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.

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:

(more…)

In today’s New York Times David Leonhardt has a column which debunks the supposed exodus of radiology work to India, finding such claims to be vastly overstated:

(more…)

Thanks to Chris Weaver who posted a link yesterday in the comments to a very interesting recent poll (here in PDF) from the National Journal on views of members of Congress on climate science and policy. The poll provides some empirical evidence to support a number of arguments made here on Prometheus. Here is my interpretation of the significance of the poll:

(more…)

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.

Here are some thoughts about a number of related op-eds that I came across this Sunday morning.

(more…)

Catastrophe (cat) models are computer models of expected losses that allow the insurance and reinsurance industries to have a quantitative basis for calculating the risks that they face and hence set prices in a manner that is actuarially sound (for some background see this post). At least, that is how it is supposed to work in theory. (Warning: This is a long and detailed post.)

In practice things are far more complex, not least because cat models are “black boxes” developed outside of the public view, which makes it impossible to evaluate them independently. Cat models, and their opaqueness, are the focus of an emerging debate between consumer groups and cat model companies. It is not an exaggeration to suggest that in this debate are some indications that hurricane insurance may be changing dramatically. Insurance Journal reported the following last week (Note: Risk Management Solutions (RMS) is a leading provider of “catastrophe models.”)

(more…)

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.

Kerry Emanuel and Michael Mann have a draft paper (which I haven’t seen, but I’ve seen Kerry present) in which they argue that the multi-decadal patterns of active/inactive hurricane periods in the Atlantic are mainly a function of anthropogenic forcings, including greenhouse gases and aerosols. Related to this work Emanuel makes a bold forecast reported in today’ Palm Beach Post:

“It’s unlikely we’ll ever see a quiet decade [for hurricanes] for the next 100 years in the Atlantic.”

I wonder if we’ll soon hear industry in the eastern US asking for relief from the Clean Air Act requirements justified in terms of reducing hurricane impacts (joke). More seriously, it’ll be a long time before Kerry’s prediction can be evaluated against observations, however, in the short-term, it simply adds to the overwhelming case already in place to enhance resilience to hurricane impacts in those regions known to be at risk to hurricane strikes.

MIT professor Richard Lindzen has an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal on the climate debate. He asserts:

Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. . . And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift.

.

I will grant him several of these claims – including the mindless labeling of certain scientists as industry stooges or scientific hacks – but the rest of these very serious claims need to be backed up by more than just bald assertion.

(more…)

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:

(more…)