Interesting things about blogs.. I decided to look at how people got to this blog and noticed that some were linking from Judith Curry’s climate blog here. Turns out that they are having a discussion of some of the points in the post I wrote for Roger Pielke Jr.’s blog, with many more comments (318) than at Roger’s blog here (2, so far) or when I posted it here (0). So if you are interested in this discussion, check it out.
Here’s a quote from her post.
Sharon… makes the following four recommendations:
Here are my four principles for improving the use of information in policy, (1) joint framing and design of research with policymakers (2) explicit consideration of the relevance of practitioner and other forms of knowledge (3) quality measures for scientific information (including QA/QC, data integrity and peer and practitioner review), and (3) transparency and openness of review of any information considered and its application to policy.
The bolded statement is of particular relevance to this topic. In the politics of climate expertise, which experts should be paid attention to?
Steve Schneider had very clear views on this, as evidenced in this interview with Rick Piltz shortly before his death, about the PNAS paper. It is the elite climate scientists (which includes geophysical scientists, ecologists and economists) as judged by their number of publications and citations. Many reputable scientists such as Syun Akasofu (a solar physicist and climate skeptic) were not included in the statistics because he had not published more than 20 papers that were judged to be on the topic of climate. Seems to me that Akasofu has more knowledge about detection and attribution than nearly all of the biologists and economists included in the “list”?
Given the breadth of the topic of climate change, its impacts, and policy options, it seems that considerable breadth of expertise is needed, i.e. “all hands needed on deck.” But there seems to be a turf battle over “which experts,” as evidenced by the PNAS paper and the continued appeal to the IPCC consensus.
Here’s a link to another of my posts on this topic on Roger Pielke, Jr.’s blog.
My concern is that it is not clear what problem the memo is intended to solve. I am not sure that the authors are aware of the dailiness of using science in a variety of government decisions at different spatial and temporal scales. In clumsily attempting to go after the misbehaving, they are likely to target the innocent for unnecessary work. In this economic climate, one would think that people would be more careful about requiring hordes of federal employees to develop and follow unclear and unnecessary policies.
Here’s my summary of the memo (more on the guidelines later).
1. What if we were to apply the ideas espoused in the memo to the promulgation of the memo (as the memo is policy) itself? We might expect a section describing how the work of noted science policy experts was used in the development of the memo, with peer-reviewed citations. I’d expect to see Jasanoff, Sarewitz and Pielke, Jr., at least, cited.
2. Here are my four principles for improving the use of information in policy, (1) joint framing and design of research with policymakers (2) explicit consideration of the relevance of practitioner and other forms of knowledge (3) quality measures for scientific information (including QA/QC, data integrity and peer and practitioner review), and (3) transparency and openness of review of any information considered and its application to policy.
3. If the DQA (Data Quality Act) and the “Integrity” work are seen to be the result of inchoate longings by many for an improved “science to policy” process; and if they seem each to have become, instead, weapons to slime the opposing political party, then why not establish a bipartisan commission on improving the use of scientific and technical information in policy? Science policy experts would advise the commission, and the deliberations would be transparent and open to public comment. The terrain to be explored would include my four principles above, and add considerations of involving citizens more directly in working with the relevant Congressional committees in developing federal research budgets and priorities.
Some of you may be interested in this piece I wrote for Roger Pielke, Jr.’s blog on the GAO report on FS R&D, and the comments. Roger also put in links to some key work including this article by Sarewitz and Pielke which is well worth a read. If you are not familiar with this literature, which examines how scientific processes work, I recommend this piece as an introduction. In the FS, one of our leaders once described self-awareness as a key component for her selection of individuals for leadership positions. In my view, science policy studies is a field that is key to self-awareness of the scientific community.
Here’s a quote from the Sarewitz/Pielke paper:
The idea that the creation of scientific knowledge is a process largely independent from the application of that knowledge within society has had enormous political value for scientists, because it allows them to make the dual claims that (1) fundamental research divorced from any consideration of application is the most important type of research (Weinberg, 1971) and (2) such research can best contribute to society if it is insulated from such practical considerations, thus ensuring that scientists not only have putative freedom of inquiry, but also that they have control over public resources devoted to science. The continued influence of this perspective was recently asserted by Leshner (2005), Chief Executive Office of the American Association for the Advancement of Science: ‘‘. . . historically science and technology have changed society, society now is likely to want to change science and technology,
or at least to help shape their course. For many scientists, any such overlay of values on the conduct of science is anathema to our core principles and our historic success.’’
I know that many in the natural resource/forestry/public lands community are not aware of, or do not have time to keep up with, the science policy literature. I am curious as to what readers think of my post on the conveyor belt model and the Sarewitz/Pielke paper.
Recent Comments