Thanks. A few quick replies:

1. “Are you suggesting that it is dangerous for the RS or other sceince academies to try to police the science, unless they somehow at the same time are explicitly trying to engage in a discussion of policy options?”

Yes.

2. “Are you also saying that supporting the IPCC’s science summaries is itself political, since the summary was too political, by being too focussed on mitigation?”

I don’t think I really understand the question, but any effort to support science, consensus or whatever, in a highly politicized context inevitably risks a pathological politicization of the science.

Thanks!

Thanks for these further comments. We may be reaching some agreement here;-)

As far as separating science and politics, I have argued that it is just not possible, and this view is supported by a long history of STS research. This does not mean that all is hopeless. In my view the most effective way for scientific organizations to depoliticize debates involving science is to actively engage in a discussion of policy options.

This has the benefits of clearly associating science with action, and thus answers the “so what?” questions about particular scientific findings (e.g., the hockey stick). It also leaves no abiguity about whether or not the actor is serving as an advocate or not. An advocate will seek to restrict the scope of available choice, e.g., but disucssing only a preferred option.

So this leaves us in what I’ll admit is a situation that can seem a bit paradoxical at first:

The best way to separate science and politics is for scientists to explicitly engage in discussions of policy.

Efforts to separate science and politics in the absence of disucssions of polic can have the effective of fostering politicization.

On your point 2. we agree, and I emphasize the best route to political neutrality is to consider a wide range of policy options, not to ignore them.

Thanks!

1. I agree that it will help to resolve policy disputes if we can separate the scientific knowledge from the politics, because entangling the two may easily lead to policy deadlock – in which case, the integrity of the science becomes subject to question. This is a rather thorny problem, as in the case of climate change it was a deliberate strategy of the interest groups that benefit from the absence of an effective climate change policy to produce such an entanglement for the purpose of solidifying the deadlock. The result has been a discrediting of science and scientists generally by many on the right. Another difficult aspect is that, as many scientists view the scientific consensus about ongoing climate chage with very considerable alarm, it is only natural that any number of them would want to step forward in their individual capacities as citizens to make their voices heard. This of course feeds into the politicization process, but seems impossible to avoid.

I suppose I would share your view that the scientific organizations themselves can be important bulwarks against the politicization of science if they are scrupulously careful to avoid being seen as advocates for particular solutions (even while it would be acceptable for them to provide feedback on various proposals), and if prominent scientists within such groups make it clear when they speak as private citizens/advocates rather than as representatives of the larger body.

However, if the goal remains to separate the science from the political discussion, then I fail to understand why it would not be useful for scientific bodies to try to proactively police the boundaries of science by trying to make it clear when the science is being deliberately misinterpreted and by whom, or why such actions by scientific bodies would be dangerously political.

2. You indicate that to be seen as “honest brokers” scientific bodies must have “political legitimacy”. I understand that the scientiifc body should be seen to speak with some scientific authority and to be politically neutral; I think you have elsewhere implied that not being seen as politically neutral may also undermine the group’s perceived scientific authority. If that is your intention, I agree. But were you trying to make a different point?

3. We live in an increasingly complex world that we must simplify to make much sense of. I personally find economic analyis (including the Public Choice analysis of the misuse of government), the cognitive science of perception and understanding of our evolved tribal aspects of behavor all to be helpful.

Sincerely,

TT

Thanks for your comments. A few replies:

1. I pointed you to a post in which I defined an “honest broker of policy options.” If you want a pithy definition, here you go:

An honest broker of policy options seeks to expand or at least clarify the scope of available options.

An issue advocate seeks to reduce the scope of options.

A science arbiter seeks to answer positive questions in response to requests frompolicy makers.

2. I am not trying to be an honest broker of policy options. I am an issue advocate. An honest broker role is best served by institutions with the ability to convene a diverse group of expertise and perspectives, and has political legitimacy as well. The RS for example.

3. I’ve been criticized for many things, but not speaking in economic jargon is a new one

Thanks!

If you want the RS to be a “science arbiter”, doesn`t that imply that it should it be acting to say what the science is? Isn`t that more than half of the RS letter to Exxon?

If you are unwilling to respond to questions or to clarify what you mean by “honest broker” in the context of threads such as these about the Royal Society, other than by referring to an unpublished book and rather sketchy links, then what purpose is served by posting on these matters at all, other than to bash the RS, even though it is simply seeking to clarify when Exxon is hiding behind paid pundits?

It is not the Royal Society that is holding up progress, but the ability of favored interests such as Exxon in the US to get the ear of the Administration, together with the failure to rollout any meaningful obligations to China, India, etc., with the result that no party has strong incentives to comply with Kyoto as there are free riders who accept no obligations to bear costs. An “honest broker” would acknowledge that and suggest ways to move around the blockages, such as by finding some way to replace the benefit provided to fossil fuel producers/major consumer from free use of the global atmospheric commons as a GHG dump with an equivalent benefits – such as free emissions permits, tax credits/other subsidies for climate change technologies (sequestration and the like), or reduction of expensive and inefficient regulations, and by suggesting way that would persuade China and India to join as well (viz., carrots such as subsidies – that are now proveived free under the AP Initiative and sticks in the form of trade sanctions.

Regards,

TT

PS: Are you trying to be an “honest broker” yourself? If so, have you invested any time in understanding the legal and economic underpinnings of the problem, based on Coasean and Austrian concepts of lack of clear and enforceable property rights, Pigouvian concepts of market failure, and Public Choice analysis of how interested parties are able to corrupt the political process through rent-seeking behavior that benefits paricular politcal and/or bureaucratic elites? These provide essential paradigms for understanding how various actors perceive what is going on and their various preferences. Forgive me if I am mistaken, but it seems that you seldom if ever speak in any of the familar enviromental economics terms of externalities, public goods, “tragedy of the commons” and open-access resources. Lack of familiarity with the basic forms of economic analysis would certainly leave one adrift.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000405honest_broker_part_.html

Note that what I then called an “honest broker of science” in my book I call this a “science arbiter”.

I followed up this post with some examples:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000407honest_broker_part_.html

Please note that these ideas have since been through the process of acadeic review and many revisions, so hopefully that process has led to a better-written and more understandable presentation in the book.

Comments welcomed.

As TD noted, you just stated in your interview with the Daily Camera that “separating science and politics is a hopeless endeavor, and in fact efforts to keep science pure and apart from politics tend to have the opposite effect. It allows politics to be smuggled in behind the scenes where we don’t see it. So I call for scientists to more explicitly engage in the policy process.”

But your response to him seems to that you think that science academies should NOT engage in any direct or indirect policy advocacy, but should act as “honest brokers”. I wholly agree that scientific institutions should be careful about what they say, lest they be seen as an interested party and their scientific work conclusions discounted as a result. But I have a hard time figuring out what you mean as a practical matter.

In the case of climate change policy, are you suggesting that when scientists think that the situation is alarming, they should refrain from saying so? Or can they say that, but should refrain from stating that action should be taken? Or is it that they should refrain from explicitly suppporting policy options, other than to review scientific and technical aspects of policy options that have been submitted to them for review?

In addition, you fail to explain why, despite your stated belief that there is a scientific consenses and that such consensus is convincing, that it falls outside of the science academies’ “zone of honest broking” if the academies try to indicate when interested parties are either directly misstating the science – as the RS did in the whole first page of its letter to Exxon – or to surreptitiously to misstate the science through the anonymous funding of what you acknowledge are political pundits. As TD asked, why is it NOT “any business of the science academies to try to get the interested parties such as Exxon to speak directly”, or to seek information that will reveal when interested parties are deliberately politicizing the science?

I do not agree that either seeking such information or disclosing it is by itself a dangerously political act, either in its intention or as a literal matter – as its intention is to steer interested parties to either directly attack the science or to directly discuss the political implications of the science, and strictly speaking the information that would be sought and disclosed is factual information about how an interested party may be seeking to circumvent discussion.

You have acknowledged that seeking such information is not literally censorious; I would rreinforce that by saying that the RS request does not at all either prevent Exxon from expressing its views or from speaking in any manner it wishes. Rather, it simply tries to make the debate more open, by identifying when Exxon is actually speaking.

As TD said, “Clearly knowing who is speaking and why is useful for evaluating what they have to say.” Can you please explain why providing this service to the debate is overly political, such that the science academies should avoid it?

Thanks,

TT

I think it is important do distinguish between an individual mixing roles (i.e. a scientist advocating policy), which is potentially problematic, and a society, which is probably not. For a Society, it is possible to keep the science panel and the policy panel separate (using the right people for each role).

What should we expect of the RS? Well, I would like to see them answer questions like: “What, if any, harm might be caused by the consumption of GM food”, but also “What, if any, precautions are required with GMO food”. The first is scientific, the second is policy. But I would like to hear the views of the RS nevertheless.

Equally, I would want them to provide their perspective on policy options on climate change. I disagree with your criticism in the pdf you linked to in a previous response to me. I don’t think it would damage their credibility (so long as they chose the right people to form their panel).

And I don’t think it would mean that they cannot consider policy options other than the accepted ones. There’s no reason why they shouldn’t able to consider all policy options which are in the public domain. However, it is not the role of a review committe to generate new policy options.

The RS could and should also be involved in generating new policy options – but that’s a separate issue.

Thanks again for your thoughtful comments and questions.

You ask:

“Roger, are you going now going to take Scientific American and Jeffrey Sachs to task for calling out the Wall Street Journal on its abuse of the climate science? If not, why not?”

No. I do not view either Scientific American or Jeffrey Sachs as institutional candidates for honest brokering of policy alternatives. They are in my view advocates. By contrast the RS is one of the few institutions around that has a mandate, legitimacy, and resources to serve as an honest broker of policy options. Note that according to one comment here the RS in the past took Greenpeace to task for some GMO issue. I would hold the RS to the same standards in that case as in the Exxon situation.

You ask:

“If scientists should “more explicitly engage in the policy process,” then why is it inappropriate for a scientific academy to seek to clarify when fossil fuel providers or other interested parties are acting indirectly and anonymously through paid pundits?”

I want scientists to recognize that they have choices in how they actually engage in the policy process. Overt advocacy (or the stealth advocacy of arguing politics through science) is only one option of several. In my view the RS has taken on the characteristics of an interest group, rather than that of an honest broker of policy options.

It is completely fair to criticize my position based on the following two assertions:

1) There is no need for honest brokers of policy alternatives.

2) Such honest brokers of policy alternatives are in fact needed, but the RS should not be among them.

I happen to think that honest brokers of policy options are needed, and that the RS should be among them. Whatever one thinks about 1 and 2 above, I think that it is fauirly obvious that the RS letter is a strategy of overt advocacy, as described by Mr. Ward in his BBC4 interview.

Thanks!