Princeton’s Alan B. Krueger had an interesting commentary on academic earmarks in last week’s New York Times. Krueger writes,

“Increasingly, universities are being financed like farmers and military contractors, with legislative earmarks. According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, there were 1,964 earmarks to 716 academic institutions costing a total of $2 billion in the 2003 fiscal year, or just over 10 percent of the federal money spent on academic research. From 1996 to 2003, the amount spent on academic earmarks grew at an astounding rate of 31 percent a year, after adjusting for inflation. Earmarks contrast with the way the government finances most university projects, which is through open competitions for grants. In these competitions, agencies like the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health review grant applications, often consulting with outside experts, and base awards on the applications’ perceived merit. Earmarks are decided by a political process, without external peer review. As academic earmarks have grown, so have universities’ lobbying expenditures. Spending on lobbying jumped to $62 million in 2003 from $23 million in 1998, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education.”

Krueger cites several studies of earmarking. One study looked at the period 1997-1999 and found, not surprisingly, that the presence of a member of congress on a House or Senate appropriations subcommittee is a critical variable in explaining earmarking awards. The study also found that lobbying efforts have a significant monetary return to universities, which explains the growth in university lobbying efforts. Krueger cites another interesting study,

(more…)

In last week’s Science, John Marburger, science advisor to President Bush, calls (PDF, subscription required) for greater attention to science policy research:

“How much should a nation spend on science? What kind of science? How much from private versus public sectors? Does demand for funding by potential science performers imply a shortage of funding or a surfeit of performers? These and related science policy questions tend to be asked and answered today in a highly visible advocacy context that makes assumptions that are deserving of closer scrutiny. A new “science of science policy” is emerging, and it may offer more compelling guidance for policy decisions and for more credible advocacy.”

In my view, the “science of science policy” is being practiced most explicitly at Arizona State University’s Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes and our own Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado. Dr. Marburger’s Science editorial follows up on his recent AAAS speech on the same subject.

Needless to say, we agree about the need for more systematic study of science policy – that is, decisions made about science and decision made with science. Our mission (PDF) here at the University of Colorado is based on the assumption/hypothesis that science policy decision making can be improved by expanding the scope of choice available to science policy decision makers. Perhaps we’ll prove ourselves wrong, but we’ll sure have fun along the way.

David Shaywitz has a nice op-ed in Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal on the stem cell issue. The article is not available online. Shaywitz makes the case that the very same conservatives who decry “junk science” are hiding their moral objections to stem cell research behind scientific claims that adult stem cells are a good substitute for embryonic stem cells. Shaywitz writes:

“For true believers, of course, these scientific facts should be beside the point; if human embryonic stem cell research is morally, fundamentally, wrong, then it should be wrong, period, regardless of the consequences to medical research. If conservatives believe their own rhetoric, they should vigorously critique embryonic stem cell research on its own grounds, and not rely on an appeal to utilitarian principles. Instead, there has been a concerted effort to establish adult stem cells as a palatable alternative to embryonic stem cells. In the process, conservatives seem to have left their usual concern for junk science at the laboratory door, citing in their defense preliminary studies and questionable data that they would surely – and appropriately – have ridiculed were it not supporting their current point of view.”

I think that Shaywitz is right on here with the exception of one important point. I don’t think that conservatives (on the stem cell issue or generally) are alone in their concern over “junk science” or unique in their desire to hide behind science. People and interest groups from across the political spectrum have shown considerable willingness to engage in political battles through science. In fact, turning political debates into scientific debates is arguably one of the most robust areas of partisan agreement.

Today I am giving a presentation at a forum on climate change sponsored by the Reinsurance Association of America. For those who are visiting this weblog as a result of my invitation during my talk, welcome! I am serving on a panel with several distinguished scientists from the reinsurance industry:

Dr. Eberhard Faust Head of Climate Risks, Department of Geo Risks Research Environmental Management, Munich Reinsurance Company AG

Gerry Lemcke, Ph.D. Head, Catastrophe Perils Team, Swiss Re America Corporation

My talk focuses on current scientific understandings related to the attribution of trends in the growth of economic damages related to weather and climate extremes. My basic conclusion is that, despite various claims to the contrary in the media and by advocacy groups, looking back in time, the evidence from climate impacts scientists provides very little support for claims that any significant part of the trend of increasing economic losses is the result of changes in the frequency or intensity of weather or climate extremes. (We discussed this in some detail last year here and here). Below you can find a long list of relevant studies.

This conclusion is for two reasons. First, although extreme events have varied at all time scales in their occurrence and magnitude (and such variations can be seen in the impacts records), and one can present historical records of various lengths that show trends, there has been no secular increase in extreme events around the world over recent decades. This conclusion is well supported by the most recent assessment of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. A second reason is why the influence of extreme events is hard to detect is that the single most important factor responsible for the trend is increasing population and wealth in exposed locations. Any climate signal in the historical record will be difficult to detect, even after adjusting for societal factors, simply because the size of the climate signal is less than the errors in the societal data.

(more…)

CAREER OPPORTUNITY: PROGRAM OFFICER

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

(more…)

Over at openDemocracy.net they have an interesting series of articles on climate change. Jon Miller has an article published yesterday titled “Selling Climate Change” that contains some smart advice (do read the whole thing). Here we focus on his first suggestion; one that Prometheus readers know will find a lot of sympathy here: “Don’t debate the science.” He continues,

“Everybody knows that greens love getting into a good debate. It’s not surprising – there’s a powerful scientific, moral and commonsense case to be made for taking action. Unfortunately, those with a vested interest in doing nothing are too shrewd. In the United States especially, they have successfully entangled environmental change campaigners in detailed debates about the validity of the science. It’s a simple strategy: the likes of Exxon throw money at some financially compliant scientists, who produce a report with the appearance of credibility and objectivity. The greens, of course, leap to an enthusiastic defense of their case – and the trap is sprung: the public tunes out (too boring), the media downgrade the story (too complex) and the politicians have the greatest excuse for doing nothing (let’s wait until the science is clear). It’s entirely right to set out the case, of course – but the time has come to have confidence in the scientific consensus around climate change, and to stop debating the science. We urgently need to move the conversation from “is it really happening?” to “what do we do about it?”"

Miller’s call, like our own, to stop debating science is contrary to how many scientists describe their role in the political process. For example, a group of scientists writing last week in the openDemocracy forum make the claim that wise policy making requires accurate scientific judgments:

(more…)

It looks like we are seeing another flare up in the debate over stem cell research. Here is an excerpt from what I wrote on this last year in and op-ed in the Rocky Mountain News:

“If you want to liven up conversation at a dinner party, ask the following question: How much money would you take for your pinkie toe?”

Read the whole op-ed here (PDF).

The actions of municipalities in the U.S. and several major companies to respond to human caused climate change by reducing their green house emissions has caused some to suggest that these decision makers have been persuaded by science to change their behaviors. But what if this interpretation of their actions is incorrect?

Surely some people do undergo “data induced transformations” of their policy commitments when presented with new information. But it is probably just as if not more likely that, as Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay have observed, “people generally come to their beliefs about how the world works long before they encounter facts.” Such distinctions matter because they shape how people think about science in the politics of climate change. For many people the challenge of climate change is to convince “skeptics” or the uniformed of the scientific consensus on climate change under an expectation that such convincing will invariably lead to certain actions. But what if support for action on climate change has origins in factors other than knowledge of science? (Or alternatively, what if battling over science actually hinders effective policy?)

Consider the following two vignettes:

(more…)

The energy policy debate over climate change has largely been framed as an issue of managing the global climate for long-term benefits with the extra benefits of reducing dependence on foreign oil, increased efficiency and decreased particulate pollution. For example, A New York Times editorial today restates this logic:

“there is some talk that Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman may offer a bill imposing industrywide caps as an amendment on the Senate floor. But a properly drawn energy bill has the potential to do much good, especially if it avoids rewarding the old polluting industries, as the House version does, and focuses instead on putting serious money behind cleaner fuels, cleaner power plants and cleaner cars. That these measures would also ease the country’s dependency on overseas oil is, of course, a persuasive side benefit.”

But what if energy policy were to be characterized in terms of a primary need to reduce dependence on foreign oil, increased efficiency and decreased particulate pollution, and with the resulting side benefit of reducing the impacts of humans on the climate system?

The difference in framing is of critical importance for practical action, e.g., it shapes arguments made in advocacy, and influences the role of science in political debates. As progress on reducing emissions has yet to show any signs of success with respect to policy goals (e.g., such as those of the Climate Convention). A large body of experience — including the adoption of Kyoto, Europe’s policy actions, the possibility of McCain/Lieberman, corporate and state endorsements of emissions limitations, etc. – might suggest that the current framing is not particularly effective. In this circumstance will there come a time when advocates for changes in energy policies consider how things might be done differently? Or are we, for better or worse, on the path that we are on for the long term? Thinking about degree to which changes to energy policy ought to be advocated in terms of their short term versus long term benefits might be a good place to start thinking about new options. Without a doubt, the current debate emphasizes the long term issues over the short term, which, and the Times states, are all but dismissed as merely a side benefit.

On several occasions I have alluded to the fact that I think that the debate over the so-called “hockey stick” temperature reconstruction is a distraction from the development and promulgation of climate policy. And the debate goes on (and on). We have written frequently about the core dynamic of the climate debate in which political opponents pick a scientific sandbox to fight in, with little connection to policy, and fight things out in a public manner under a pretense that the debate has significance beyond science. Over time this skeptic vs. hawk debate has taken place over a supposed CO2 sink in North American, surface vs. satellite temperature trends, hurricanes and climate change and also the “hockey stick” (among other areas). Within science (including my own area of expertise) subject matter experts engage in vocal and at times nasty debates over knowledge. Such dust-ups are characteristic of the academic enterprise. But I’d assert that the battles over climate science go far beyond typical academic wrangling, are really proxy wars over something else. But what is that something else?

(more…)