History again repeats itself as farce.

Message From the Under Secretary

Feb 14, 2006

There have been several print and internet articles recently that have tried to make a case that NOAA scientists are being muzzled. For example, a few recent media reports have (incorrectly) asserted that some NOAA scientists have been discouraged from commenting on the question of whether human caused global warming may be influencing the number or intensity of hurricanes. Let me state in the most direct terms that I am a strong believer in open, peer reviewed science as well as the right and duty of scientists to seek the truth and to provide the best scientific advice possible. When I answer questions on NOAA missions, my answers are formed on the basis of the scientific papers that I have personally read, or have been informed by you in the course of NOAA business.

Peer reviewed science speaks for itself and doesn’t need me or anyone else to interpret or modify the results. For those of you who know me personally, you realize that I encourage and actively pursue vigorous debate on all topics, particularly including science related to NOAA’s mission. The purpose is to get as close to the truth and the facts as possible. I expect my management team to adhere to this policy of scientific openness as well.

Our media standards also reflect an open policy. We encourage our public affairs staff to keep abreast of media interests. I encourage our scientists to speak freely and openly. Dozens of you every day are talking to the media and providing the results of peer reviewed science across a wide variety of NOAA topics. We ask only that you specify when you are communicating personal views and when you are characterizing your work as part of your specific contribution to NOAA’s mission. Also, I ask that you respect, and seek to understand, each other’s work within NOAA. We have many disciplines and centers of excellence within NOAA, all contributing substantially to the body of earth science knowledge. Be tolerant of each other as would your colleagues around the nation and the world. “One NOAA” should apply to our work as scientists as well as our management structure!

Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr.
Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator

Thanks much for your questions. The below is surely more than you want, but it is what I provided to the National Science Board last week in a workshop on where hurricane research priorities should lie. (I have not reproduced the NSB questions, but they should be obvious.) Bottom line: Advances in policy implementation do not await further discoveries about the behavior of storms. Not all existing knowledge is well used in huricane policy, especially in developing countries.

—————
The relevant scientific communities have prepared detailed summaries of research priorities. The social science community held a workshop last year with a summary paper available here:

Social Science Research Needs for the Hurricane Forecast and Warning System – December 5, 2005, Hugh Gladwin, Jeff Lazo, Betty Morrow, Walter Gillis, Hugh Willoughby
http://swiki.ucar.edu/sip/uploads/31/2005.05_Social_Science_Research_Needs_for_the_Hurricane_Forecast_and_Warning_System.pdf

The U.S. Weather Research Program in 2000 prepared a report describing research priorities for hurricane research:

http://box.mmm.ucar.edu/uswrp/implementation/hurricane/USWRP_IMPLEMENTATION_PLAN_921.htm

Last year’s Interdepartmental Hurricane Conference discussed research priorities:

http://www.ofcm.gov/ihc05/linking_file_ihc05.htm
————–
While there is always a need for long-term basic research, for research justified in terms of contributing to societal goals there is a pressing need for research on research to better understand what research has (a) been effective in advancing hurricane-related policies, and (b) holds the greatest potential to be useful to decision makings in the future.

Such research on research can be used to help shape research and research portfolios in traditional science and engineering disciplines – that is to align research priorities with the expected benefits of research. For example, would research on inland flooding processes hold greater potential benefits than research on storm surge?

Additional research is needed to improve processes of technology transfer and to turn research results into products and services of government and the private sector
—————
Leadership is needed to elevate the importance of the research proposed in #1 and #2 above to a greater level of prominence than it has received within the community.

I was curious if you had a sense of which research directions within hurricane science are the most relevant to near-term hurricane policy. For example, are the short- and medium-range forecasting systems good enough to support most any disaster management option? I suppose if we could more precisely place the landfall, the intensity of winds at landfall, and the amount and time distribution of the precipitation that will fall, we could be more selective about when and where to evacuate, but we might already be doing close to as well as we can.

Is there anything coming down the pipe in hurricane research that will really change how we respond to the threat? Or is all the low-hanging fruit on the social science, risk communication, local government, infrastructure, etc. side?

Thanks, -Chris