Two Distinguished Scientists, Two Views on Science in Politics

August 15th, 2008

Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Today I came across two views of the role of science in politics presented by two very distinguished scientists. The first, Harvard’s John Holdren, tells us that:

The science of climate change is telling us that we need to get going.

The notion that science tells us what to do leads Holdren to appeal to authority to suggest that not only are his scientific views correct, but because his scientific views are correct, then so too are his political views.

Members of the public who are tempted to be swayed by the denier fringe should ask themselves how it is possible, if human-caused climate change is just a hoax, that:

The leaderships of the national academies of sciences of the United States, Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, Russia, China, and India, among others, are on record saying that global climate change is real, caused mainly by humans, and reason for early, concerted action.

This is also the overwhelming majority view among the faculty members of the earth sciences departments at every first-rank university in the world.

All three of holders of the one Nobel prize in science that has been awarded for studies of the atmosphere (the 1995 chemistry prize to Paul Crutzen, Sherwood Rowland, and Mario Molina, for figuring out what was happening to stratospheric ozone) are leaders in the climate-change scientific mainstream.

U.S. polls indicate that most of the amateur skeptics are Republicans. These Republican skeptics should wonder how the presidential candidate John McCain could have been taken in. He has castigated the Bush administration for wasting eight years in inaction on climate change, and the policies he says he would implement as president include early and deep cuts in U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions. (Barack Obama’s position is similar.)

The extent of unfounded skepticism about the disruption of global climate by human-produced greenhouse gases is not just regrettable, it is dangerous. It has delayed – and continues to delay – the development of the political consensus that will be needed if society is to embrace remedies commensurate with the challenge.

By contrast, Robert Lackey a career scientist at EPA, paints a very different picture:

Recently I presented a talk to a group of community activists about why salmon populations along the West Coast have dropped to less than 5% of their historical levels. I’ve given such talks many times so I was confident that I had heard just about every question that might be asked. I was wrong.

The opening question was asked by a well known political activist. He was direct, pointed, and bursting with hostility: “You scientists always talk about our choices, but when will you finally tell us what we SHOULD do about the dramatic decline of West Coast salmon? Quit talking about the science and your research and tell us what we should do! Let’s get on with it!”

From the nods of approval offered by many in the audience, his impatience with science and scientists was broadly shared. . .

In a pluralistic society, with a wide array of values and preferences competing for dominance, the ecological policy debate is usually centered around whose values and preferences will carry the day rather than over scientific information.

So what was my answer to the emotionally charged question from the political activist? It was: “Science, although an important part of policy debates, remains but one element, and often a minor one, in the decision-making process. We scientists can assess the ecological consequences of various policy options, but in the end it is up to society to prioritize those options and make their choices accordingly.”

He wasn’t pleased.

If you are a scientist, then you have to figure out what you think about the relation of science in policy and politics. If you think that science compels political outcomes then you will follow the lead of John Holdren. If you think that science does not compel political outcomes, then you’ll follow the lead of Robert Lackey. But you do have to choose.

My advice? See what scholars of science in policy and politics have to say about this question, and make an informed decision. One of these distinguished scientists has views consistent with the consensus view of relevant experts, and one does not.

11 Responses to “Two Distinguished Scientists, Two Views on Science in Politics”

    1
  1. Sylvain Says:

    I’m not a scientist per se, I’m more an historian, but I am still a scientist at heart.

    I most say that I recognized myself better in Robert Lackey’s views.

    I’m really not one to jump of the bridge because some prophet says so, no matter how many of them there are. And to tell me that I should believe because many believe sound more like a religion speech than a scientific one.

    In climate change, one can be very skeptic of the science and support some level of action toward mitigation. Ex. me

    Another one might support the consensus and yet oppose the proposed policies. Ex Bjorn Lomborg.

    Some might support both. And some other neither.

    I pointed in many other discussion I had on other forum, something I believe Roger also pointed, that relying solely on the science argument to provoke action actually didn’t help the cause of those who wish strong action now.

    Climate science has many uncertainties and to use any specific graphic as a selling argument, leaves the possibilities to other to alter the debate.

    The best example is the hockey sticks. Many activist say that we don’t need to know what happened in the last 1000 years and they are right. Yet the graph is always at the forefront of the argumentation. If it is not important don’t use it, don’t fight to protect it.

    Hansen lashed out against CEO for having obstructed the switch to renewable energy. Are they really responsible, or is it the activists responsibilities to have lead the debate on the wrong path.

    I believe that if activist had given this argument their would be a lot electricity coming from renewable energy. the argument is that with the emerging economy of China and India it is certain that the price of gas even coal will rise. So to continue to build gas and coal power plant is somewhat ridiculous since it only cause a faster rise of price. But if instead of building these new power plant the developed countries built more nuclear, wind farm and solar plant, the demand for gas wouldn’t be has fast. Maybe electricity would be a little bit more expensive 10$ to 25$/ month, but cheaper than the rise in gas for going to work which for many people is more than 50$/month. My point is that if there is something to be gain by climate change, sell it with argument that people want to listen to.

    Sorry if I got of topic along the way.

  2. 2
  3. dogwood Says:

    I believe it is wise for scientists to stick to the science and let voters and politicians decide what, if anything, to do with the results.

    When scientists become political activists they run the risk of undermining their own credibility because they are no longer objective seekers of facts and knowledge, but just another partisan in the debate.

    Politicizing science will ultimately undermine the public’s trust in science, and that will have significant detrimental effects for all of society, especially the scientists.

  4. 3
  5. Francois Ouellette Says:

    I’m spending this summer reading about the relationship between science and technology. It has occured to me that there are two types of activities related to knowledge: the “explanation”, and the “application”. The “explanation” is the realm of the scientists, the “application” that of the inventors and the engineers. Even though common wisdom gives a lot of credit to science (and scientists) for our modern technology, history tells us otherwise. The most famous inventors, from James Watts to Thomas Edison, had little scientific background, or even education per se. Edison left school in the 4th grade! Yet inventors have often been ahead of scientists, who were then left to “explain” what the inventors had done. So, historically, scientists have proven to be very good at explanation, but rather poor at application.

    How is this relevant to this thread? Well, policy response is just another example of “application”. While climate scientists may be good at explaining the reasons for climate change, it is a stretch to believe that they are also good at finding solutions to the potential problem. This is quite obvious, listening to their ever stringent call for “emission reduction”, as some sort of universal and unique solution, which most people think is hardly feasible in practice (as we are witnessing anyway).

    In fact, often in history when scientists became the promoters of specific policies, they turned out to be wrong, sometimes tragically wrong. But I don’t expect them to learn from history, for the simple reason that most scientists know nothing of history, if not for the myths that comfort them in their special social status…

  6. 4
  7. erik144 Says:

    John Holdren makes a good point, one that I grapple with as a skeptic. Well, he almost makes a good point. There are lots of Nobel prize winners who are skeptical of the AGW consensus–mostly physicists. I would argue that global warming is much more of a physics problem than an atmospheric chemistry problem. And the thing about McCain is just weird–is John Holdren appealing to the scientific authority of John McCain?

    But his point about the various academies is good. However, my best attempt scientific understanding just does not match the consensus view. What should I do? Just pretend I agree with everybody? Trust their authority, even though I my scientific experience tells me otherwise.

    Still, it’s a valid point, and one which troubles me.

  8. 5
  9. Krumhorn Says:

    Holdren chooses to make that point that skeptics are often Republicans. But he fails to address the likely party affiliation of the faculty of earth science departments and the other prominent proponents such as Hansen.

    The fact that this debate (and no, the debate isn’t over…it is only just starting) often breaks down between those who favor social engineering and one-world socialist government political views and those who don’t should be the next topic of drivel from Holdren. Because it is pretty darn obvious to me.

    For the loopy political libs, science is just another anvil against which to hammer out their social objectives. And the more heat the better.

    Otherwise, this discussion would be much cooler and more collegial.

    ……………….

  10. 6
  11. TokyoTom Says:

    Roger, I think you’ve framed this incorrectly:

    “If you are a scientist, then you have to figure out what you think about the relation of science in policy and politics. If you think that science compels political outcomes then you will follow the lead of John Holdren. If you think that science does not compel political outcomes, then you’ll follow the lead of Robert Lackey. But you do have to choose.”

    I imagine that Holdren and Lackey would both agree that science doesn’t in general compel particular political outcomes. Where they may disagree is about what scientists ought to do – with respect to issues that particularly concern them.

    On this, Lackey, as a career government scientist who has been a close witness of the long-term decline of the West coast salmon fisheries – an issue that obviously concerns him and that he has invested energy in trying to play midwife to political progress on – not only displays an awareness on his own limited effectiveness (and the risks to his job in aggressively taking a policy position) but also seems to be emotionally distancing himself from the collapse of the fisheries. It’s hardly surprising that in this case Lackey recommends self-restraint among scientists, but Lackey certainly hasn’t established that self-restraint by scientists actually helps to promote better policy.

    On the other hand we have Holdren, who is not a bureaucrat and is certainly no one’s Lackey (forgive the horrible pun). He has greater freedom to argue that climate policy action is justified – even though he certainly didn’t lay out any policy agenda in his op-ed – and to hope that, by arguing that the science supports taking action, he might help to persuade the public and politicians to act.

    Accordingly, the question for scientists is, if you are interested in pushing for certain policy outcomes on science-related issues, how can this be done most effectively, without damaging one’s own credibility or career.

  12. 7
  13. Flawed Science Advice for Obama? - TierneyLab Blog - NYTimes.com Says:

    [...] in Policy and Politics,” discussed Dr. Holdren’s conflation of science and politics in a post on the Prometheus blog: The notion that science tells us what to do leads Holdren to appeal to authority to suggest that [...]

  14. 8
  15. Science in Politics: Two Views : AWRA Water Blog Says:

    [...] post from the Prometheus Blog dates from August 2008, but since one of the participants is John Holdren, President-elect [...]

  16. 9
  17. BobZybach Says:

    It is too bad that Obama is being recognized for “bringing science back into the White House” — his appointments so far have been lock-step Global Warmer Goredites with an openly political agenda.

    Holdren is just one example. Lubchenko, for another, is noted for her leadership in getting George Taylor, Oregon’s long-time State Climatologist, fired from the Oregon State faculty because of his reasoned “Denier” conclusions. She is also known for the apocalyptic “Dead Zones”: an oceanographer’s cash cow whose “scientific’ basis has been discounted by the observations of knowledgeable coastal fishermen and by 150+ years of historical documentation. Yet the hysteria and funding continue unabated — now the fear is massive ocean reserves that will function in much the same way spotted owl “science” has killed the Northwest forest industry. With little, if any, apparent effect on spotted owl numbers.

    Scientists are not resource managers or elected officials. Global Warming science is the only discipline in which “proof” is attained via voting. Let us hope that Obama turns out to be as intelligent and as open-minded as his supporters claim. So far his appointments appear to be more suited to an oligarchy than a team of advisers.

    Robert Lackey is an ethical, credible scientist with a respect for his fellow man and for existing institutions. These attributes are in contrast to John Holdren.

  18. 10
  19. gunky Says:

    As TokyoTom says, I think Roger framed this incorrectly, though my argument is slightly different than TT’s. Full disclosure – I’m a federal scientist, have met Lackey a few times. and I’m relatively aware of his work. I don’t see any inherent conflict in the positions of Holdren and Lackey, because their jobs and roles are different. It’s apples and oranges. As an aside I also have met Lubchenko and find her to be an exceptional intellect and first class scientist. I have no idea how she’ll be as an administrator for NOAA, but I imagine she’ll be inspirational to the workforce, at least.That will be a major step forward.

    Like Lackey, my job is to interpret natural resources related data so that resource managers can make informed decisions. Over my career I’ve learned to watch for my own values creeping into the work I do and try to keep them out. Yes, it can be a fine line, and my colleagues and I frequently discuss the role of science in public policy. We take our jobs and our unbiased role very seriously. Most of us are fully cognizant that there are other factors in natural resources decisions, including both human and economic, and to be honest we’re happy we’re not the ones that have to make the decisions.

    But we are also all human, and staring in the ticking time bomb of climate change (for instance) certainly gives us pause. My own feelings about climate change (and this is not my field) are that (a) the evidence is overwhelming that we’ve altered several fundamental processes in the functioning of the climate, (b) the response is going to be very complex, so calling it “global warming” is probably an invitation to be discredited — “climate change” will be far more accurate, (c) many of our predictions will end up being wrong, though in what direction I have no idea. I wouldn’t be surprised if we were underestimating or overestimating the effects. Thresholds could be important. But I’m worried.

    I give you my viewpoint, which for climate change is irrelevant, only to make a point. That is, Holdren’s job is to use the scientific results provided by Lackey (and me, and others) to help frame the results of choices made by Obama and others in his administration. If he’s good and does it well, and those of us supplying him with scientific information are similarly competent, then Obama and the administration will have at least a fighting chance of understanding the repurcussions of their decisions. And yes, I fully recognize that there are also political repurcussions

    But science isn’t Holgren’s job. His job is ensuring that the decision is as well informed as can be. Our collective job as citizens is to hold him and the administration responsible for the results of their decisions. Speaking for myself, I’m thrilled to finally have the prospect of a president who wants to make his decisions on the basis of information from both sides of the coin rather than ignoring information that doesn’t suit his worldview.

  20. 11
  21. Climate Progress » Blog Archive » More proof Holdren is a great choice: Pielke, Tierney, Lomborg, and CEI diss him Says:

    [...] No attack on a scientist in the political realm would be complete without quoting the ever-debunked Pielke: Roger A. Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado and the author of “The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics,” discussed Dr. Holdren’s conflation of science and politics in a post on the Prometheus blog: [...]