Comments on: Response from William Colglazier on Science Academies as Political Advocates http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3607 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Eli Rabett http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3607&cpage=1#comment-1808 Eli Rabett Mon, 26 Sep 2005 01:49:47 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3607#comment-1808 IMHO the issues are not being framed correctly. More to the point, the issue is being framed in a way that supports a prearrived at conclusion. The mission of the several national academies is to provide the best possible advice on scientific and technical issues to their governments. Historically and currently most national academies do a really good job of this. Where this is not the case, the academies are constrained by the ideology of their governments, not of the academy members or of the national technical/scientific community. Excellent examples of this are the former Soviet dominated governments and China. There are some cases where academies are asked to cooperate in evaluating policies. Usually this is done in collaboration with political entities. The problem we face today in the United States has nothing to do with this. The National Academies are quite prepared to see their advice ignored, or even "yes but we have more important things to do firsted". What has set them off is that the current US administration is distorting their advice to the public in order to justify policy choices. They are not going to hold still for that, even at the risk of being OTAed. IMHO the issues are not being framed correctly. More to the point, the issue is being framed in a way that supports a prearrived at conclusion.

The mission of the several national academies is to provide the best possible advice on scientific and technical issues to their governments.

Historically and currently most national academies do a really good job of this. Where this is not the case, the academies are constrained by the ideology of their governments, not of the academy members or of the national technical/scientific community. Excellent examples of this are the former Soviet dominated governments and China.

There are some cases where academies are asked to cooperate in evaluating policies. Usually this is done in collaboration with political entities.

The problem we face today in the United States has nothing to do with this.

The National Academies are quite prepared to see their advice ignored, or even “yes but we have more important things to do firsted”. What has set them off is that the current US administration is distorting their advice to the public in order to justify policy choices.

They are not going to hold still for that, even at the risk of being OTAed.

]]> By: Roger Pielke Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3607&cpage=1#comment-1807 Roger Pielke Jr. Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:53:28 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3607#comment-1807 Dylan- Thanks. Actually my point is not so much to draw a line between advocating for particular policies and not doing so, but to recognize the consequences of making such choices. Please read this post for more elaboration of these points: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000405honest_broker_part_.html On climate change I am clearly advocating a particular framing of the problem. I also think that the IPCC should serve as an honest broker of policy options. I think that these two positions are perfectly compatible. Similarly, I think that the NRC should not engage in political advocacy. Dylan- Thanks. Actually my point is not so much to draw a line between advocating for particular policies and not doing so, but to recognize the consequences of making such choices. Please read this post for more elaboration of these points:

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

On climate change I am clearly advocating a particular framing of the problem. I also think that the IPCC should serve as an honest broker of policy options. I think that these two positions are perfectly compatible. Similarly, I think that the NRC should not engage in political advocacy.

]]> By: Dylan Otto Krider http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3607&cpage=1#comment-1806 Dylan Otto Krider Fri, 23 Sep 2005 16:52:22 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3607#comment-1806 I think the concerns over scientists advocating policy does have obvious pitfalls. But when I said previously that it seemed like you were drifting dangerously close to calling for a particular policy, you seemed to say you were a policy guy. So, when is it appropriate to call for a particular policy? What's the difference between saying science shows that reducing CO2 emissions won't do much to stop hurricanes, and that science shows CO2 is contributing to hurricane intensity (however small), or that climate change might have costs and negatives associated with it? Why is calling to NOT reduce greenhouse gases appropriate, but calling for reductions inappropriate? Is it that as a policy guy you don't have to limit yourself as a straight researcher would? I think the concerns over scientists advocating policy does have obvious pitfalls. But when I said previously that it seemed like you were drifting dangerously close to calling for a particular policy, you seemed to say you were a policy guy.

So, when is it appropriate to call for a particular policy? What’s the difference between saying science shows that reducing CO2 emissions won’t do much to stop hurricanes, and that science shows CO2 is contributing to hurricane intensity (however small), or that climate change might have costs and negatives associated with it? Why is calling to NOT reduce greenhouse gases appropriate, but calling for reductions inappropriate? Is it that as a policy guy you don’t have to limit yourself as a straight researcher would?

]]>