« Science Policy: General »

"But by making the general case that scientific facts compel particular ideological outcomes, Krugman is legitimizing the very strategy employed by conservative think tanks (and today also embraced by liberal think tanks) that debates that are really about values can be effectively turned into debates putatively about science."

Prometheus is constantly making a point that science does not dictate policy. I disagree with this characterization more than I agree.

With chlorofluorocarbons or atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, the science that there would almost certainly be severe adverse consequences continuing "business as usual" at least ***strongly suggested*** that business as usual wasn't an acceptable position.

The "problem" is that the science does NOT support that "business as usual" in terms of CO2 emissions will almost certainly result in severe adverse consequences.

So it's not that "the science" doesn't ever strongly suggest policy directions. It's that in the case of CO2 emissions, the science does not support any drastic change from "business as usual."*

*P.S. "Business as usual" is frequently misrepresented as humans emitting the same or greater amounts of CO2 until the end of time. But the REAL "business as usual" will likely see CO2 emissions never get above 50 percent greater than their current value...and will likely see CO2 emissions in 2100 significantly below the emissions in 2000.

I can only conclude that R. Pielke has not paid any attention at all to ID or Creationist writings, strategy, or tactics for the past decade, and so is writing nonsence.

The purpose of the ID, or Creationist, activities in the public and educational spheres is exactly to cast doubt on evolutionary biology; the call to `Teach the Controversy' when, in fact, there is none, has no purpose other than to call evolution into doubt; to imply there is a controversy, to imply there is vastly less evidence and confidence than there is.

Since there is, of course, no ID theory (just some assertions backed up with plausible sounding information theory gobbldegook), the entire ID corpus consists of nothing but attacks on biological theory that are either trivial or completely wrong. Anyone who had done the absolute minimum amount of reading on the topic -- say the DI wedge document, or a quick perusal of the Kansas hearings, or 5 minutes of reading the talk.origins webpage or the Panda's Thumb or any of a number of excellent resources would realize this.

Unfortuantely, once again, the author is describing things the way they feel it should be, rather than discussing reality.

Pielke's refrain that `science does not dictate policy' would be much more relevant if there was a large body of people claiming that science invariably uniquly determines policy prescriptions. Since no one I've ever heard says this, one wonders what Pielke is on about.

Sciences should always inform policy, and sometimes that information is so clear that the reasonable range of policy precscriptions is extremely narrow. In fact, Pielke points out at least one case where science clearly dictates policy; since there is no meaningful alternative to an evolutionary understanding of biology, science dictates at least one aspect of educational policy; biology curricula should include evolution and should not include ID.

But I shouldn't be that surprised. Pielke's desperate attempts to show `equavalence' -- to demonstrate that a few academics occasionally overestimating the policy implications of their work is somehow exactly the same as multi-million-dollar `institutes' churning out scientific-sounding mumbo-jumbo at the request of their patrons or their ideological leanings -- always results in this sort of contorted, confused post. It is nice that in this case he disagrees with the multi-million-dollar-per-annum `Discovery Institute' about teaching ID in science classes, and yet he still seems to indicate that Krugman is somehow equally at fault.

The non-sequiturs about how current opinion
polls show support for Kyoto indicates that there's no point in swaying public opinion are especially confused. The argument seems to be that since public opinion says X, pseudo-scientific astroturfing doesn't happen. Hint to the author; if the goal is to *change* public opinion, it is the *trends* that show the usefulness or not of this technique, not the current levels. If support for Kyoto means that no such public-opinion-changing strategy exists, what does lack of support for teaching evolution mean?

I was really excited when this blog came online. I really hope other contributers start writing more often; if I want to read confused, credulous drivel, the blog world is full of other places I can go to.

Jonathan- Thanks for your lengthy comment, and in the future, please don't hold back ;-) Your actually comment helps to illustrate my point. You write that you've not heard anyone make the claim at hat "science invariably uniquly determines policy prescriptions" and then in the very next paragraph you write, "science dictates at least one aspect of educational policy." The scientific consensus on evolution does NOT dictate what should be taught in the classroom.

Decisions about what is taught in the classroom is are political choices, and not as you claim dictated by science. If one wants schools to teach knowledge that is both scientifically credible and ID, then one has a problem. The ID community is trying to address this "problem" by putting ID on an even par with evolution.

Also, if you want to see evidence of trends in public opinion on the science of climate change, go to the link I provided in the post and have a look at recent data. ExxonMobile should stop investing in sowing doubt, because they are not getting a good return on their investment. Of course, advocacy groups on all sides of all issues engage in marketing and spinning of ideas all the time. Some folks call this democracy in action. But as I've written here before, all the mass mobilization in the world gets you no where if there are not good options on the table.

Roger,

You are doing your own cherry-picking. The think tanks are using several strategies, not just one. By focusing on their "strategy" you are missing all the other strategies. The ID proponents are spreading doubt about evolution. The are also spreading the idea that there is a controversy, which must be taught. They are also spreading the idea that it is only fair that both sides must be taught. They are also spreading the idea that ID is a way to wedge relegion into science. They are using several other strategies at the same time. The are sending messages, often aimed at a specific audiance, not at single message. The same goes for other areas. Those opposed to action on global warming claim that it is based on "junk science", that there is too much uncertanty, that action will destroy the economy, and on and on.

Jim- Thanks for your comment. I think that you are absolutely correct about the diversity of strategies employed in this debate. Krugman's column reinforces the one particular (and popular) strategy that focuses on turning values disputes into scientific disputes, and in the processes gives it legitimacy.

Roger,

I agree with what you have to say about science and politics and how advocates on either side tend to cherry pick and overstate their arguments.

Just some general notes:

On scientists. Scientists are very strong advocates for their work. This is totally understandable they are usually very passionate about their work therefore if they have disovered something they expect that action should be taken on it. If you got a dozen scientists from different fields in a room they would all be able to produce cogent arguments for why their work is important and advocate strongly for action to be taken. This is not a bad thing it is important that they do it for science to advance. What gets priority and what action should be taken however can not be left to scientists to decide, there are monetary constraints, there can be conflicting interests, there can be ethical considerations, etc. So others have to make the policy decisions this does not mean that scientists should not be involved but that they can not be the only voice. I feel we have to be somewhat suspicious of scientists very publicly advocating their position especially if there are also dissenting views. It may be necessary to set up committees to examine the science the risk here is that they could become dominated by the very scientists advocating the position. It is therefore necessary that the commitee have a balanced representation which includes dissenting views. It should not only be incumbent on the committee to produce a report that shows the majority opinion but also minority reports on areas on controversy.
Science should not be decided by consensus but by making all positions known so that the policy descisions can be made in an open environment not one were disenting views are supressed.

On think tanks. A Think Tank is simply an advocacy group who are doing their own research. This should be considered a good thing. Other advocacy groups do no research of their own but instead choose the science of others to advocate their position. We can not pick and choose who should be allowed to advocate on a cause. If Krugman opposes right wing think tanks what is his position on say Greenpeace.
I choose Greenpeace in particular because of what I found to be their extraordinary response to the announcement of the ITER (fusion reactor) project. Instead of being supportive they where opposed to it.

"According to Greenpeace, the project, estimated to cost 10bn euro, will not generate any electricity, but will instead need massive amounts of energy to heat up. Although the nuclear industry poses as the solution to climate change, Greenpeace insist that the nuclear option would introduce a whole new set of nuclear risks, create a serious waste problem, emit large amounts of radioactive material and be available for use in the production of materials for nuclear weapons."With 10 billion, we could build 10,000MW offshore windfarms, delivering electricity for 7.5 million European households," said Jan Vande Putte, spokeperson for Greenpeace International. "Governments should not waste our money on a dangerous toy which will never deliver any useful energy. Instead, they should invest in renewable energy which is abundantly available, not in 2080 but today.""

A full press release here:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/ITERprojectFrance

As well French Green party lawmaker Noël Mamère claims that more concrete efforts to fight present-day global warming will be neglected as a result of ITER: "This is not good news for the fight against the greenhouse effect because we're going to put ten billion euro towards a project that has a term of 30-50 years when we're not even sure it will be effective."

So while the ITER may help comabt global warming in the future they are opposed to it, "Go Figure". They do no research into it themselves they just say they are opposed to it. How is this a better approach than that of a Think Tank?

On Surveys. I am sure you are aware of how misleading surveys can be. Conclusions can be drawn a number of ways based on the interpretaion. Questions can be framed in such a way as to get the response you want. On the Kyoto survey you quote there are numerous ways of interperating this data but just some quick notes:

On question 3
President Bush and the leaders of the other major developed countries will be meeting in
Scotland, July 6-8 at what is called the G-8 Summit. One of the major topics for discussion will be climate change or global warming. Do you think that if the leaders of these other countries are willing to act to limit the greenhouse gases that cause climate change, President Bush should or should not be willing to act to limit such gases in the US?

This question states that greenhouse gases CAUSE climate change. Is this not a bit misleading? As far as I can tell pretty much every scientists, regardless of what side of the debate, would agree that the climate has changed in the past without the effect of greenhouse gases and will in the future. The debate is about HOW MUCH of this change can be attributed to greenhouse gases. This survey sugests it is ALL due to greenhouse gases.

If you produce a survey that says that climate change is bad and asks whether we should do something about it why wouldn't you expect people to say yes.
If we included questions such as: If you knew that the Kyoto protocol would only change the rate of global warming by 0.1% by 2100 and it would cost $17 trillion dollars to acheive this would you still support it? or Do you think America should ratify Kyoto even if it puts it at a significant disadvantage to China which does not have to limit it's greenhouse gases? Yes these are both loaded questions but since the survey doesn't give the respondents a choice other than Yes or No to Kyoto and doesn't say how effective it would be once again why wouldn't you expect a Yes. But then that is the nature of surveys as Disraeli said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.".

Over at ScienceG8 Chris Mooney provides a substantive critique of this post. Please have a look

http://scienceg8.com/defending-krugman/

Here is my response to him:

Thanks Chris for the kind words and substantive response. I am going to invoke George Lakoff here and invoke the notion of framing. There are several ways that the strategies of the ID movement can be characterized. One is as you describe rasing doubts about evolution. The second is as I describing pushing ID as a "scientific" alternative to evolution. Clearly these are two sides of the same coin, but they have significantly different implications for how those opposed to the teaching of ID as science in public schools respond. In the first case, seeking to respond to those sowing doubt about evolution one might seek to argue the case for evolution, its scientific grounding etc. In the second case one would instead put the focus of attention on ID as not at all scientific, leaving evolution out of the debate. I'm no high-priced political consultant, but it seems pretty obvious to me that the first approach tilts the field in the direction of the ID folks. After all, if you want to raise doubts about evolution among the public then there seems to be no better strategy than to vigorously defend it to the public (think John Kerry and the Swift Boat issue). The framing matters here a great deal. So long as those opposed to ID in the classroom respond by defending evolution, they are playing right into the hands of the ID folks. A better strategy is to put the focus of attention on ID as not being science, and thus not appropriate in the classroom.

Finally, on Krugman, once he made the leap from ID to global warming, he asserted a more general relationship of science and action, which is fair to critique.

"once he made the leap from ID to global warming, he asserted a more general relationship of science and action, which is fair to critique."

I have to agree with Dr. Pielke this point (that a critique is fair)... perhaps a better example for Krugman to use (instead of global warming) would have been women's reproductive rights or sex education. Although I am no expert on these subjects, I understand that the data supporting the effectiveness of comprehensive sex Ed, for example -- as opposed to abstinence only education -- is overwhelming and straightforward enough to essentially dictate policy.

Of course, had Krugman taken my advice, he would have been inundated with hateful letters condemning his lack of morality... but that is another issue.

"The scientific consensus on evolution does NOT dictate what should be taught in the classroom."

Oh, boy. I definitely don't agree with that!

Science classes should teach SCIENCE. Is Intelligent Design theory "science?" The answer is "no" UNLESS someone can come up with a way that Intelligent Design theory can be falsified (proven to be wrong).

Can Intelligent Design theory be proven wrong? If not, then it's NOT science. And it should NOT be taught in Science classes.

QED.

;-)

P.S. This can be contrasted to evolution or the Big Bang. As I've pointed out elsewhere, evolution and the Big Bang CAN be disproven, e.g.:

1) Find fully anatomically modern human remains that are 30, 50, or 100 million years old.

2) Find galaxies that look like the galaxies that are close to us (i.e., that we see as they were very recently) that are 30, 50, or 100 billion years old.

I am a bit mystified by this column. First, you accuse Krugman of claiming science should push his ideology. Why? The only quote you give is Krugman insisting that research ought to hold up to the scrutiny of one's peers, who invariably will have other biases of their own. What exactly do you object to about that? This quote that somehow strikes you as biased calls for nothing more than science conducted to find facts rather than PR to push an agenda. Do you disagree?

Then you attack Krugman for "cherry-picking" data about public perceptions. As evidence, you link to statistics showing a majority support Kyoto and believe in scientific consensus. But Krugman didn't say a "majority" doubt consensus, but "many" do. Which is true. Go to any political blog if you doubt it - and most of the global warming deniers will repeat arguments made by think tanks, which supports Krugman's theory.

To make matters worse, you misunderstand what the think tanks are trying to do. They want delay, not victory. They only objective is to insure that the public and media are as far behind the scientists as possible, so that any call for action -- or more importantly, regulation -- is softened or delayed. Once it is impossible to deny the science any more, the next move will be to either say global warming is good for you, or that it's too late to do anything about it.

So the fact that public opinion has finally caught on doesn't contradict anything Krugman is claiming. Nor does it follow that the corporate campaign has had the "opposite effect". One would hope overwhelming evidence would eventually win people over in the end. You judge the think tank's success by how long they kept them from getting there.

And again, nowhere does Krugman say anything about policy. He says research should be free from bias. He says there are those who try to fake science to influence policy. He suggests policy ought to be decided based on what science actually says, rather than a distortion of what they say. He says think tanks fake research to confuse the public. How do you get out of this that Krugman says science necessitates liberalism? He says science should be conducted scientifically!

Then, you take issue with Krugman saying that people have a hard time telling the difference between science and advocacy. This, you take to mean as Krugman calling for science to produce a certain outcome. Uh... it reads to me like he's saying there's science, which doesn't do that, and advocacy, which does, so he's against it.

Reading this, I can only conclude two things: 1) you believe it is liberal to denounce cherry-picking and insist that science be free of advocacy or 2) you've got some political blinders of your own.

On Salon today (8/22) Michael Scherer writes something of a companion piece to the Easterbrook article Roger refers to in this post. Scherer is covering Democratic attempts to replicate Republican success in growing think tanks.

Here's the link (free with an ad view):
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/08/22/alliance/index.html