« Hiding behind locked doors | Main | Softball - in a parallel universe »
April 18, 2006
But how do we know that the answer is forty two?
by Sylvia S Tognetti
I was about to blog an op-ed by David Michaels about the new film Thank you for Smoking* and about further developments in the Data Quality Act saga - I see that Chris Mooney beat me to it, and notes that many of the Bush administration science games are happening under the radar - like at OMB - where, as I have noted, political appointees have a lot more power than public relations officers at NASA. (i.e., George Deutsch). I hadn't quite gotten around to blogging about the DQA because, how we insure data quality is a topic that merits some serious and substantive discussion - and it takes time to deconstruct misleading and malicious soundbites in the length of a blog post. In case you haven't noticed, the use of misleading and malicious orwellian soundbites as titles to legislation is a pattern.
The DQA, a bill that was passed without debate as a "midnight rider" to the 2001 appropriations bill, would in effect institutionalize the manufacture of uncertainty and doubt, and also its abuse, to support arbitrary and capricious behavior by those entrusted to make policy decisions. In other words, instead of being merely a public relations strategy of big tobacco and big oil companies, it would become government policy, to use science to make a case that there is not enough information to make what is essentially a value judgment. In a new development, according to Michaels, "Now, with its risk assessment proposal, the Bush administration is interpreting the DQA as a license to override the Clean Air Act and laws meant to protect the public's health and environment." I haven't entirely read the new proposed risk assessment guidelines but I'll take his word for it. (see footnote for a digression)
The only reason this strategy of manufacturing doubt and uncertainty works at all is because of the rampant Low Tolerance for Ambiguity that seems to be endemic to our culture. This is not so much an issue of public myth-understanding of science, but of how policy issues are framed. A narrow technical framing of social problems - and of how risk assessments are conducted, implies that we just need to get the science and the prices right, usually leaves out most of what people who are affected care about, like fairness and actually having clean air and water, i.e., values, which then become merely obstacles to be overcome in the implementation phase. This also creates false and unrealistic expectations of what science can tell us, and essentially becomes a one-way flow of information from scientists to policy makers. Ultimately it polarizes and paralyzes the whole process of making a decision - which seems to be the whole point of the DQA and the proposed risk assessment guidelines.
* I may have more comments after I see the film - If you are in the DC area, you should make sure to see the film at the recently restored AFI Silver theater in Silver Spring which, if you haven't been to yet, is awesome, and not just for the decor.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Footnote digression: Another pattern that goes back at least as long as I have been around as a witness to all of this nonsense is to strangle outnumbered public interest lawyers and advocates with technical documents to respond to. Its just a trap. In the early '80s I worked as an assistant to a lawyer who was intervening in the licensing hearings for the restart of the other Three Mile Island facility, that had been down for maintenance at the time the other one melted down (btw, TMI stands for "They Melted It"). Finally, after the company was criminally convicted for behavior that led to the accident, she went after the license on grounds that the conviction demonstrated "bad character" and that we shouldn't allow criminals to be running nuclear plants - we do, and btw, NRC stands for "Nobody Really Cares" but I digress.... ok, back to the present. The lesson seems to have been learned - that the only rational way to answer the climate denialists is to play bingo and move on.
Posted by Sylvia S Tognetti at April 18, 2006 12:32 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.postnormaltimes.net/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/100
"would in effect institutionalize the manufacture of uncertainty and doubt, and also its abuse, to support arbitrary and capricious behavior by those entrusted to make policy decisions."
You mean like "Royal Authority" by the Power of God. Or is it the Senate Rules the President?
How would the Pope & the US President settle a policy dispute.
With the finger on the proverbial button, or with the stroke of a pen (feather pen)
Posted by: Q at April 21, 2006 11:34 AM
"This also creates false and unrealistic expectations of what science can tell us, and essentially becomes a one-way flow of information from scientists to policy makers."
Not only what "Science" can tells us, but more what "Science" can do about disease, or illness and congenital diseases.
Science can create miracles in words that do not translate into deeds for patients and/or hospitals.
They still talk of bionic limbs, but you don´t see many appearing in specialised sports shops or activity shops alongside all the rest of the "fashionable" paraphernaelia & designer apparels or clothing design.
I guess Market Forces & Command Economies only diverge on how much is spent on war + medicine.
I guess two competing forces for a moon station would mean you´d get both Coke & Pepsi on the Moon
Posted by: Q at April 21, 2006 3:32 PM
Does nobody find it strange that Climate Change sgeptics, have yet to provide one solution for:
(1) Nuclear Waste - burying it in Caves & the desert, is like the ostrich burying its head, it doesn´t make the problem go away.
(2) Sink CO2 - only applies to CO2 emissions from Oil/Gas wells, not to CO2 emissions released by cars, hauliers & industry into the atmosphere. Set to double by 2020/2030 whether we go for renewable household energy or not
(3) Green House Gases & Jet fuel (stream) exhaust - also set to double by 2020/2030, whether we go for renewable energy or not.
(4) What will cars & planes run on, when existing Oil supplies reach higher prices (higher than $80 dollars a barrel of brent crude) and the actual supply becomes smaller than the demand.
I guess the US views its cheap internal air travel needs as a priority over and above anybody else (including the EU).
Or perhaps the EU will stand up to the US on fossil fuel use (abuse) as they did on GM crops.
And I don´t think China (or others) will take kindly to any US Oil embargoes. Hence China has been to see the king of Saudi Arabia.
Britain should become the world leader in Wave + Tidal Power, and not hang on to the skirts of Nuclear.
The US should take Climate Change seriously, sign up to kyoto, reduce consumption and emissions - and really really go for alternative (renewable) sources of energy in a big way.
If you want to be a world leader, you must stay ahead of the game, or die like Rome, the Spanish Empire, the French Empire, the British Empire, or the Third Reich ...
And they knew all about limited supplies or embargoes of Oil, and alternative fuels too. Yet they reacted too little, too late - some would say they tried to conquer too much too fast
Those darned cold winters, and the snow in Russia
Posted by: Jon at April 24, 2006 5:16 AM
Hi Sylvia,
did you see pics a couple of days ago, of Gobi sand, reaching as far as Peking. Cars covered, and I mean covered in desert sand/dust.
This may not be proof of climate change, but it is proof that what goes up must come down.
Nothing new to US Americans who are used to seeing flying frogs & fish, flying cows, and even flying trees & houses. So Climate something sceptics of climate change are not worried about, until "chaos" hits.
[those people aren't "sceptics" but "septics" or "denialists" - with a barbarian streak... sst]
Posted by: Q at April 24, 2006 5:41 AM