it comes to the (mis)representation of knowledge from science studies.

Posted on April 19, 2006 10:20 AM View this article | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Gathering Storm | Science Policy: General

April 17, 2006

A New Article

I have an invited article just out in the magazine Regulation, published by the Cato Institute. The article is titled "When Scientists Politicize Science" (here in PDF). The first part of the article retells the story of debate over the Skeptical Environmentalist, and my views of the role of science in that debate, which I first presented in a peer-reviewed paper in 2004 (here in PDF). The second part gets into the the broader context of science and politics, and in this essay I am more explicit that I have before about the notion of "honest brokers of policy alternatives". Here is a short excerpt:

Instead of the futile effort to keep science and politics separate, it may make more sense to ask scientists to engage more substantively in policy debate, not by taking sides but instead by serving as “honest brokers of policy options.” Such honest brokers might distinguish themselves from policy advocates (who work to reduce available options) by furnishing policymakers with a broad set of policy alternatives and their relative pluses and minuses. The policymakers would then decide what course of action to take.

I welcome comments and reactions. Thanks.

Posted on April 17, 2006 06:32 AM View this article | Comments (19) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Science Policy: General

April 13, 2006

Advocacy by Scientists and its Effects

Frank Press visited us earlier this week. Dr. Press was science advisor to President Jimmy Carter and he subsequently served as the president of the National Academy of Sciences. All in all it was a great opportunity for us, and Dr. Press was extremely generous with his time spent with faculty and students.

One vignette told by Dr. Press involved his response to why it was that the Academy, during his tenure, never saw fit to undertake a study on Ronald Reagan’s proposed Strategic Defense Initiative (or “Star Wars”). Dr. Press’ response was interesting.

He said that there was a petition circulating among the scientific community expressing opposition to the program and that something like 60% of the members of the Academy had signed the position. Dr. Press suggested that this had compromised the ability of the Academy to lend an independent voice to the debate and that any report that the Academy did would therefore be dismissed in the political process. It seems to me that the nation would have benefited from such an independent review by the Academy on this issue. Dr. Press did not shy away from expressing some strongly held views during his lecture and public interview, though he did note that he stays away from petitions.

I am not implying a general principle here, other than to underscore that the relationship of science and politics is complex, and the ways in which scientists choose to engage that relationship, as individuals and as a community, have important and sometimes unanticipated consequences for policy outcomes.

We’ll return to this when the transcript of his visit is available on our Science Advisors website. There are a number of other interesting vignettes as well.

Posted on April 13, 2006 10:56 AM View this article | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Science Policy: General | Space Policy

April 12, 2006

Boehlert on NOAA Press Policy

Below is a press release from Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), chair of the House Science Committee, detailing a conversation with Vice Admiral Conrad Lautenbacher, NOAA Administrator discussing the PR policy at NOAA. Here's guessing that NOAA will adopt NASA's PR policy in short order. Here is the press release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 11, 2006

Science Committee Press Office: 202-225-4275

Joe Pouliot, joe.pouliot@mail.house.gov

Zachary Kurz,
zachary.kurz@mail.house.gov

BOEHLERT URGES CLEARLY DEFINIED PUBLIC AFFAIRS POLICY AT NOAA

WASHINGTON - House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) sent the following letter last Friday to Vice Admiral Conrad Lautenbacher, Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), in response to an April 6 story in the Washington Post on concerns expressed by NOAA scientists.

Dear Admiral Lautenbacher:

I appreciated your call yesterday to discuss the concern we share over the report in The Washington Post describing scientists' concerns that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is limiting discussion about climate change. I was pleased to hear once again that you support open and unfettered scientific communication, as you have stated in the past both to me and in messages to NOAA employees.

However, it seems clear that, despite your commitment, at least some scientists at NOAA continue to feel that the agency is not encouraging open communication. (Our staff has heard such concerns repeatedly; the problem goes beyond the few instances alleged in The Post.) NOAA's efforts to attract, retain and make full use of the nation's best scientists will be stymied if your scientists and the scientific community at-large believe that NOAA seeks to limit the discussion of climate science and its implications. And the issue of climate change is too important to countenance any scientists feeling intimidated or constrained about discussing the matter, regardless of whether that feeling is the result of specific policy actions or of misimpressions that create a stifling atmosphere.

Therefore, I recommend that you swiftly take the following steps, which appear to have helped remedy similar concerns at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA):

1) Set up permanently a process that employees will trust by which employees can report concerns when they believe that scientific
communication is being suppressed.

2) Issue a clear and to-the-point policy - not something convoluted or subject to misinterpretation - that states the principles and policies that govern scientific communication at NOAA, the role of the public affairs office in such communication, and any limits on what NOAA scientists can say as government employees and as private citizens.

3) Address in a forthright manner the specific allegations raised in The Post.

4) Make sure NOAA's public affairs staff and science managers
understand the need for openness and the consequences that will ensue if they try to limit scientific discussion.

5) In a timely manner, meet with NOAA scientists around the country to express directly your commitment to open communication and to hear what concerns the scientists may have.

I do not doubt your commitment to openness. I do have to wonder whether that commitment is fully and uniformly being implemented at NOAA and whether scientists and their managers throughout the agency believe the agency is committed to openness.

NOAA scientists play a critical role in understanding climate change and other environmental phenomena. You need to redouble your efforts to ensure that NOAA fosters a truly open atmosphere. I look forward to working with you as you do that.

Sincerely,

SHERWOOD BOEHLERT

Chairman

# # #

109-226

Posted on April 12, 2006 12:38 AM View this article | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Science Policy: General

April 10, 2006

Politicization of Science 101: How to Use Science to Argue Politics, Manipulate the Media, and Silence your Political Opponents

A recipe for effectively using science to advance political aims:

1. Find yourself in a highly political, high-stakes debate that involves considerations of science (or more generally, intelligence).

2. Seek to turn the political debate into a debate about science or information, that is, scientize the politics.

3. Seek to associate your preferred political outcomes with a clear consensus of the relevant expert community, even if this means oversimplifying the issue. This strategy will work best if you use the term “consensus” (scare quotes!) in an undefined manner. Even if there are legitimate areas of uncertainty or debate, keep the focus on “consensus.”

4. Disparagingly characterize anyone who disagrees with your preferred political perspective as a “skeptic” or “contrarian” or “outlying perspective.” Don’t allow any distinction between the typically few consensus areas of knowledge and typically many more areas that have some greater uncertainty. If uncertainty is raised as a concern, emphasize the need for preemptive action in the face of uncertainty.

5. Do whatever you can to associate your opponents with Republicans, Democrats, industry, environmentalists, or a lack of patriotism. The latter is particularly effective.

6. Argue that the media is dealing with mistruths by allowing your political opponents voice because they are not part of the science/information “consensus” (remember, if consensus is undefined you can use it against just about anyone who disagrees with you). Ask the media to favor your political agenda under these circumstances. (If the media can be tricked into thinking that claims about information are the same as political claims, then they just might fall for it, and take sides! Yours!)

If successful, this strategy will allow you to use science to argue for your favored political outcome while denying your opponent the opportunity to do the same, and the beauty of it is that you need not admit to being political at all, simply standing behind the truth, and who could be against the truth?

Two good examples of this strategy in practice are familiar to many of us, and in many ways the political dynamics of information/science are quite similar:

A. Climate science/politics.
B. Bush Administration arguments for going to war in Iraq.

The politicization of science is a bipartisan affair. The real question is whether politicization such as described above is OK (a) in no cases, (b) in all cases, or (c) in those cases in which the ends justify the means.

The more fundamental question that I have about this dynamic, which despite the tongue-in-cheekiness displayed above, is what effect such a strategy -- which I think exists in many venues -- has on the practice of science and the long-term sustainability of science as an effective contributor to policy and politics. Do we risk something in the long-term by using science as a Trojan Horse for political gain in the short term?

Posted on April 10, 2006 04:26 PM View this article | Comments (57) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Risk & Uncertainty | Science Policy: General

April 07, 2006

Op-ed Online

The Albuquerque Journal published an op-ed of mine last weekend titled "Science, Politics and Press Releases," and it is now online Thanks to each of you who provided comments on an earlier version.

Posted on April 7, 2006 03:36 PM View this article | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Science Policy: General

April 05, 2006

Brad Allenby on "Nightmare Science"

Brad Allenby, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at of Arizona State Univeristy, where he holds an affiliation at CSPO, has a brilliant essay online at GreenBiz titled "Nightmare Science." Every scientist should read it closely. Here is an excerpt:

We have, as scientists, established the validity of science through adoption of a process that institutionalizes observation, and thus grants us privileged access to truth, at least within the domains of physical reality. In doing so, we have destroyed authority as the source of privileged knowledge -- and, concomitantly, assumed much of the power that used to reside in the old elite (e.g., the Church).
But now suppose that scientists become increasingly concerned with certain environmental phenomenon -- say, loss of biodiversity, or climate change. They thus not only report the results of the practice of the scientific method, but, in part doubting the ability of the public to recognize the potential severity of the issues as scientists see them, become active as scientists in crafting and demanding particular responses, such as the Kyoto Treaty. These responses, notably, extend significantly beyond the purely environmental domain, into policies involving economic development, technology deployment, quality of life in many countries, and the like.

In short, the elite that has been created by practice of the scientific method uses the concomitant power not just to express the results of particular research initiatives, but to create, support, and implement policy responses affecting many non-scientific communities and intellectual domains in myriad ways. In doing so, they are not exercising expertise in these non-scientific domains, but rather transforming their privilege in the scientific domains into authority in non-scientific domains. Science is, in other words, segueing back into a structure where once again authority, not observation, is the basis of the exercise of power and establishment of truth by the elite. But the authority in this new model is not derived from sacred texts; rather it is derived from legitimate practice of scientific method in the scientific domain, extended into non-scientific domains. Note that this does not imply that scientists cannot, or should not, as individuals participate in public debate; only that if they do so cloaked in the privilege that the scientific discourse gives them they raise from the dead the specter of authority as truth.

Why is this nightmare science? Precisely because it raises an internal contradiction with which science cannot cope. In an age defined by the scientific worldview, which is the source of the primacy of the scientific discourse, science cannot demand privilege outside its domain based not on method, but on authority, for in doing so it undermines the zeitgeist that gives it validity. When demanding the Kyoto Treaty as scientists, it is themselves, not their opponents, that they attack.

Read the whole thing, several times.

Posted on April 5, 2006 12:07 AM View this article | Comments (66) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Science Policy: General

March 30, 2006

NASA in the Political Minefield

NASA, which has come under fire recently for its management of scientist’s access to the media, has run more issues involving politics. According to the Houston Chronicle today,

Five days after NASA administrator Michael Griffin urged a Houston audience to keep U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay in office, a spokesman denied Wednesday that Griffin had made a formal campaign endorsement.
"The space program has had no better friend in its entire existence than Tom DeLay," Griffin said Friday of DeLay's legislative support of the agency. "He's still with us and we need to keep him there."

With DeLay present, Griffin spoke at the annual Space Center Rotary Club of Houston's nonprofit National Award for Space Achievement Foundation gala.

Griffin had no intention of soliciting votes for the 11-term lawmaker, NASA spokesman Dean Acosta said.

"He did not make an endorsement and will not get involved in any political campaigns," Acosta said. "If his words of thanks to Tom DeLay were misconstrued as an endorsement, then he regrets that."

Why does this matter? Well, the law for one reason,

The black-tie awards dinner at which Griffin made his remarks was held after regular working hours, but Griffin was representing the space agency and giving an award to a NASA employee, astronaut Eileen Collins.
Griffin's travel to Houston from Washington, D.C., for the dinner was paid by NASA rather than the Rotary Club, said event organizer Floyd Bennett of the United Space Alliance.

The independent Office of Special Counsel, which administers the Hatch Act, will investigate the matter, spokesman Loren Smith said.

Employees who violate the Hatch Act can be removed from office, according to the Office of Special Counsel, or suspended without pay.

Determining whether Griffin was acting in an official or after-hours capacity "really is a close call," said Corey Ditslear, a political scientist at the University of North Texas.

According to one political scientist, this is a tempest in a teapot:

But any misstep by Griffin was relatively minor, said Stephen Hess, a professor of media and public affairs at George Washington University.
"Even in this context, I am not going to get too uptight about it," Hess said. "When (officials such as Griffin) make statements that can be interpreted as political statements, the government should not be underwriting it. You just caught the fellow with a little egg on his vest, looking untidy."

Just goes to show that in highly politicized contexts, minefields abound.

Posted on March 30, 2006 07:00 AM View this article | Comments (10) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Science Policy: General | Space Policy

March 22, 2006

A View From Colorado Springs

For those unfamiliar with the geography of Colorado, Colorado Springs is not far from Boulder, perhaps two hours drive on a good day. But in some respects it seems pretty distant. A link to an editorial in the Colorado Springs Gazette appeared in my inbox (thanks!) on Senator James Inhofe's request for information on UCAR/NCAR, which is here in Boulder. Here is how it begins:

[Disclaimer: I worked for UCAR/NCAR 1993-2001 and am hardly an unbiased person in this matter. You've been warned. Comments after the excerpt below.]

One senator’s inquiry into the inner workings of Boulder’s National Center for Atmospheric Research, and its parent organization, the University Center for Atmospheric Research, is being construed by some as an act of political intimidation. The senator, James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma who chairs the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, is a global warming skeptic. NCAR and UCAR, which receive federal support through the National Science Foundation, are viewed as leading proponents of global warming theory. That’s led some to allege that Inhofe is trying to pressure NCAR and UCAR into tailoring their research to take a more skeptical view, and of polluting the purity of science with politics.
But we’re not sure Inhofe’s request is out of line. NCAR’s contract with the NSF hasn’t been put up for competitive bid in years — which strikes us as a legitimate subject of inquiry. What else Inhofe might be looking for is unknown. But if he’s searching for evidence that the organizations are engaged in “advocacy science,” rather than conducting unbiased research, that’s a legitimate inquiry as well, since federal funds are involved.

Taxpayers have an interest in knowing they are supporting sound, even-handed, agenda-free science, on climate change or any other issue. And if Inhofe or any member of Congress has reason to doubt this, inquiries are in order.

Some are shocked, shocked by the suggestion that science can be corrupted or co-opted — that researchers at NCAR and UCAR are doing anything other than objective research. How dare anyone question the integrity of “science,” they huff. But that’s a willfully naive view, given the way science, policy, advocacy and big money intermingle in this society.

Scientists are as susceptible to being seduced by political agendas, personal biases and self-interest as any other human beings, in our view. And given the power they wield on so many policy disputes, from global warming to the Endangered Species Act, it’s legitimate to ask if they have agendas.

It’s obvious that scientists have increasingly been crossing the line into advocacy. We find it laughable, for instance, when the Union of Concerned Scientists — which for years has been pushing a radical, left-wing political agenda — accuses the Bush administration of “politicizing” science.

Read the whole thing. Now some reactions.

My thoughts on this are very much along the lines of my reaction to Representative Joe Barton's request for information related to the so-called "Hockey Stick." Here is what I said about that:

From the perspective of climate science or policy Rep. Barton’s inquiry is simply inane. There will be little insight gained on climate or how we might improve policies on climate change through his “investigation.” As Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) has written in response to Rep. Barton, “These letters do not appear to be a serious attempt to understand the science of global warming. Some might interpret them as a transparent effort to bully and harrass climate change experts who have reached conclusions with which you disagree.... If the Committee indeed has a genuine interest in the science of global warming, you should withdraw these letters and instead schedule a long-overdue Committee hearing on climate change.”
Of course, it is doubtful that Rep. Barton’s Committee (on Energy and Commerce, I remind you) actually has any real interest in the science of climate change, except as a tool of tactical advantage in the continuing political battle over global warming. Rep. Barton and others opposed to action on climate change will continue to gnaw at the hockey stick like a dog on a bone so long as they perceive that it confers some political benefits.

1. I do think that it is perfectly fair to question the long-term management of NCAR by UCAR. Some competition might be valuable.

2. We have often discussed the consequences of scientists politicizing science. Like it or not, the reaction of the Gazette will not be unique. Unfortunately, the likely instinctive response of most people -- on all sides of this issue -- will be to exacerbate the politicization.

3. Senator Inhofe is going about this all wrong in my view. If he really wants to investigate UCAR/NCAR, then he should tap some of his colleagues on Senate Commerce and do it via hearings, out in the open, and through established channels of legislative oversight authority. His fishing expedition smacks of political opportunism, and will delegitimize any merit that his efforts might have.

4. For many scientists, it is crucial to understand where the editorial writers for the Colorado Springs Gazette are coming from. Simply opposing, criticizing, or dismissing their concerns will not be a good strategy, if for no reason than their views are likely to be widely shared by a significant part of the population, and both the future of support for your science, and support for the use of your science. depends upon maintaining some degree of legitimacy across the populace. Politicze the scientific enterprise at your own, and society's, peril.

5. In the blogosphere both the Inhofe request and the Gazette editorial serve in many situations as perfect wedge devices which allow people to align according to their political predispositions. This is well and good, but the scientific blogo-subset has to deicde if this is the best way to engage this issue. In my view, it may make things worse.

Posted on March 22, 2006 08:30 PM View this article | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Climate Change | Science Policy: General

March 20, 2006

Representative Boehlert Says "It's Time"

Sherwood Boehlert (R-MI), chairman of the House Science Committee, announced that he will not run for re-election. Here is an excerpt from his announcement:

As I see it, my unwritten instructions from the folks back home were basic and clear: go to Washington, listen to all the arguments, pro and con, weigh all the available facts, and then do what you think is best in our interest and that of the nation.
I have followed those instructions, believing as I do that Edmund Burke was right, more than two centuries ago, when he said,

'Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment, and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.’

My manner of representation and voting record of more than two decades has earned for me the label of moderate.

I’m proud of that label, fervently believing that the overwhelming majority of thinking people reject the extremes of the left and right.

They find stalemate unacceptable and want us to sort out our differences and find common ground. As I see it, that personifies a moderate.

As events of the past year in Washington have documented, this has been the ‘moderates moment.’ There is an abundance of evidence to suggest that our influence has expanded and our moment has been extended.

A few years ago, Congressional Quarterly, the highly respected, non-partisan magazine, conducted an extensive review and analysis of the records and performance of all 535 of the Representatives and Senators. The magazine then developed a list of 50 of ‘the most effective Members of Congress,’ honoring me among them as a ‘centrist’ who works to build consensus.

The magazine went on to say of the group ‘they exemplify skills and behaviors that help them accomplish their goals.’

That made me proud.

Congrats Rep. Boehlert!

Posted on March 20, 2006 02:22 PM View this article | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Science Policy: General

Science, Politics, and Advisory Report Writing

In the comments from a post last week, Sylvia Tognetti and David Bruggeman raise some very interesting issues and questions about the role of scientific advisory committees, and in particular that of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. In this post I’d like to highlight one important part of this issue, and that is the inevitable intermixing of science and politics in the process of writing government reports and those produced by science advisory committees. Consider the experience of Phil Clooney vs. Rick Piltz which was discussed on 60 Minutes last night (along with more from James Hansen).

For those who are unfamiliar with the issue, I discussed it in depth here last year, and here is a short synopsis:

The New York Times published an article last year identifying Phil Clooney, a former oil industry lobbyist, as an Administration official (then chief of staff for Council on Environmental Quality) who edited several government climate change reports -- one titled Our Changing Planet (OCP, a summary of climate science programs under the U.S. Climate Change Science Program) -- in ways that emphasized uncertainties. Upon being outed by the Times, Mr. Clooney resigned and took a job with ExxonMobil. Opponents to the Bush Administration highlighted this as an example of a non-scientist editing government reports related to climate science to support the Administration’s ideological and political agenda. And I believe that this charge is on the mark, if often overstated.

But what is often missed in discussions of this and related experiences is that the path from peer-reviewed science to advice for policy makers necessarily goes through non-scientists with political agendas. There is no alternative. And there are multiple legitimate routes from science to policy, given than science itself can compel no specific course of action over another. Policy making depends on many factors beyond science, and partisan politics or ideological predispositions are among them.

The most important question then is how this process is managed from the standpoints of maintaining the credibility of the science, the salience of the advice, and the legitimacy of the process. It is fair to criticize the Bush Administration on a range of counts for poorly managing this process, resulting in concerns about the credibility of their scientific advice and the legitimacy of their advisory processes. This is not limited only to scientific issues, see: Iraq War, justifications for.

But such concerns about credibility and legitimacy are often themselves determined in a politically expedient manner, which further damages the credibility and legitimacy of science as an input to policy making. Consider the online summary that accompanied the 60 Minutes story last night; it discussed the Piltz vs. Cooney affair as follows:

Dozens of federal agencies report science but much of it is edited at the White House before it is sent to Congress and the public. It appears climate science is edited with a heavy hand. Drafts of climate reports were co-written by Rick Piltz for the federal Climate Change Science Program. But Piltz says his work was edited by the White House to make global warming seem less threatening.
"The strategy of people with a political agenda to avoid this issue is to say there is so much to study way upstream here that we can’t even being to discuss impacts and response strategies," says Piltz. "There’s too much uncertainty. It's not the climate scientists that are saying that, its lawyers and politicians."

The irony here is that Rick Piltz who drafted the reports has no formal training in climate science, and is a Democrat. His decision to characterize climate change in the report as more threatening obviously reflected considerations that go beyond science. There is no getting around that how one determines the amount of threat that climate change presents is a function of values and trade-offs, which are at their core political judgments. The initial writing of OCP was every bit as political an exercise as the subsequent edits. It does not lessen the Bush Administration’s ham-handedness to note that whatever filters Mr. Piltz was using to decide what to include in the Our Changing Planet reports, they were as deeply grounded in his first-hand knowledge of climate science as Mr. Cooney’s. The point here is not that Mr. Piltz was unqualified to be writing the OCP -- it was after all a compendium of programs and summary of findings press-release style – but that someone has to write such documents.

The Bush Administration’s mistake, from their own perspective, was not the specific changes made by Mr. Clooney in his edits, which did of course seek to present the science in a way most favorable to Bush Administration goals, but their cavalier attitude toward the legitimacy of the process. After all, a NRC scientific advisory committee approved the CCSP strategic plan report after Mr. Clooney had made his edits. The Bush Administration could have very easily had someone else make those same changes but who had no connections to the oil industry and solid scientific credentials. The more general principle here is that science can be legitimately presented in a wide range of ways, and the choice of how to present science is determined in significant ways by political filters. How such choices are made is a function of who is in a position to make those choices.

So people from a liberal perspective will hold up Mr. Piltz as a hero speaking scientific truths, and those from a conservative position will identify Mr. Cooney as a hero for the same reason. And both will be right at the exact same time, from their own political perspectives. Piltz and Cooney were certainly not waging a debate over science, but politics clothed in the garb of science.

If we are to move beyond the scientization of the climate debate we must move beyond the notion that it is possible to state scientific truths in only one way in science advisory reports. More attention must be paid to the processes that put certain individuals in positions that allow them to control the content of scientific advisory reports. Partisans on both sides will I am sure continue to call for a narrow focus on “the scientific truths” as a Trojan Horse strategy of smuggling in their own political perspectives (“scientific integrity” and “sound science” seem to be the catch words). The reality is that Phil Clooney, Rick Piltz, me, and you each have strong political views. The best way to deal with that reality is to focus on developing legitimate processes for structuring, empanelling, reporting science advice. This is a challenge that the science policy community has yet to embrace, though there is a lot of knowledge of such processes to work with, see, e.g., the work of Sheila Jasanoff.

Posted on March 20, 2006 08:14 AM View this article | Comments (17) | TrackBack
Posted to Science Policy: General

March 17, 2006

Politicization 101: Segregating Scientists According to Political Orientation

A reporter I know sent to me a press release yesterday titled “Scientists Dispute Link Between Hurricanes and Global Warming.” The press release was disseminated by the TCS Science Roundtable. TCS – Tech Central Station – is often a very useful and informative site for analyses and opinions from a self-described perspective that values “the power of free markets, open societies and individual human ingenuity to raise living standards and improve lives.” As such TCS is very much a special interest group. People can choose to agree or disagree with TCS analyses, or share its values. But in this post I want to highlight the role that university and some government scientists play in the unhealthy politicization of science through their willing association with advocacy groups (like TCS, but also, e.g., environmental advocacy groups), and the increasing tendency for organizations that should serve as “honest brokers of policy options” to transform themselves into advocacy-like groups.

The scientists cited in the TCS press release with information on contacting them to discuss hurricanes are the following:

William Gray, Colorado State University
James O’Brien, Florida State University

Pat Michaels, University of Virginia

Anthony Lupo, University of Missouri-Columbia

Roy Spencer, University of Alabama

George Taylor, Oregon State University

Call me a rocket scientist, but it seems that these scientists in particular are included in this press release because their perspectives, which they may hold very strongly and have good support for scientifically, align in some way with the special interests of the group promoting them. Interest groups have a great deal of power in such situations, because they can selectively assemble experts on any given topic to basically support any ideological position. This is a function of what Dan Sarewitz calls an “excess of objectivity” or the not-so-tongue-in-cheek principle that for every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD.

Let me emphasize that it would be utter nonsense to claim that this is only a phenomenon that occurs on the political right, where TCS is coming from. For instance, the Union of Concerned Scientists routinely uses university and government scientists to legitimize its views, generally viewed as coming from the political left. However, as we’ve discussed here before, the political right has been more successful at marshalling experts to their causes, but the left is rapidly closing the gap.

Let’s take a look at this behavior from two perspectives. First, from the perspective of the individual scientist deciding to align with an interest group, it should be recognized that such a decision is political. There is of course nothing wrong with politics, it is how we get done the business of society, and organized interest groups are fundamental to modern democracy. Nonetheless, an observer of this dynamic might be forgiven for thinking when they see scientists self-select and organize themselves according to political predispositions that different perspectives on scientific issues are simply a function of political ideologies. We can see how contentious political debates involving science become when filtering science through interest groups is the dominant mechanism for connecting science to policy.

It is this condition of dueling special interest scientists that leads to a second perspective, and that is an institutional approach to providing science advice in a way that is not filtered through a particular special interest agenda. It is this very condition that gives legitimacy to government science advisory panels, National Academy committees, and professional societies. But the role such groups as honest brokers is in my view endangered. For instance, consider a congressional staff briefing organized by the American Meteorological Society last fall on the subject of hurricanes and global warming (see this PDF). This briefing included the perspectives of:

Kevin Trenberth, NCAR
Judy Curry, Georigia Tech

Kerry Emanuel, MIT

All distinguished scientists, but undoubtedly a subset of scientific views (and on its policy significance) on hurricanes and climate change. The AMS took on the characteristics of TCS when putting together this briefing by selecting participants to represent a narrow perspective that was all but certainly shaped by political considerations. In discussing this general issue with colleagues and here on Prometheus, some make the claim that such unbalanced perspectives are needed from the scientific community in order to balance what is considered to be the greater ability of the political right to get its message out. Whether or not the right does in fact have a louder voice, it is important to recognize that efforts to restore some universal balance in public debate and discussions by picking a side in political debate have the ultimate effect of turning organizations like the AMS into what appears to be (or actually is) just another ideologically motivated interest group. Such threats to the legitimacy of scientific committees, assessments, advisory groups, and professional organizations are more and more common.

What we lose in this process are honest brokers. For the more ideologically motivated, such a loss may be no big deal. But for those of us who think that perspectives on science and policy are not purely a function of ideology, then there is a very real threat to the positive role of science in policy and politics.

Today, where does one go for the presentation of a comprehensive perspective on scientific views and their implications for policy? There are increasingly few outlets for such honest brokering, meaning that we all fall back on ideological filters, which means that science is increasingly subsumed to pure politics as a tool of marketing competing ideological agendas.

My advice to scientists:

1. Affiliate yourself with interest groups with open eyes. Recognize what you are doing, and if it makes sense for you then go ahead and affiliate.

2. But at the same time demand of the community’s scientific institutions that they reflect a broad perspective on science and policy. If you agree to participate in an event, a committee, an assessment, etc. look for people with different views than your own, and if you don’t seem them, demand that they be included.

Posted on March 17, 2006 09:00 AM View this article | Comments (73) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Science Policy: General

March 14, 2006

To Advocate, or Not?

When should a scientist get involved in political advocacy related to policy making in the area of their expertise? And once having decided to get involved, what form of advocacy should the scientist engage in, given that there are numerous options for scientists as advocates?

In my experience, such questions are rarely discussed among scientists. Some assert that politics is necessarily a bad thing to be avoided and refuse to admit any role in advocacy, even among those who are clearly advocates. In discussing such things one prominent scientist went so far as to assert that in his entire life he had never done anything that might be construed as political. Others simply assert that what is in their own personal special interests is obviously in everyone’s interest, and that people who disagree must be science abusers and morally corrupt. Still others gather in tribes with like-minded colleagues, particularly in the blogosphere, creating very real instances of Cass Sunstein's echo chambers. The discussion of advocacy in science often takes place in its own echo chamber of the science studies community.

I came across an article about malaria in Kenya (courtesy of the always excellent SciDev.net), which had the following very interesting passage, which raises questions about roles and responsibilities of scientists in broader society:

Kenya is the third leading nation in research on malaria in the world, according to a survey published last November by Thomson Scientific’s Essential Science Indicators (ESI) — an in-depth analytical tool that offers data for ranking scientists, institutions, countries and journals around the world.
USA is the leading nation followed by England. France, Germany and Switzerland are ranked fourth, fifth and sixth, respectively. Available as a ten-year rolling file, ESI covers ten million articles in 22 specific fields of research and is updated every two months.

But despite the fact that Kenya is a leading producer of research data on malaria, it remains one of the countries with the highest malaria mortality rate in the world. Why the disconnect between research and control?

Prof Bob Snow, the head of Malaria, Public Health and Epidemiology Group, Centre for Geographic Medicine at the Kenya Medical Research Institute (Kemri), blames lack of mechanisms to translate research into policy and implementation. "The problem is not with the scientists that malaria burden in Kenya is still very high and raising. As scientists, we have done our part and done it very well. The major problem is that unlike in Britain and other countries, there is no mechanism to directly translate research findings into national policy or to translate research into action."

Prof Snow, who has been involved in malaria research in the country for the last 18 years and is ranked fifth in the world in malaria research, feels the government does not fully comprehend the role of researchers.

"As scientists in Kenya, we have to do two jobs. We have to conduct research and then convince the government or the Ministry of Health to adopt our research findings. This should never be the case. There should be a mechanism that automatically facilitates adoption of research findings by the government."

What mechanism? How created? Run by whom? What does it mean to “adopt research findings”? Automatically? These are the questions at the core of 21st century science policy. Asking and answering these question are of course political exercises themselves and can create some discomfort among scientists/advocates. Consider the cirle-the-wagon reactions often seen here to suggestions that the IPCC might not be an optimal means of connecting science and decision making. And consider the frustration expressed by scientists such as James Hansen about their role in the political process.

As people focus attention on press releases, NRC committees on hockey sticks, drug approval processes, government science reports, national academy statements, science in developing countries, etc. etc. it will be these questions of process that will be important to keep at the fore.

Posted on March 14, 2006 08:34 AM View this article | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Health | Science Policy: General

March 09, 2006

Uranium Enrichment and Stem Cells

Yesterday’s New York Times had an interesting article on uranium enrichment research in Iran. It begins as follows:

There are times when even a little bit of research can be a bad thing, especially if it centers on Iran and the bomb. On Tuesday, a wide range of nuclear scientists and analysts faulted as dangerous Moscow's tentative proposal to let Tehran do small amounts of research on uranium enrichment, with some comparing it to being a little bit pregnant. "After a while, you tend to wind up having a baby," said Peter D. Zimmerman, a professor of science and security in the war studies department of King's College, London. "I do not believe the Iranians should have any access to enrichment technology until they prove to be a more responsible partner than they've been so far." The Iranians have strenuously objected to such characterizations, saying the West wants to deprive them of atomic knowledge and expertise that they have a right to acquire for a peaceful program of nuclear power. They see it as nothing less than a devious plot by outside powers to keep their country from modernizing. In an interview with Al Arabiya television last month, for example, Ali Larijani, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, said, "The problem is that they look at the Islamic nations as being inferior, that we should not have modern technology, and it is enough for us to produce tomato paste and mineral water."

The international issue of nuclear research in Iran is in my mind exactly analogous to the debate at the federal level over stem cell research in the United States in the follow ways:

1. A group in society – the researchers -- wants to conduct research that has potential positive benefits to outcomes that they value.
2. Another group in society – the restricters -- wants to restrict that research because of its potential negative impacts with respect to outcomes that they value.
3. Both groups seek to impose their values on the other, but both cannot succeed at the same time as their goals are in direct conflict.
4. In both cases the restricters have the upper hand from a political perspective.
5. In both cases the researchers are seeking ways around the research restrictions.
6. The researchers assert that this is about the right to conduct research.
7. The researchers accuse their opponents as being morally challenged.
8. In both cases the decision to conduct the research or not is 100% political.

These debates are about what research gets to be conducted, by whom, and how paid for. Did I miss anything? I’m interested in reactions.

Unpublished Op-Ed: Science, Politics, and Press Releases

The following is an op-ed I prepared a few weeks ago. It was accepted for publication at a major U.S. newspaper but, for whatever reason, I never heard back frm them again. So I am assuming that its window of opportunity has passed and am posting it here. However, if anyone reading this is interested in publishing it before a broader audience, please send me an email - pielke@colorado.edu. Thanks!

Science, Politics, and Press Releases

The Bush Administration has faced constant criticism for its overbearing management of information. Some of the latest allegations involve scientists from two federal agencies who claim that they have been muzzled by political operatives.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), well known for its public relations prowess, embarrassed itself with the ham-handed efforts of a political appointee to deny media access to James Hansen, one of it's most prominent scientists. NASA's woes multiplied when it was revealed that the media gatekeeper was a 24-year old former Bush campaign worker who had "accidentally" claimed earning a college degree when he did not. And when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issued a press release asserting an official agency position on hurricanes and global warming, this assertion simply was not true. NASA fired its political appointee and instituted a review of its media policies. NOAA revised its press release and its administrator, Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., encouraged all NOAA scientists "to speak freely and openly."

But the allegations that have followed these two incidents reflect fundamental misunderstandings about the relationship of science and politics. For instance some scientists in NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena complained that NASA headquarters preferred to use the phrase "climate change" rather than "global warming" in press releases. But the choice of language to use in a press release reflects political as well as scientific considerations.

It is true that a Republican strategy memorandum recommended the phrase "climate change," yet environmental advocacy groups have long preferred the phrase "global warming." Science alone cannot say which phrase to use, and consequently the choice between them necessarily involves political considerations. NOAA and NASA produce hundreds of scientific papers each year, and only a very small fraction are accompanied by an official press release. Thus the decision even to issue a press release necessarily involves non-scientific considerations such as casting the agency in a positive light, newsworthiness, and sometimes, partisan politics.

That the political leadership of federal agencies manages information in pursuit of their interests is not new or surprising. President Nixon went so far as to move around the timing of Apollo moon launches with respect to the 1972 presidential election against NASA's wishes in order to manage the possible negative public relations consequences of a failed mission.

Some seek to de-politicize science communications in the holy grail of identifying a bright line between science and politics. David Goldston, chief of staff to Representative Sherwood Boehlert, chairman of the House Science Committee, said "The issue is where does science end and policy begin." But if the choice of words in a press release and the decision to issue a press release about science are inherently political, then there simply is no such line.

A better approach was suggested by NASA Administrator Michael Griffin, who suggested distinguishing professional duties from personal opinions, "as long as people speak as private citizens, my attitude is, let me hold your coat for you. You can get into that fray and get beat up. You just can't label it as an agency position." In the 21st century scientists have options for communicating to the world that rival the reach of official press releases. For instance, scientists can easily set up a weblog from their home computers and on their own time expound on any topic that they wish. A good example of someone successfully using such a strategy is NASA's Gavin Schmidt, an employee of James Hansen, who along with collaborators has set up RealClimate.org, a widely read and influential internet weblog whose authors have not held back in hosting political discussions on topics like the Kyoto Protocol, Intelligent Design, and the Bush Administration. Today a weblog may have an even greater reach and influence than an official NASA press release.

But distinguishing professional duties from personal opinions can also present a challenge, especially for senior career officials. As the official NOAA media policy states, "Whether in person, on camera, or over the phone, when speaking to a reporter you represent and speak for the entire agency." Democracy would be impossible if every government employee sought to interpret or implement laws and policy according to their own personal preferences. Government employment carries with it professional responsibilities, which are proportionately greater the higher ranking the career official. J.D. Sobel writes, "All senior leaders, whether appointed or career, serve in an administration and for a principle with broader responsibilities. These officials have special obligations to protect and support their principal and administration as the mechanism of democratic accountability in government. They have strong implicit obligations to stay within the policy framework of their administration and not undermine their principal."

Of course, government scientists who disagree with the policies of their employers always have the option of resigning, if they feel that they can no longer do their jobs, or they can stay, do their jobs, and seek effective reform from the inside. But what they should not do, however, is pretend that in the purity of science there lies a solution to the realities of politics. Claims to the contrary ultimately will lead to further politicization of the scientific enterprise.

Posted on March 9, 2006 05:04 AM View this article | Comments (48) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Science Policy: General

March 08, 2006

On Missing the Point

Karen O’Brien, of the University of Oslo’s Department of Sociology and Human Geography, has a very thoughtful editorial in the current issue of the journal Global Environmental Change. She suggests, quite appropriately in my view, that debate and discussion on global environmental issues focuses too narrowly on “science” and not on important issues of “human security.” She is asking us to consider reframing how we think about and organize to act on environmental issues. In my view, O’Brien is absolutely correct in her analysis, but her perspective, and that of Oxford’s Steve Rayner which we discussed yesterday, are far removed from the center of the current politicized and scientized debates over global environmental issues. Here is an excerpt from her editorial:

The time has come to reframe global environmental change first and foremost as an issue of human security. For years, the global environmental change research, policy, and activist communities have been pointing to a long list of potential negative outcomes from human-induced environmental changes. The premise for concern has been that we are altering key components of the Earth System, changing climate and hydrological systems, carrying out dramatic land cover changes, undermining ecosystem services, and reducing genetic, ecosystem, and species diversity (MEA, 2005; Steffen et al., 2004). A substantial effort has been made to document, understand, and explain the science behind these issues, in order to support policies and actions that address the driving forces of environmental change. This science-based approach has produced powerful arguments for reconsidering current strategies of economic growth and development, in favor of what can be considered sustainable development. Nevertheless, the approach has maintained environmental change as an issue of “science” rather than of human security, and it has consequently failed to engage society in creating the transformations that will lead to sustainability.
Human security goes beyond the traditional understanding of security as a state-centered concept related to threats and conflict. In terms of environmental change, human security can be considered the condition when and where individuals and communities have the options necessary to end, mitigate, or adapt to risks to their human, environmental, and social rights; have the capacity and freedom to exercise these options; and actively participate in attaining these options (GECHS, 1999). This is a people-centered concept that focuses on enabling individuals and communities to respond to change, whether by reducing vulnerability or by challenging the drivers of environmental change. More than a measurable and objective state, human security is something that is felt and experienced, and it is fundamental to every individual's well-being.

The emphasis on “science” over “security” is evident in popular debates about climate change. For example, the media in Norway (as in many other countries) seems to be obsessed with the question, “Is this climate change or not?” Every extreme hurricane, storm, or heat wave raises the spectre of human-induced climate change. Following each major event, the Norwegian media gathers groups of scientists to defend their research and the strong scientific consensus that increased greenhouse gas emissions are changing the climate. Sceptical positions and scientific uncertainties are then equally highlighted, and anyone who has not taken graduate level meteorology classes is thrown into deep confusion.

Watching the media debate the relationship between Hurricane Katrina and climate change in September 2005, I could not help but think that this is simply missing the point. The debate should not be about whether or not this is evidence of climate change, but about whether human society has the capacity to respond to these types of shocks. Focusing on scientific uncertainty diverts attention away from the factors that generate vulnerability and create human insecurities. Indeed, uncertainty about human impacts on the climate system is inevitable, and the more scientific knowledge we gain, the more uncertain we are likely to be …

Read the whole thing here.

March 07, 2006

“Bad Arguments for Good Causes”

In an editorial in the latest issue of the journal Global Environmental Change Oxford’s Steve Rayner laments “a widespread pathology: the use of bad arguments for good causes.” Rayner cites work that I and colleagues have been engaged in on hurricanes and global warming to help make this point (However, one might also look up on Promethesus Richard Tol, Hans von Storch, and Indur Goklany to see similar points being made in various contexts):

The danger of using bad arguments for good causes, such as preventing unwanted climate change, is two-fold. Generally, it provides a dangerous opening for opponents who would derail environmental policy by exposing weaknesses in the underlying science. Specifically, it leads to advocating policies for reducing future storm impacts that are likely to be ineffective in achieving their declared aim. With or without greenhouse gas emissions reductions, the costs of storm damage are bound to rise. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions will have far less impact on storm damage costs than moving expensive infrastructure away from coastal margins and flood plains.
For good or ill, we live in an era when science is culturally privileged as the ultimate source of authority in relation to decision making. The notion that science can compel public policy leads to an emphasis on the differences of viewpoint and interpretation within the scientific community. From one point of view, public exposure to scientific disagreement is a good thing. We know that science is not capable of delivering the kind of final authority that is often ascribed to it. Opening up to the public the conditional, and even disputatious nature of scientific inquiry, in principle, may be a way of counteracting society's currently excessive reliance on technical assessment and the displacement of explicit values-based arguments from public life (Rayner, 2003). However, when this occurs without the benefit of a clear understanding of the importance of the substantial areas where scientists do agree, the effect can undermine public confidence.

Rayner calls for greater attention to the institutional mechanisms that society has in place to connect science and decision making: “Yet if we recognize that science cannot compel public policy, the need to develop effective institutional arrangements for it to appropriately inform public policy is greater than ever.”

I think that he is absolutely correct. However, many prominent members of the scientific community are so wrapped up in asserting truth claims against so-called skeptics that they have all but ignored the broader issues of institutional legitimacy and the need for action in the face of diversity. The climate issue illustrates these dynamics prominently but is by no means a unique case. Rayner explains how this occurs:

Once a candidate issue is selected for attention, policy makers are consistently led to believe that, given time and money, scientific inquiry will reduce relevant uncertainty about environmental risk. Their scientific advisors hold out the promise that more fine-grained information will clarify the nature and extent of the problem and enable policy makers to craft efficient and effective responses. While it justifies important (and often expensive) research programmes, this view tends to disregard two factors.
First, as scientific knowledge increases, it raises new questions to be answered. The proliferation of uncertainties may make policy less, rather than more tractable. In particular, see-sawing scientific opinion, for example about whether particular substances have a net warming or cooling effect, can be particularly worrisome to policy makers, inclining them to postpone judgement to the long-term.

Second, the accumulation of information may lead to “contradictory certainties” that may make decisions more complicated rather than self-evident. The result is often a surfeit of information from which decision makers with opposing viewpoints can pick or choose. A decade ago, writing in this journal, Herrick and Jamieson (1995) recognized just this problem with the US National Acid Precipitation Assessment Programme (NAPAP), which generated a veritable banquet of data and findings, but little guidance to help non-specialist decision makers to determine which items should be considered in the policy choice. As a result, the Clean Air Act Amendments were passed without the benefit of a clear scientific direction. In the end, public disagreements about science become a surrogate for political debates about values and science is reduced to the spectacle of duelling assessments.

So long as policy debates are dominated by people who believe that universal agreement on a particular set “facts” or perspective on “truth” is a prerequisite to policy action, don’t be surprised to see continued gridlock and inaction. That is a truth you can count on.

Posted on March 7, 2006 07:53 AM View this article | Comments (8) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Climate Change | Science Policy: General

March 06, 2006

"Tear Down that Wall"

Robert Cook-Deegan of Duke University's Center for Genome Ethics, Law, and Policy is another worthy addition to the fledgling group-blog now forming over at Issues in Science and Technology. From his first post:

Without an OTA equivalent, S&T advice is channeled through external constituencies and the executive branch, which is inherently administration-dependent. Congress has lost most of its S&T analytical capacity, and the executive branch has lost its credibility. Have we given up on bipartisanship, resigned to polarized S&T war rhetoric, without even the option of consensual, incremental building?
Mr. Gingrich and Senator Clinton, tear down that wall! Then build sturdy structures that restore a bipartisan ethos. A good place to start is science and technology policy, where partisanship is particularly stupid and destructive.

Posted on March 6, 2006 09:06 PM View this article | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Science Policy: General

AAAS Forum on Science and Technology Policy

Registration is now open for the 2006 AAAS Forum on Science and Technology Policy in Washington, DC. The meeting will be held on April 20-21, 2006 (Thursday and Friday) at the Washington Court Hotel.

The AAAS Forum on Science and Technology Policy (formerly the "AAAS Colloquium"), held in Washington each spring, provides a forum for discussion and debate about budget and other policy issues facing the S&T community. Click here for the latest version of the 2006 Forum program. Click here for registration information. The 2006 Forum features sessions on the budgetary and policy context for research and development in 2007; achieving energy security; avian flu and other global health threats; science and technology and homeland security; the global innovation challenge, and responses by U.S. industry and policymakers; and protecting the integrity of science.

More info here.

Posted on March 6, 2006 09:00 PM View this article | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Science Policy: General

February 28, 2006

Newsweek on Outsourcing

An article about India and concerns about U.S. outsourcing in this week’s Newsweek is relevant to our on going discussion of Rising Above the Gathering Storm and U.S. "competitiveness." It is titled, “Outsourcing: Silicon Valley East Americans once feared their jobs would be shipped to India, but the backlash was overdone. Now everybody's winning,” and can be found here. Here is an excerpt:

Not long ago, what seemed most possible was that India would steal the jobs of American workers. But as George W. Bush visits there this week, he'll find a maturing economy that is no longer all about call centers and basic tech support. Now big American investment banks and drugmakers are joining tech firms on the passage to India. R&D centers are springing up so fast that there's now a shortage of Indian engineers. And the stigma of outsourcing jobs to India is disappearing. American companies once afraid to put their names on the doors of their Indian offices now issue press releases touting their latest investments there. "American firms have gotten over their anxiety about India," says financial-services consultant Harrell Smith of Celent Communications. "Now the new anxiety is if you're not in India."
What happened to the outsourcing backlash? It has been muted by the fact that India didn't suck Silicon Valley dry after all. Actually, U.S. tech employment is growing. There are 17 percent more tech workers in the United States today than back in the bubble days of 1999, says a new study by the Association for Computing Machinery. And the Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts that the U.S. economy will add 1 million tech jobs over the next decade, a 30 percent increase. "Everyone was worried about the offshoring bogeyman," says Moshe Vardi, an author of the ACM study. "But the big whoosh of jobs to India never happened.'' Indeed, that gush slowed to a steady stream once American companies realized it's tough to set up shop in a country with bad roads and a patchy power grid. Lately, American consulting firms that once predicted runaway growth in outsourcing to India have been slashing their estimates by half or more. Now American companies are hanging on to the high-skilled work that requires face-to-face interaction, while everything that can be done "over the wire" gets shipped offshore.

Posted on February 28, 2006 07:29 AM View this article | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Gathering Storm | Science Policy: General

A Review of Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Part 2

Part 1 of this review focused on Chapter 1 of RAGS. This post focuses on Chapter 2, which is titled, “Why are Science and Technology Critical to America’s Prosperity in the 21st Century?” It seems obvious that science and technology are indeed important to society, and understanding why this is so would be helpful for understanding how to prioritize R&D investments in the context of many other demands on public funds, and the relative desirability different possible R&D portfolios. Unfortunately, this chapter does little more than sandwich reams of information between highly general and simplified assertions of the importance of R&D. RAGS Chapter 2 does very little to answer the question posed in its title. For details, read on.

This chapter begins by simply asserting the answer to the question raised in its title,

The visible products of research, however, are made possible by a large enterprise mostly hidden from public view—fundamental and applied research, an intensively trained workforce, and a national infrastructure that provides risk capital to support the nation’s science and engineering innovation enterprise. All that activity, and its sustaining public support, fuels the steady flow of knowledge and provides the mechanism for converting information into the products and services that create jobs and improve the quality of modern life. Maintaining that vast and complex enterprise during an age of competition and globalization is challenging, but it is essential to the future of the United States.

This series of assertions may seem almost intuitive, and the chapter claims that the relationship of public R&D investments and economic growth are well understood,

“the economic value of investing in science and technology has been thoroughly investigated. Published estimates of return on investment (ROI) for publicly funded R&D range from 20% to 67%.”

However, one of the studies that it cites prominently does not display such confidence or certitude. Scott et al. (2001, available here in PDF) open their report with a telling quote from Georgia Tech’s Barry Bozeman:

In the study of technology transfer, the neophyte and the veteran researcher are easily distinguished. The neophyte is the one who is not confused.

Scott et al. introduce their literature review with a recognition of the challenges faced by scholars trying to understand the complicated relationship of R&D and the economy:

The relationships between public research and innovation are recognised to be an increasingly significant topic in the emerging knowledge economy. However, this is an area beset by high levels of complexity and a surprisingly small amount of empirical research. It is a field where it is easy to be misled by simplistic ideas, or to become confused by such data as do exist and the conflicting interpretations that can be made from them. As this review will show, even now eminent commentators and analysts are grappling with some of the most fundamental dimensions of the relationships between research and innovation, science and technology.

Scott et al. assertion a “small amount of empirical research” does not square with RAGS claim that this area has been “thoroughly investigated.” One might be excused for thinking that RAGS cherrypicked the convenient parts of Scott et al. and ignored the rest. Scott et al. warn the reader that the “intuitive approach” (which RAGS asserts unabashedly) to understanding the role of public R&D in the economy can be misleading:

In the context of limited resources for supporting basic research, and the need to justify the expenditure of these resources, a growing number of policy-makers and academic analysts have become interested in understanding the relationships between basic research and economic activity. Much of this analysis has been underpinned by an attractive intuitive approach to understanding these relationships. This approach is characterised by several logical and sequential steps:
• First, science is mainly seen as a source of new information about how the world works.
• Second, because this information is published openly (as is usual with academic research findings), it is ‘free to all comers’ – a low cost input into economic processes.
• Third, the link between science and technology is obvious: scientific information is used in the creation of new technologies, which are then used in economic activity.
• Finally, given this role of science in the creation of economic returns, it becomes attractive to try to quantify the amount of economic benefit that can be attributed to the basic science elements.

This way of seeing science-technology-economy linkages is so intuitively obvious that for a long time it was simply assumed to be a valid approach. Unfortunately, it contains within it a series of misleading and incomplete ‘mindsets and myths’, the limitations of which have only become apparent through more in-depth investigations in recent years.

Scott et al. are decidedly less sanguine that studies focused on quantifying economic rates of return to research are a useful basis for specific science policy decisions,

Studies that use productivity growth as an indicator of social returns to research investments have a number of problems. In adopting a high level of aggregation in their analysis they rarely control for inter-industry differences in technological opportunity and appropriability. Furthermore, such studies do not reveal how the economic returns are realised and thus do not enable a comparison of the productivity impact of research in different scientific disciplines. A further point to keep in mind is that most measures estimate average rates of return, while marginal rates of return are required for the purposes of resource allocation decisions.

A similar critique can be found in Boskin and Lau (1995). Scott et al. do suggest that R&D provides many benefits to the economy, perhaps even more significantly than narrow studies of economic activity would suggest, through the many “channels” of interconnection between science and the rest of society. They suggest that the management of the relationship of science and society through these channels can be a more useful approach to science policy than by seeking to modulate macro-economic effects in an input-output manner. What is clear from Scott et al. however is that understandings of the relationship of science policy decisions and societal outcomes remain quite murky, unlike the assertions found in RAGS.

RAGS plays fast and loose with the voluminous data that it presents. For instance, RAGS asserts that increasing life expectancy in the United States provides a good indicator of the value of basic research. But this assertion would seem to be countered by the fact that the United States is not even close to first place globally in life expectancy, while countries with longer life expectancy invest far less in health research (and healthcare). The story of life expectancy illustrates the many complexities involved in the relationship of science, technology, and societal outcomes. RAGS presents a large amount of statistical information about how health indicators have improved in the United States over the past century, with the suggestion that these trends were a direct or indirect result of public investments in R&D. This may indeed be the case, but this argument is not developed or made here.

Further, as interesting as it is to see ratios of horses to cars in 1900 versus 1997, it is not clear the relevant of such trivia to the underlying analysis. The most telling conclusion I draw from the various graphs presented about technological progress and market penetration is how spectacularly uncorrelated such trends are with public funding of science and technology. Important questions are raised by thee data, but they are not even touched upon here.

Based on its collection of upward sloping graphs, RAGS takes a page from Bjorn Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist and Gregg Easterbrook’s The Progress Paradox when it makes the claim that environmental and social indicators are almost universally getting better. It then reiterates its core assumption to explain why we see these improvements:

The science and technology research community and the industries that rely on that research are critical to the quality of life in the United States. Only by continuing investment in advancing technology—through the education of our children, the development of the science and engineering workforce, and the provision of an environment conducive to the transformation of research results into practical applications—can the full innovative capacity of the United States be harnessed and the full promise of a high quality of life realized.

What RAGS has yet to do through Chapter 2 is make an argument in support of this repeated assertion about the importance of R&D. Let me underscore that I also believe that R&D is important, but science policy decision making can and should be based on more than general statements of value. For instance, how might we judge the relative value of one possible R&D portfolio to another? Perhaps RAGS answers this in a subsequent chapter.

Posted on February 28, 2006 06:59 AM View this article | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Gathering Storm | Science Policy: General

February 27, 2006

A Review of Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Part 1

Given the recent attention to competitiveness by the White House and Congress, I thought that it might be useful to dig into the intellectual foundation that lies underneath. This post is the first in a series and offers a perspective on the recent NRC report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm (RAGS), all 543 pages of it, chapter-by-chapter. I start the review with this post focused on Chapter 1, titled “A Disturbing Mosaic.” We provided an overview of the executive summary of RAGS here.

The summary of my critique of the RAGS report so far is that there is a disconnect between the statement of the problem and the proposed solution. It is a truism that science and technology underpin modern society. And it is also true that the world economy has been transformed by economic globalization. But it does not clearly follow from these initial conditions that a policy focused on increasing investments in basic research in the physical sciences, mathematics, and engineering, and the number of scientists and engineers, will improve U.S. “competitiveness” much less counter the negative effects of globalization. While there are a suite of other policy recommendations to be found in RAGS, the focus is mostly on government funding for science and the production of PhD scientists and engineers. My interpretation of Chapter 1 in RAGS is that its arguments are largely faith-based rather than built on a foundation of policy analysis, but perhaps that is to come in future chapters. Read on for details.

RAGS has been cited as the intellectual foundation for the focus in President Bush’s State of the Union address on “keeping America competitive.” It also has been cited as the basis for a suite of proposed legislative actions now in various stages of development in Congress, most notable the so-called trifecta of PACE bills – Protecting America’s Competitive Edge.

RAGS defines the policy problem to be addressed consistent with the thesis of Thomas Friedman’s book, The World is Flat, which argues that the world in more economically competitive that ever before. RAGS summarizes Friedman’s concerns as follows:

Friedman asks rhetorically whether his own country is proving its readiness by “investing in our future and preparing our children the way we need to for the race ahead”. Friedman’s answer, not surprisingly, is no.

RAGS takes Friedman’s concern as its central focus:

This report addresses the possibility that our lack of preparation will reduce the ability of the United States to compete in such a world. Many underlying issues are technical; some are not. Some are “political”—not in the sense of partisan politics, but in the sense of “bringing the rest of the body politic along”. Scientists and engineers often avoid such discussions, but the stakes are too high to keep silent any longer. Friedman’s term quiet crisis, which others have called a “creeping crisis”, is reminiscent of the folk tale about boiling a frog. If a frog is dropped into boiling water, it will immediately jump out and survive. But a frog placed in cool water that is heated slowly until it boils won’t respond until it is too late. Our crisis is not the result of a one-dimensional change; it is more than a simple increase in water temperature. And we have no single awakening event, such as Sputnik. The United States is instead facing problems that are developing slowly but surely, each like a tile in a mosaic. None by itself seems sufficient to provoke action. But the collection of problems reveals a disturbing picture a recurring pattern of abundant short-term thinking and insufficient longterm investment.

The RAGS focus on “competitiveness” reminds me of a statement by Charles L. Schultze, writing in a book edited by B. L R. Smith and C. Barfield (Technology, R&D, and the Economy, Brookings, 1996), who suggested some principles for thinking about R&D in the economy

First, do not specify the target as increasing competitiveness. Competitiveness is a virtually meaningless, if widely used, word. It can – and has been – used to justify virtually anything.

RAGS then identifies three “clusters” of problems:

*Tilted jobs in the global economy
*Disinvestment in the future
*Reactions to 9/11

Let’s consider each in turn.

“Tilted jobs in the global economy” refers to the reality that companies have access to an employment market that goes well beyond national borders. Far from being a problem, RAGS seems to make the case that the flattening of the global economy is a good thing, both for the U.S. and other countries:

Most economists believe that [David] Ricardo is still correct—that there will be gains for all such nations. They acknowledge that there might be a transition phase in which wages for lower skilled workers in a rich country like the United States will fall. Some say that there is, however, no reason to believe that wages for highly skilled workers will fall in either the short run or the long run. Economist Paul Romer argues that technological change continues to increase the demand for workers with high levels of education. As a result, wages for US workers with at least a college education continue to rise faster than wages for other workers. The low wages for highly skilled workers seen in such countries as China and India are not a sign that the worldwide supply of highly skilled workers is so large that worldwide wages are now falling or are about to fall, says Romer. In those economies, wages for skilled workers are low because these workers were previously cut off from the deep and rapidly growing pool of technological knowledge that existed outside their borders. As they have opened up their economies so that this knowledge can now flow in, wages for highly skilled workers have grown rapidly.”

In spite of this seeming optimism based on the consensus view of economists RAGS then presents a conclusion that I can only conclude must be based entirely on assumptions:

It has also been argued that in a period of tectonic change such as the one that the global community is now undergoing, there will inevitably be nations and individuals that are winners or losers. It is the view of this committee that the determining factors in such outcomes are the extent of a nation’s commitment to get out and compete in the global marketplace. New generations of US scientists and engineers, assisted by progressive government policies, could lead the way to US leadership in the new, flatter world—as long as US workers remain among the best educated, hardest-working, best trained, and most productive in the world.

A few things should be pointed out. First, the United States is by any measure a global economic winner and has been for decades and longer. Second, this part of the report provides no data and no argument to make the case that the “tilting” of the global is in anyway problematic from a national perspective, and the evidence that it does provide suggests that this tilting is instead beneficial. The transition from a description of the realities of globalization to the call for progressive government policies and education of scientists and engineers is abrupt. It may very well be that such actions are needed, but the case has not yet been made thus far in RAGS. Let’s move on.

The second cluster of problems is “disinvestment in the future.” This section starts by citing a public opinion poll to make the case that education is suffering in the United States. It then presents familiar statistics on the average performance of U.S. K-12 students when compared to their OECD counterparts. The chapter then argues that more of the costs of education are being placed upon individuals, rather than the public. RAGS asserts that this has the effect of limiting the access to higher education among low-income students. I would agree that this is indeed a problem. But lets be clear, it is a problem of equity and access, and no connection is made here to the larger thesis of the chapter focused on economic competitiveness.

The section next claims that “the increasing pressure on corporations for short-term results has made investments in research highly problematic.” This section could have been a bit more substantive, and perhaps later in the report we will see such substance. But according to data gathered by the NSF SRS, industry has a long-term trend of increasing investments in research and development, with the NSF’s most recent issue brief noting, “Companies spent $204 billion in current-year dollars on research and development (R&D) performed in the United States during 2003 compared with $193.9 billion in 2002.” Industry outspends the federal government on R&D by about 50%. It is not at all clear that there is a problem in industry related to R&D investments. There is certainly no evidence of “disinvestment.”

The next section asserts that “funding for research in most physical sciences, mathematics, and engineering has declined or remained relatively flat—in real purchasing power—for several decades.” Why does this matter? According to RAGS, there are two reasons. The first is that health care advances depend on such research, “Many medical devices and procedures—such as endoscopic surgery, “smart” pacemakers, kidney dialysis, and magnetic resonance imaging—are the result of R&D in the physical sciences, engineering, and mathematics.” RAGS does acknowledge the meteoric rise in funding for health research over he past decade, but that apparently is insufficient. The second reason why RAGS argues that flat funding for the physical sciences, mathematics, and engineering matters is that it creates incentives for less-risky research, “Many believe that federal funding agencies—perhaps influenced by the stagnation of funding levels in the physical sciences, mathematics and engineering—have become increasingly risk-averse and focused on short-term results.” It is not clear either what this means or why it matters. A focus on high-risk research is a function of research policies and not necessarily the consequence of overall funding levels. For example, one way to encourage “riskier” research in NSF would be to do away with the second review criterion focused on broader societal impacts and focus narrowly on scientific merit. Funding is neither here nor there. Again, there is no evidence of a “disinvestments.”

Let’s now turn to the third problem cluster, “Reactions to 9/11.” RAGS takes issue with three specific areas of U.S. science policy put into place follow 9/11, “visa policies, export controls, and the treatment of “sensitive but unclassified” information.” These are of concern to scientists because of the limitations that each policy places upon the ability to recruit and train foreign students and conduct research alongside foreign colleagues.
Because I work in a university and see the effects of these policies, I am in general agreement with RAGS that they are problematic from the standpoint of fettering research. But at the same time these policies have been put in place as a reaction to the threat of terrorism. Have such policies gone too far? Perhaps. But of course scientists want research to be unfettered by restrictions. So far however RAGS has not provided evidence for understanding the effects of national security policies in a way that would allow for a sense of the tradeoffs involved. Perhaps this is to come in a subsequent chapter.

The chapter ends by asserting – not arguing – its conclusion: “Well-paying jobs, accessible health care, and high-quality education require the discovery, application, and dissemination of information and techniques … This report emphasizes the need for world-class science and engineering—not simply as an end in itself but as the principal means of creating new jobs for our citizenry as a whole as it seeks to prosper in the global marketplace of the 21st century.” That modern society is built upon science and technology is obvious. But the important questions about science and technology are not yet raised by RAGS, much less answered – What information is it that we need? What techniques? How should we think about priorities among different areas of knowledge? How does world-class science and engineering relate to jobs? Perhaps the answers to these questions will be revealed in subsequent chapters.

Thus far, the story is about an ill-defined problem with a crystal-clear solution: more investment in research and development.

Posted on February 27, 2006 07:22 AM View this article | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Gathering Storm | Science Policy: General

February 24, 2006

Reporting on the Jay Keyworth visit

It's a little stale at this point, I realize, but I wanted to give a brief report from our visit with Dr. George Keyworth, science advisor to President Reagan from 1981 -1986. Dr. Keyworth visited Boulder on Jan 31/Feb 1, the main event of which was a public lecture. I went to Dr. Keyworth's talk and interacted with him in a few other venues throughout his visit and here are some of the take-home messages as I heard them.

As national security is the most important issue facing any president, science advisors who are not involved closely in national security issues are not as relevant to the White House decision making process. Dr. Keyworth had multiple security clearances from his long tenure at Los Alamos, which gave him access to national security information and thus made him relevant to a president dealing with the Cold War.

To illustrate what happens when a science advisor is not directly involved in national security issues, Dr. Keyworth pointed to an exchange with a former Vice President. The VP asked something to the effect of, "Who was science advisor when we were in?" Keyworth's take-home message was that this long-serving advisor was unknown because he wasn't working on the top priority for the administration.

Dr. Keyworth made clear his Libertarian inclinations and called President Reagan a "true Libertarian." Arising from these views were a few observations and preferences, the most strident of which was:

-The government does well when it is a consumer and not when it is a producer of technology.

NASA illustrates this well. In the early days of the space station, nothing in NASA's rationale for its construction was significant or justifiable. NASA proposed a space lab for creating protein crystals in microgravity, and other such, but neither NASA nor the American government needed or needs protein crystals. [And the ISS floats along, irrelevant as ever....]

- The one thing that government can do right is to fund basic research.

People here question the effectiveness of the "linear model" (science $$ into a black box leads to economic benefits for the nation). But Dr. Keyworth was adamant that Vannevar Bush's ideas on funding basic research are still very important and relevant and that history shows the linear model to be right on.

There is a widespread consensus that we are declining rapidly in basic research funding and capability. Dr. Keyworth strongly backed up the message of Rising Above The Gathering Storm and discussed the purpose of basic research as a training ground of scientists. Roger should have a long post on this in the near future....

Strong views on NASA, including, "NASA is rotten to the core." The U.S. does not have a civil space policy, hasn't had one since Apollo, and out of this is a lack of a existence rationale for NASA.

Posted on February 24, 2006 11:36 AM View this article | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Vranes, K. | Science Policy: General

David Goldston on Science Policy in the U.S. Congress

In our Winter, 2006 newsletter David Goldston, Chief of Staff for the House Committee on Science, provides a perspective on the state of science policy in Congress. Goldston’s essay was invited as a response to his Democratic counter-part (recently retired), Bob Palmer, who prepared a perspective for us last summer titled, Science Policy: The Victim of Partisan Politics”.

Palmer wrote,

The Federal government is not responding to the many political challenges of the day – energy, environment, health care, global economic competition – whose resolution would greatly benefit from the wise application of S&T. When politics is overly fettered by partisanship, so is science – in the sense that its legitimate role in opening up more room for negotiations and the development of policy options is severely limited. This unfortunately is the niche that science policy occupies today.

To which Goldston responds,

In short, this hardly seems the time to lament the lack of debate over science policy in Washington or the unwillingness of Congress to air science issues. What remains to be seen is how much progress a divided Congress will make in an election year in resolving these issues. As of now, the outlook is promising.

We are appreciative of both David Goldston and Bob Plamer for not only engaging each other, but for providing us a rare look at perspectives on Congressional science policy straight from the House Science Committee. Our newsletter can be found here.

Posted on February 24, 2006 06:54 AM View this article | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Science Policy: General

February 23, 2006

New IST Science Policy Blogs

The IQ of the science policy blogosphere just increased. The periodical Issues in Science and Technology, a publication of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, has unveiled several of the authors of its new group blog. They are ASU’s Daniel Sarewitz and OECD’s Jerry Sheehan. For those interested in science policy, they are worth a look and perhaps a link in your favorites. Here is one of Dan Sarewitz’s recent posts:

It comes as a relief to learn, from a recent NY Times article, that scientists have recently gone to Capitol Hill to give Members of Congress and their staff a briefing on “how science works.” It’s a little weird, I guess, that a single briefing could explain what centuries of inquiry and debate by scientists, philosophers, sociologists, historians, and others have failed to achieve, but I accept that one has to simplify these things for the lay audience. According to the article, Science editor Donald Kennedy told the Congressional audience that “the ultimate test of truth in science” is the replication of results: Hmmmm. Well, there’s certainly no way to replicate a billion or so years of Darwinian natural selection, so I guess the theory of evolution must not be science. And obviously you can’t replicate a general circulation model’s prediction of the future behavior of climate, since the future hasn’t happened yet, so apparently climate modeling isn’t science either. I suspect there’s some subtlety here that I’m missing, but I’m sure our elected officials were able to grasp it.

Have a look. We’ll keep you updated as Issues adds more contributors.

Posted on February 23, 2006 07:10 AM View this article | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Science Policy: General

February 16, 2006

There is No Line

In today’s New York Times Andy Revkin has a follow up story on politics and NASA media policies. The story shows that we are rapidly on our way to intellectual incoherence on this issue. Consider the following:

"The issue is where does science end and policy begin," said David Goldston, chief of staff to Representative Sherwood Boehlert, chairman of the House Science Committee.

News flash (but not to Prometheus readers!) - There is no line that cleanly divides science from policy. The discussion of the use of the term “climate change” versus the phrase “global warming” clearly shows that there is no getting away from politics in the presentation of scientific issues. As scholars of communication tell us, politics is inherent in the act of communication.

In a more recent example of possible political pressure at the agency, press officers and scientists cited an e-mail message sent last July from NASA's headquarters to its Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. It said a Web presentation describing the uncontroversial finding that Earth was a "warming planet" could not use the phrase "global warming." It is "standard practice," the message went on, to use the phrase "climate change." NASA officials said the intent was to use the most general term to describe climate fluctuations. But other public affairs workers and some scientists at the agency called it an effort to avoid mentioning that global temperatures are rising. The e-mail message was written by Erica Hupp, a civil servant at headquarters. She did not reply to several requests for comment, but several people who work with her, and others who preceded her in managing earth-science news in the office, said this was a standing unwritten order from political appointees in public affairs. "There was this general understanding that when something in this field was written about that it was to be described as climate change and not global warming," said Elvia H. Thompson, who recently retired from the same office.

So think about this carefully. The phrase “climate change” was recommended in the Luntz memo as part of a (failed, IMO) strategy to sway public opinion against action on climate change. The phrase “global warming” is preferred by environmental advocacy groups for exactly the same reason. Which phrase do you choose? The choice cannot be determined by science alone. (Though it is worth noting that the science community does indeed prefer the term “climate change”, e.g., it is the IPCC not the IPGW.) As I’ve written here before, even the specific definition of the phrase “climate change” reflects a political position.

Other examples of the use of language as tools of political advocacy in science include the use of the words “fingerprint” (e.g., here) and “harbinger” (e.g., here) as recommended by the Union of Concerned Scientists as means of political advocacy.

Decisions about what press releases are put out and how the content in them is described are always going to be political decisions. There is no scientific basis for deciding what to release or how to frame it. When the Clinton Administration was in office things were spun one way, and when the Bush folks took over things were spun another way. In every case such spinning can be done in a way that does not involve misrepresenting scientific understandings (not that spinners always succeed in this).

There is no line. Looking for one is a wild goose chase. Policies and practices for media relations in science agencies will always be political. And politics is a function of who is in power. If you don’t like it, get involved, run for office, campaign for your favored candidate, get out the vote, participate in special interest advocacy groups, do all of these things. But don’t pretend that science can resolve political disputes. There is no line.

Posted on February 16, 2006 09:10 AM View this article | Comments (37) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Science Policy: General

February 15, 2006

Sarewitz in American Scientist

Dan Sarewitz, director of the Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes at ASU, is a close colleague and frequent collaborator. He is also one of our leading thinkers on science in politics and society. He has an essay in the March-April 2006 issue of American Scientist titled “Liberating Science from Politics.” It is relevant to frequent recent discussions on this blog. Below is an excerpt, but do read the whole thing:

”Wouldn't it be wonderful if science—and scientists—were taken more seriously in the political process? Wouldn't democracy be better served? And wouldn't many difficult problems be more rationally resolved? Take the debates over protecting the environment. It certainly seems that, here, science should be able to cut through political controversy and enable beneficial action. Yet experience mostly shows the opposite: Controversies surrounding environmental problems as diverse as global climate change, genetically modified foods, nuclear energy, biodiversity, air and water pollution, and toxic wastes rarely seem to come to a satisfactory resolution. They are instead characterized by long-term intractability and periodic resurgence of bitter partisan dispute—all in the face of a continual expansion of scientific understanding.
Blame for this unsatisfactory state of affairs is usually assigned to the political process itself, especially to those who use science to advance particular ideological agendas. If only, the complaint goes, those (a) conservatives (b) liberals (c) environmentalists (d) industrialists or (e) ignorant members of the public would understand the facts, or stop manipulating the facts for their own political gain, we could arrive at rational solutions to the problems we face.

Yet this sort of complaint—which I have heard, in one form or another, from innumerable scientists—suffers from a profound misunderstanding of the relation between science and politics. The idea that a set of scientific facts can reconcile political differences and point the way toward a rational solution is fundamentally flawed. The reality is that when political controversy exists, the scientific enterprise is ideally suited to exacerbating disagreement, rather than resolving it.”

Read the whole essay here.

Posted on February 15, 2006 07:04 AM View this article | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Science Policy: General

February 12, 2006

Science Suppression: A Personal Story

During 1993-1994 I was doing research on my dissertation which was focused on the implementation of the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), then a new program having been written into law in the fall of 1990. Part of my research involved interviewing people responsible for the creation of the program and its implementation. Many of these people were high-ranking agency officials and very difficult to schedule, so I was only able to interview several of them. In 1994 I wrote up a paper based on my analysis for presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of Public Policy Analysis and Management (APPAM) in Washington, DC. I sent copies of the paper to the agency officials that I did get to interview for their reaction, and this is when the fun began.

At the time I was sitting at NCAR courtesy of Mickey Glantz, who later hired me as a post-doc and then a staff scientist in his group. But in 1993-1994 I was an unpaid graduate student taking advantage of Mickey’s gracious offer of a desk and access to NCAR people as I finished up my dissertation. The paper I had drafted for APPAM was critical of the USGCRP arguing that it was structured to produce a lot of good science, but not necessarily well-structured to contribute useful information to decision makers. (For the argument see this 1995 paper – PDF -- which is descendant of the 1994 APPAM analysis).

The reaction to the paper was swift and for a wet-behind-the-ears graduate student a lesson in the politics of science. (I have the email correspondence still from these events.) The few copies of the paper I had mailed to my interviewees had multiplied and had made their way around USGCRP circles, and people were not happy with the paper. There was concern among USGCRP officials that the paper could be damaging in the budget process, particularly since I had an affiliation with NCAR, which they felt gave me some credibility.

One person that I had sent the paper to was a top official in the National Science Foundation (NSF) in charge of the directorate that provided base funding for NCAR. Concern about my paper was expressed by this official to the director of NCAR and the President of UCAR, the body that oversees NCAR. There was quite a hullabaloo surrounding this as NCAR was encouraged to disallow me from conducting research there, and more than gently reminded where its funding came from. In short, USGCRP officials wanted me gone and my paper to disappear.

The good news is that the NCAR leadership stood up for my right to call things as I saw them and stood strong in the face of what must have been very uncomfortable pressure from NSF. After all I was just a nobody grad student and NCAR very easily could have brushed me off to please NSF. Here is an excerpt from an email from a top NCAR official to others in NCAR leadership on this from June, 1994:

Maybe this is a test – can a graduate student write his dissertation on a subject that may imply that a program of our government is not perfect? Is there any such thing as academic freedom or freedom of scientific inquiry, or must we all sing the party line? If a program can’t tolerate criticism – it probably NEEDS to be criticized. I’ve read some of Roger’s work, and I found his criticisms to be generally on point and constructive. I don’t feel we should in any way “distance ourselves” from Roger’s work. But what do I know?

Further good news that resulted from this was that part of the negotiations that resulted was an agreement that I would go to Washington, DC and interview a wide range of people associated with the USGCRP so that they could “set me straight.” Thus, I was able to get access to many people high up in the program who heretofore had been inaccessible to me. I interviewed them and much of what I learned appeared in the final version of my dissertation.

I learned a number of lessons from this experience. First, I learned the importance of some distance from government when doing policy research. Although NCAR works with government funds, its staff are not government employees. NSF could exert pressure through the budget, but did not have direct line authority over NCAR leadership or NCAR scientists. Second, I learned the importance of leadership. NCAR leadership from Mickey Glantz on up to the top was very supportive of research and erring on the side of openness rather than suppression. Third, I learned that incentives for suppressing unwelcome news are strong. I did not ascribe the actions of the NSF official to the politics of the newly elected Clinton Administration or any broader war on policy research, but a misguided effort to exert control over what information came out of NCAR in an effort to protect parochial political interests. Finally, I learned that efforts to suppress typically have the exact opposite effect. Had NSF ignored that paper, no one would have read it, I never would have had additional access to leading USGCRP officials, I probably wouldn’t have received an offer of a post-doc at NCAR, and today I’d be doing something completely different than giving scientists a hard time.

Postscript: More that ten years later a top official involved in the debacle expressed to me regret that it occurred and suggested that with hindsight my analysis at the time did prove to have merit. I appreciated this and remain on fairly good terms with this person, now retired.

Posted on February 12, 2006 03:58 PM View this article | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Science Policy: General

More Info - Thanks Gavin!

Ed.- This comment from Gavin Schmidt of NASA appeared in the comments and I thought important enough to bring to the top. Thanks Gavin very much, RP

A couple of points for clarification. Around 20 of the scientific staff at GISS work directly for NASA as civil servants (including me). The rest work for Columbia University or the contractor.

GISS's mission is to research long term climate change, rather broadly defined, it is not to implement government policy. Thus there is no contradiction in Hansen continuing to work on climate science while disagreeing on policy.

The problem with NASA public affairs was not limited to Hansen, but also impacted the rest of us even on issues and media requests that had absolutely nothing to do with any policy questions. Simple requests to explain 'global warming' or discuss the difference between weather and climate were turned down by Deutsch and company, presumably because they felt the mere mention of the science was political.

Posted on February 12, 2006 03:29 PM View this article | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Others | Science Policy: General

Political Advocacy and the Ethics of Resigning

At the core of the debate over NASA and NOAA policies for the interaction of scientists with the media lies an implicit and ill-defined distinction between discussions of science and discussions of policy. Most discussions of Dr. Hansen have glossed over the distinction between his right to speak out and his fundamental disagreement with the policies of the U.S. government. Is there a point at which Dr. Hansen, or other government officials in similar situation, have an obligation to resign? The answer is that it is complicated.

Democratic government would be impossible without career government employees whose duty it is to carry out the laws and policies put into place by the properly elected representatives of the people. But is reality, career government employees have considerable discretion in their duties and are key factors in recommending and implementing policy. The debate over James Hansen has thus far failed to engage these complicated issues, falling back on the worn, but safe science-policy distinction.

For example, Michael Griffin, NASA administrator, released a statement on in which he stated, “It is not the job of public affairs officers to alter, filter or adjust engineering or scientific material produced by NASA's technical staff.” And NOAA Administrator Conrad C. Lautenbacher said “I encourage scientists to conduct peer-reviewed research and provide the honest results of those findings.” What is unsaid by NOAA and NASA here is how scientists should manage discussing policy issues when they are in political opposition to the current policies of the U.S. government, which is really at the core of the debate of NASA and NOAA.

A news story from Australia helps to frame the challenge:

A FORMER CSIRO senior scientist and internationally recognised expert on climate change claims he was reprimanded and encouraged to resign after he spoke out on global warming. . . Dr Pearman says he fell out with his CSIRO superiors after joining the Australian Climate Group, an expert lobby group convened by the Insurance Australia Group and environment body WWF in late 2003. A core aim of the group was to encourage Australian political leaders to consider carbon trading — where industry pollution is capped and there are financial incentives to reduce emissions — and other measures including a target to reduce greenhouse gases by 60 per cent by 2050. The Federal Government has said it will not pursue carbon trading at this stage. It accepts that global warming is real and poses a threat to the Australian environment, but does not support mandatory targets for reducing carbon emissions. Dr Pearman, who headed the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research for 10 years until 2002, said he was admonished by his Canberra superiors for "making public expressions of what I believed were scientific views, on the basis that they were deemed to be political views".

What is political advocacy anyway? Political advocacy refers to efforts to reduce the scope of choice available to decision makers, typically to some desired course of action. In the case above, Dr. Pearman was not only acting as a political advocate in arguing for carbon trading, he actively joined groups whose mission was overt political advocacy. For his part, Dr. Pearman doesn’t seem to recognize what political advocacy actually is stating, "In 33 years (with CSIRO), I don't think I had ever felt I was political in that sense. I've worked with ministers and prime ministers from both parties over a long period of time, and in all cases I think I've tried to draw a line between fearless scientific advice about issues and actual policy development, which I think is in the realm of government." The article does not say how active Dr. Pearman was in his political advocacy, but it is conceivable that his advocacy actions were in direct conflict with his duties as a government employee and as such it would be entirely appropriate to ask him to leave. (Much the same if a conscientious objector objected to a war. Rather than force them to fight or allow them to block implementation it would be appropriate to relieve them of their government duties.)

James Hansen has clearly engaged in political advocacy unrelated to his expertise on climate when he came out in support of John Kerry, when he criticized the role of special interests he disagrees with influencing the Bush Administration, and when he

Category:

« Science Policy: General »