|
Reflections on Science and PolicyRoger A. Pielke, Jr. "Some experts believe that science's influence in public policy matters has not been at such a low ebb since before World War I." – New York Times, 17 June 2001 On June 8, 2001, I participated in a forum on "Climate Change Science" organized by the National Academy of Sciences at the request of Senator Larry Craig (R-ID). Three senators and a cabinet member (along with a dozen or so congressional staffers) spent a morning with about 10 scientists discussing various aspects of the climate change issue. Later that afternoon I had a chance to discuss "policy research" with participants at the American Meteorological Society's Atmospheric Policy Colloquium. The juxtaposition of the Senate Forum and AMS Colloquium led me to conclude that I ought to reflect a bit on the experience of presenting research results directly to policy makers. The standard disclaimer applies: the reflections offered below are my own and are not necessarily endorsed or held by anyone (or any institution) connected with the WeatherZine. Some views expressed below may be provocative or even contrary to conventional wisdom. The views are offered to stimulate thinking and (hopefully) debate about the role of science in policy. Consider yourself warned! Two issues I'd like to raise relate to the role of the individual scientist in policy and the role of the science community in policy more generally. As I prepared for the Senate Forum a number of colleagues expressed concern that my work might be used (or misused) in the political process to support particular positions. In a nutshell, my position, shared with a number of colleagues, is that the "global warming: yes or no?" debate has become an obstacle to effective policy action related to climate. Several of these colleagues suggested that I should downplay the policy implications of my work showing that for a range of phenomena and places, future climate impacts depend much more on growing human vulnerability to climate than on projected changes in climate itself (under the assumptions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). One colleague wrote, "I think we have a professional (or moral?) obligation to be very careful what we say and how we say it when the stakes are so high." In effect, some of these colleagues were intimating that ends justify means or, in other words, doing the "right thing" for the wrong reasons is OK. For the AMS Policy Colloquium participants I likened this situation to the following hypothetical. Imagine that as policy makers are debating intervening militarily in a foreign country, the media report that 1,000 women and children were brutally murdered in that country. This report inflames passions and provides a very compelling justification for the military intervention. A journalist discovers that, contrary to the earlier reports, only 10 soldiers died. What is the journalist's obligation to report the "truth" knowing full well that it might affect political sentiments that were shaped by the earlier erroneous report? When science is used (and misused) in political advocacy, there are frequent opportunities for such situations to arise. Research as Policy The quote from the New York Times highlighted at the beginning of this editorial suggests that science is playing a smaller and smaller role in policy. One reason for this may well lie in the actions of the scientific community itself. The climate issue provides a good example. Soon after the National Academy of Sciences released its recent report on Climate Change Science on June 6, President George W. Bush recommended increasing support for climate observations and computing power for modeling. Many of his recommendations were immediately criticized, such as in a commentary in the June 25 issue of Business Week titled "Global warming needs more than just another study." It is important to note that in both the Academy's Climate Change Science report and in the Senate Forum, the only recommendations offered by the scientific community were for more climate observations and faster computers! Thus, in one sense the quote from the New York Times is incorrect: at least in the case of climate, policy makers are listening to scientists and acting on their recommendations. But in another sense the quote is very accurate: the advice on climate scientists are giving policy makers is largely irrelevant to effective action, and arguably part of the problem. I believe there is more to this than just the scientific community acting in its own narrow self-interests (though to be sure, there is some of that!). My experience in the Senate Forum reinforced my perceptions that there are institutional and intellectual obstacles at the interface of science and policy with which the scientific community has yet to grapple. For example, in 1991 the National Academy of Sciences published a report titled Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming. Much of this report remains current, valuable, completely nonpartisan, and yet utterly neglected. Surely after more than $18 billion has been invested in global change research since 1990, the scientific community can do more than simply recommend "more research"! Given that scientific knowledge is in some way relevant to most important policy decisions, organizations like the National Academies have a responsibility to increase their ability to place science into policy contexts while avoiding partisan politics. Because the climate issue is so topical and raises people's passions, it provides an opportunity to discuss, debate, and ultimately improve the inter-connections of science and policy more generally. My experience with policy makers in the Senate Forum was positive. I was very impressed by the engagement and interest of the policy makers present (half a day is indeed a big commitment for these folks). At the same time, I was left with the feeling that we in the research community can and should do more – much more – to ensure effective connections of research and action. – Roger A. Pielke, Jr. Comments? thunder@ucar.edu WeatherZine #28 Home Page
| Comments and Feedback
| Site Map |
