Another response option would be mandatory civics classes. In closing, I propose the following rule for science & policy: don't bother arguing with somebody who doesn't play by the rules. Or, to be somewhat redundant, "mai discutere co' un grullo! Ti abbassa i livello dialettico e poi ti vince coll' esperienza." (Sifossifoco, post of 4-21-2004) [Translation: Never argue with a fool! He will lower the level of discourse and beat you with experience.]

Posted by Sylvia S Tognetti at 10:39 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 22, 2007

Elections have consequences!

by Sylvia S Tognetti

In case you didn't spend much of yesterday watching the Honorable Al Gore testify, here is the exchange between him, Sen James Inhofe, and Sen. Barbara Boxer, who had to remind Inhofe that he no longer holds the gavel:

Later in the evening, Stephen Colbert challenged the Democrats to go a little further:

Posted by Sylvia S Tognetti at 11:44 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 4, 2007

At the interface of science and policy, part 1

by Sylvia S Tognetti

Anyone with a modest amount of scientific training or just enough knowledge to be dangerous, can usually read a paper in almost any field in some way related to their own and cherry-pick results to support some preconceived notion, or to use as a fig leaf for disagreement with widely shared values and policy goals - Andrew Dessler provides a clear example of this. He also points out the value of scientific assessments as a way to avoid this kind of cherrypicking and distortion of science so often found when it is used in the policy arena. I not only agree but would add that, given the narrow way in which most scientists are trained, cherry picking and distortion are also a common pitfall in any kind of interdisciplinary endeavor, even if well-intentioned. I would also go a step further and add assessment as a fourth and indispensable layer in in his list of (three) parts of the scientific process, when the science is intended for use in policy:

plus: 4. Valid claims are reviewed and assessed in context of the full body of peer-reviewed literature and other relevant knowledge by teams of scientists drawn from the various relevant fields of study, in consultation and collaboration with stakeholders who have important knowledge about context. This is to insure not only that knowledge claims stand up against the full body of peer-reviewed literature, but also for their relevance to specific policy questions. As was pointed out at RealClimate:

We've emphasized over and over that the science that should inform policy should come from thorough assessment processes like the IPCC and the National Academies. The views of individual scientists (including us) should carry less weight - partly because of our specific biases (due to the field we work in or our personalities), and partly because a thorough discussion and peer review process (like that leading to IPCC reports) will lead to more considered, informed and balanced statements than any individual could muster. Media representations of what individual scientists supposedly said should not be used for policy at all!

As a former employee of the National Academy of Sciences and the now defunct Office of Technology Assessment, and as a lead author for a chapter in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, I can also attest to the thoroughness of this process of review and BS detection.

A rough definition of assessment is to gather and provide information relevant for making a particular decision. Given that it is typically a contested process (see for example Rick Pilz's discussion from last January about the US National Assessment of Climate Change and links therein), key issues for the interface of science and policy are how it is conducted, how to assure quality of information, and what information is even relevant for purposes of decision-making. This is a big topic about which much has been written but I am going to wade into it with a discussion of the two new books I previously mentioned: Interfaces between Science and Society, edited by Ângela Guimarães Pereira, Sofia Guedes Vaz and Yours Truly, and The No-Nonsense Guide to Science by Jerry (Jerome) Ravetz, both of which are rooted in a new vision of the role of science.

How science is used in policy depends on many things, of which the much discussed issue of how problems are framed is only one. In Interfaces, in a chapter on "Why knowledge asessment?" Silvio Funtowicz frames assessment itself as a voyage like that of Ulysses. This voyage begins with existential disatisfaction that leads to awareness and commitment to a program of research and action. He goes on to identify no less than 5 different conceptual models of how science interacts with policy, beginning with: "Perfection/perfectibility: the initial modern model." This model is comparable to the often described "linear model" in which scientific facts lead to correct policies, and is rooted in "the classic technocratic vision" in which there are no limits to progress or to control over the environment - an illusion which has gotten us into a pathological situation. Failure of control is addressed in the second "Precautionary model" that acknowledges uncertainty in science - that needs to also be considered in policy decisions. The absence of conclusive facts and potential for misuse of science through framing leads to a third "framing model" which addresses this problem by engaging stakeholders in framing of the problem to be investigated. This of course increases the risk of political interference in science, which is addressed in a fourth "model of science/policy demarcation" - by creating institutional boundaries between providers and users of science, and by insuring that accountability for policy decisions rests with policy-makers. Given that there are a plurality of legitimate perspectives and value conflicts, the purpose of the fifth "model of extended participation," is to engage stakeholders in assessment through a process of open dialogue and learning. The catch is that, if all sides do not come to the table prepared to learn and to negotiate in good faith, the process is a sham - and is subject to other kinds of abuse by the likes of Benny Peiser, Frank Luntz and Donald Rumsfeld, to mention a few...

A difference in this last model is that science itself becomes accountable to an extended peer community of citizens no longer content to "[relinquish] the task of envisaging the future to a professional elite." This leads from an emphasis on rights to an emphasis on responsibilities of citizenship. Among the premises of the book, outlined in an introduction by Guedes Vas and Guimaraes Pereira is that, although connections between science and policy are well recognized, scientists are for the most part operating on the pure science model, in which assessment is reduced to peer review of technical issues. Conditioned by narrow disciplinary training, many are also uncomfortable with the management of uncertainty, complexity and value commitments.

To put this point into context, see for example Kevin Vranes discussion of tension the recent conference of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco where he encountered on the one hand, those being careful to "caveat even the most minor questionings of barely proven climate change evidence, lest they be tagged as "skeptics" and on the other, concern over whether uncertainties in projections of future climate had been downplayed too much, for fear of not being listened to. This all among scientists who do not question or downplay the risk of climate change and who accept the consensus of the IPCC. He concludes:

...dealing with uncertainty is exactly what Congresspeople do, and they do it a lot better than we do. For scientists, uncertainty is an abstract concept, something that feeds into an academic study, a place where the stakes are low and time-scale is long-term. For politicians and unelected decision-makers, uncertainty is life-or-death, yet decisions must still be made. Politicians constantly make decisions amid levels of uncertainty that would stifle the publication of any academic climate change paper. We need to realize that, give the politicians their due, and get the hell out of their way. Give them the science and the uncertainties and let them make the decisions. Overplaying our hand is a dangerous gambit, and may spell big trouble for us in the future.

Then see Kevin's own post be used distorted by Iain Murray on the blog of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, as fodder for the so-called skeptics denialists of climate change, by calling it "tension between science and alarmism." Then he tries to make a case that, points made by Kevin and also Mike Hulme are in agreement with "a point we at CEI have made for years" - in fact, the first part of his point sounds like something that could have been said by all but the zealots, on both sides:

Quite right. The problem of global warming is not a scientific one. Science can only inform policy choices that have to take economic, political and moral considerations into play as well. Politicians, not scientists, are the professionals at doing that. As soon as we allow the economic, political and moral considerations to be dictated by the science, or, even worse, by a politicized version of the science, then we have abandoned democracy for a form of techno-ochlocracy - rule by those who shout the loudest about the science.

But then he says:

I hope Kevin is right and that more scientists will step up and condemn those like Al Gore who distort the science for their own ends while condemning reasonable skepticism as a distortion instead.

As if Kevin had condemned Al Gore for distorting science for his own ends, and as if the so-called skepticism of CEI were reasonable or in any way comparable to normal scientific skepticism that has been downplayed in the policy arena for fear of exactly this kind of confusion. This is a clear example of a truthiness and bad faith negotiation. What is needed at the science and policy interface then is a way to exclude these polluters of public discourse. My hunch is that if, as Kevin suggests, scientists were more upfront about uncertainties, stakeholders would not be as vulnerable to this kind of confusion because they would have a more realistic image of the role of science. Openness about uncertainty also transforms the debate to one of values rather than technicalities, thereby creating a space for stakeholders to actually participate in deliberation about what trade-offs they are willing to make. As I said in the 2nd post on this blog - if the so-called climate skeptics wish to debate climate uncertainty, BRING IT ON!!!!

To be continued...

Posted by Sylvia S Tognetti at 10:24 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 13, 2006

Good riddance

by Sylvia S Tognetti

Just so you know, I spent election day handing out REAL Official Democratic Sample Ballots, at the Muddy Spring polling place in Montgomery County Maryland (where I also live and vote), and may even have persuaded a few undecided voters. But towards evening, as the news trickled out about the dirty tricks being played in the neighboring PG county, the two of us working at the poll began to be viewed with suspicion and were even told, "we know all about you." Coincidentally, I had just failed to persuade someone that, just because he lived in Maryland, it was not ok to vote for a 3rd party candidate, because, to win, Democrats need a big enough majority in this state to overcome the kinds of dirty tricks played by Ehrlich and Steele in 2002 - and because the Democratic party - and our government, is what we make it. And last but not least, because Cardin will make a great Senator. As Steele pointed out in one of the campaign debates, Cardin is "good at policy." Which is why I voted for him in both the primary and in the general election. He was hardly annointed. As much as I would have liked to vote for Mfume in the primary, and believe that sometimes we need those willing and able to shut down the whole process when it isn't working, I could not overlook Cardin's distinguished record. He earned his Senate seat.

I also worked at the polls in 2002, where I recall that, in addition to the Ehrlich and Steele shenanigans in PG county, there was a Republican urging people to vote for the Green Party candidate as one of the delegates, so as to split the Democratic vote in favor of a Republican candidate. And no, I didn't get paid for it.

Update: The Daily Howler adds a few details not included in the Washington Post Story:

2) Ehrlich and Steele used the homeless in 2002 just as they did this year. Their apparent motto? Use the homeless; fool the blacks! Unfortunately, Mosk omits one part of the story from 2002. In that day, the Ehrlich-Steele campaign bussed homeless people from DC shelters to Maryland’s Prince Georges County, where they spent Election Day distributing materials. But uh-oh! At day’s end, some of the homeless were simply abandoned. Busses didn’t appear to return them to their shelters. And it took a near-riot the next day to get them their pay—pay which was believed to be illegal at the time. (A state law barring such payments was later declared unconstitutional.) ...

...4) One unfortunate omission. Unfortunately, Mosk didn’t quote the brilliant Steele, who gave his own absurd explanation this Sunday, on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal. During the program, Donna Brazile cited the misleading fliers—fliers designed to make voters think that Steele had been endorsed by several major black Democrats. (The fliers also suggested that Ehrlich and Steele were Democrats themselves.) “I have to laugh at that,” Steele responded, “because that’s the same tactic that the Democrats have used in previous campaigns against each other. And I borrowed from that.” A few moments later, he expounded further. Remember, he’s talking about fliers which falsely suggested that he’d been endorsed by two major black Dems—Jack Johnson and Kweisi Mfume. Johnson and Mfume had actually endorsed Steele’s opponent, Ben Cardin:

STEELE (11/12/06): I think again, we used information to try to convey a perception or to create a perception. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t...Wayne Curry did endorse me. Jack and Kweisi are friends. Certainly we’ve worked with them over the last four years. And I think the thinking was that these were Democrats that we’ve worked with and we’ve supported, have supported the [Ehrlich-Steele] administration. It just didn’t translate well.

But for a caricature of Steele, see this pre-election video clip of P.K. Winsome, who appeared on the Colbert Report as a black entrepreneur to explain why he became a Republican, and again, in another clip (part 1) (part 2) in which he goes back to his old neighborhood to get-out-the-vote.

Posted by Sylvia S Tognetti at 10:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 6, 2006

Reality vs Truthy Sciencey Fiction

by Sylvia S Tognetti

If you are a regular reader of this blog, you are probably already aware of the Stern Review on The Economics of Climate Change. Since (here in the US) we have an election, tomorrow, I have only read the executive summary and seen some quibbling elsewhere in the blogosphere about how the calculations were done and the assumptions made. But what is perhaps most valuable about the report is that it lays out the full range of projected potential changes in average temperature at various possible levels of stabilization of carbon in the atmosphere, and the range of potential consequences - (all nicely summarized in the executive summary in Figure 2). So for example, even at the low end, we can see that even a small change in temperature can have severe consequences - particularly in dry and marginal areas that depend on melting glaciers for their water supply. But one does not have to go beyond the United States to find scenarios in which small changes have tremendous consequences. Given that changes in climate are expected to go beyond the range of variation to which humans are adapted, and that we have increased our vulnerability to such changes, e.g., through development of dry regions and coastal areas, there is and will always be plenty of uncertainty about its magnitude and consequences, even with a well-founded consensus that human induced changes are significant.

So none of the intellectually honest quibbling negates the main message of the report, "that international collective action will be critical in driving an effective, efficient and equitable response on the scale required." It goes on to point out that much deeper international co-operation will be required to create "price signals and markets for carbon, spurring technology research, development and deployment, and promoting adaptation." In other words, it begins to lay out what choices are still available, and makes a good case that the longer we wait, the fewer choices we will have to make.

To be able to make any of the choices presented in the Stern review, we first need to choose between reality and truthy sciencey fiction - tomorrow at the polls, where we will have the opportunity to restore some measure of accountability to our government. One of the ways we can begin to build the capacity to take the kinds of collective action required to address climate change is by getting our neighbors out to vote, and vote out the thugs who have poisoned public discourse. Robert Justin Lipkin, on a new blog, Essentially Contested America compares Bush-Rove Campaign "Politics" to Brooklyn Street Fighting:

Gang members hurt one another, and they hurt innocent bystanders, but the ultimate damage was poisoning the ambience of the neighborhood. Gangs placed otherwise enjoying activities such as playing basketball in the schoolyard, sitting on the benches of Ocean Pkway, or just hanging out--now called "chillin"--in the candy store, in an unpredictable shadow where one was never quite sure whether attacks were imminent.

Just as Brooklyn street fighting threatened to poison the joy of growing up in the Brooklyn, Bush-Rove electoral campaigning debases electoral politics. It becomes an activity made for and driven by sociopaths. How President Bush can claim to be a practicing Christian while sanctioning the most transparently dishonest attacks on his opponents--whether Democrats or fellow republicans such as John McCain in the 2000 South Carolina Republican primary--is inexplicable.His incapacity or unwillingness to assume the moral high ground reveals a raging cynicism that makes the worst postmodern conception of nihilism tremble in its presence. Bush and Rove are paradigmatic nihilists. Nothing is beyond the pale. In their value-empty world where nothing matters, certainly not moral principles, conscience cannot constrain. There's no place for conscience. If a tactic works to hurt your enemy, it is eo ipso acceptable. The one salient value in Bush-Rove nihilism is to retain power at all costs....

...Just as Brooklyn street fighting impoverished the neighborhood, the Bush-Rove ADL impoverishes political campaigning and threatens to deal a death blow to an already moribund deliberative democracy.

The remedy? We are beyond appealing to the better angels of their nature. Nothing like "Have you no shame?" has a chance of working. Perhaps Democrats and victimized Republicans need to become even bigger, badder bullies. When gangs like the Bush-Rove ADL get going, the only effective response seems to be retaliation in kind. Ay, there's the rub. When George Bush and Karl Rove see nothing wrong in embracing dishonesty and vilification, it impoverishes us all. We desperately feel the need to fight back. But how? Perhaps we need to import Brooklyn street fighters to wage war against the Bush-Rove Anti-Decency League. On second thought, that would be egregiously unfair to Brooklyn street fighters.

And in today's post he provides a reminder that: "Seldom in a republican democracy, does the citizenry have a chance to correct the course its own government has duplicitously directed the nation. Tuesday, November 7, 2006, represents such a day. Ours is a moment when we can begin to redirect the course of history for our benefit and for the world's."

As for the intellectually dishonest quibbles, Michael Kinsley calls the tolerance for it the biggest flaw in American democracy but other remarks in the same article make me wonder about Kinsley himself, i.e., where he refers to "the growing power of unelected television comedians to set the political agenda," failing to recognize that these comedians he refers to became popular precisely because they expose this dishonesty. That remark probably has something to do with sour grapes - Kinsley used to work on Crossfire, which went off the air after Jon Stewart refused to be a comedian on what is suppose to be a news program. But Frank Rich gets it:

...In retrospect, the defining moment of the 2006 campaign may well have been back in April, when Mr. Colbert appeared at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner. Call it a cultural primary. His performance was judged a bomb by the Washington press corps, which yukked it up instead for a Bush impersonator who joined the president in a benign sketch commissioned by the White House. But millions of Americans watching C-Span and the Web did get Mr. Colbert’s routine. They recognized that the Beltway establishment sitting stone-faced in his audience was the butt of his jokes, especially the very news media that had parroted Bush administration fictions leading America into the quagmire of Iraq .

I mostly quit watching CNN a long time ago, when it switched from providing News to providing "Newstainment." But it has gotten worse. Flipping channels on Saturday evening, looking for campaign news, both of the CNN channels had comedians on, trying to make the news not only entertaining but also funny. It wasn't. It was worse than when Bush tried to be funny by looking for WMDs. I'll watch TV news again when it is reported with some gravitas. For comedy, I watch real comedians.

Posted by Sylvia S Tognetti at 1:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 11, 2006

Seeing purple

by Sylvia S Tognetti

No surprise that gas prices are back down below $3/gallon. It's election season. In addition, the debate about whether humans are causing global warming is so over, and, combined with the looming threat of Peak Oil, has provoked serious discussion about the development of alternative energy sources. Now I wonder if that momentum will continue. A few months ago, I had the opportunity to hear a talk by Daniel Bromley - a highly esteemed institutional economist based at the University of Wisconsin. Afterwords he also let me know about an interview he had just done on NPR on the subject of global warming (that you can find here- he joins the conversation in the second half of the program), in which he makes an interesting observation about gas prices, as well as a not so modest policy proposal that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions as well as cure sprawl and protect what little we have left of forests, farmlands, wetlands and healthy streams.

The argument Bromley makes about gas prices is that production rates seem to be adjusted to keep prices at the breaking point, which seems to be about $3/gallon. As serious public discussion begins to be generated about public transportation and alternative sources of energy, the price goes back down, as does the level of interest in developing alternatives. Venture capital simply will not flow into the development ofnew technology and infrastructure unless there is a consistent set of signals that carbon based fuels will be more expensive in the future. In other words, as he put it, we are all "being played like a cello." (You can find graphs and numbers here, in slides he uses for his course lectures.) However, if peak oil really hits without leaving time for a transition, I imagine that gas prices will just keep going up because there won't be any choices available.

Note to those whose political memories only go back as far as the Reagan administration: we might have had time for a smooth transition had the momentum from the oil crisis in the '70s been sustained, which led to several renewable energy initiatives during the Carter administration. But Reagan pulled the plug on all of that and a lot of smart people who one worked to develop alternative energy sources were forced to change their careers. There is a reason for disgruntled baby boomers... Lets learn some lessons here and change the tape - or turn off the automatic repeat button.

Bromley's explanation might just explain why, as we stare dumbfounded at signs of global warming, and at the looming threat of Peak Oil, anyone is even thinking about building another highway that connects distant suburbs and doesn't really go anywhere. That would be the proposed Maryland Inter-County Connector (ICC), which would also destroy important streams and wetlands and wildlife habitat, and increase development pressure on some of the few remaining areas of forest and farmland-no matter how many trees Governor Ehrlich plants to mitigate impacts, in ceremonial ground-breaking events designed to boost his sagging poll numbers, and to make resistance appear futile. The ICC would also preempt funding for badly needed increases in public transportation infrastructure, like the proposed Purple Line train, that would instead connect many more people with the places they work - that they can't afford to live in. Although the proposed ICC itself doesn't really go anywhere, once built, it would only be a matter of time before extensions would bring it across the Potomac river and Maryland would start to look like Northern Virginia. (To see some ofwhat Northern Virginia looks like, go visitNeddie Jingo...). To be fair, there are parts of Maryland that already look sort of like that - just not as much of it because unlike Virginia, Maryland actually has some enforceable planning laws, and a plan that aims to concentrate development along transportation corridors. Virginia on the other hand, seems to have an ideological problem with the whole concept of planning. And to be fair, many of the backers of the ICC have been democrats, though they have become less enthusiastic about it as pressure has increased to improve mass transit, to which most seem to have now given higher priority, at least in my part of the state, where it has become an important issue in the Maryland primary elections (which are tomorrow).

According to Bromley, research suggests that a 10% increase in the price of gas would reduce gasoline sales by 2.5%. Therefore, a 10% a year increase in gasoline taxes over a 10 year period - which could be earmarked as a dedicated fund for mass transit, would reduce oil consumption in an amount equivalent to that which is now imported, bring prices in the US into line with those now paidin European countries, make public transportation a more appealing option than driving a car, and perhaps even cure sprawl. In fact, the Washington Post reports that with the increase of gas prices and clogged roads, there has also been an increase in the use of public transportation, even in the distant suburbs that have patchy routes. I'd hate to find out what that commute consists of - a very good friend of mine who commutes between counties in the urbanized parts that would be served by the proposed purple line, has to take a bus, two metro trains and another bus, twice a day. It takes him an hour and 10 minutes each way. In some areas, use of public transit has doubled since 2000, after having dropped in the 1990s, largely because of increases in gas prices, but also because of congestion and because more employers have begun to subsidize use of mass transit just as they have parking costs.

Unfortunately, politicians find it much easier to be "for the environment" and "against global warming" - and to arrive at campaign events in hybrid vehicles - than to take a stand in conflicts and controversial policies about future development patterns, particularly when they have constituents stuck in traffic who just want another road. Never mind suggesting anything that remotely resembles a tax on gasoline - an immediate campaign show-stopper. Then there are those who resist redevelopment to higher densities in older suburbs that are now adjacent to subway lines... According to a friend of mine who builds houses, this is politically impossible and is one of the reasons developers build sprawling suburbs - so as to avoid the expense of fighting with owners of existing houses who don't want any more backyards anywhere near their backyard. But actually making some contentious decisions about development patterns and improving mass transit is the key to actually doing anything about global warming and environmental protection. And the longer difficult choices are avoided, the fewer of them we will have to make.

Since I'm not running for anything myself, I'll say what candidates can't - and also get elected. Gas prices should go up faster, or at least enough for voters in this state to realize the ICC is a boondoggle before rather than after spending $3 billion on it, that won't be available for anything else. They will go up one way or another. If they go up because of a gas carbon tax, rather than a price increase, we will have a source of funds for mass transit. If not, the oil companies make out like bandits. The question is whether we are capable of taking a proactive approach to policy by recognizing trade-offs and actually making a conscious decision rather than looking for silver bullets. And now I'm off the the polls, where I will be working all day, to make sure that, as Jon Stewart once put it, we don't wake up on Wednesday morning and find out that the best candidates lost to "whatever."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you want to get a pair of eye glasses you might find it useful to go online to compare styles of designer glasses before you buy the only pair of glasses you see at the optometrist that you can stand to wear; by shopping for glasses online you may also save some money.

Posted by Sylvia S Tognetti at 11:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 28, 2006

The Liberty of Poetry

by Sylvia S Tognetti

OK, I'm back in Muddy Spring so, catching up on a few things I didn't have time to blog while I was away, this picture is of a statue I had go to see with my own eyes. If it has been in the Basilica of Santa Croce in Florence all these years, I must have seen it before... at least a few times during art history class field trips in middle school. As have many other people. Titled, "The Liberty of Poetry," it sits just inside the church between the middle and right hand main doors, on top of the tomb of Giovanni Battista Niccolini - a professor of history and mythology and also a poet and playwright whose main theme was the ideal of freedom. In her raised hand is a broken chain, which represents the defeat of tyranny through artistic expression and other forms of creative genius - which, of course, includes real science. On either side of the doors are the tombs of Michelangelo and Galileo, and not far, the empty tomb of Dante whose bones remain in his place of exile. And some other well-known figures. Since it carries the mark of the water the 1966 flood, it had to have been there. Like the tombs and statues, that water line is also noted with a plaque, which makes it now an official part of Florentine history and which makes me feel old. But sometime in the past couple of years, the Tuscan-American Association, which was looking to demonstrate relationships between Tuscany and America, pointed to an obvious resemblance to the Statue of Liberty, and made a case that it was most likely its inspiration. What is known is that, although not completed until 1877, the sculptor, Pio Fedi, had completed a plaster cast for itby 1872, and that the drawings had been in circulation before that. It is also known that Bartholdi, who sculpted the Statue of Liberty, was in Italy in those early years of Italian unification, and got around in artistic and intellectual circles. More and better pictures can be found here. You can read more details at the site of the Tuscan-American Association, which also used an image of this statue for the cover of a book.

Posted by Sylvia S Tognetti at 12:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 25, 2006

Softball - in a parallel universe

by Sylvia S Tognetti

It is probably delusional to even think that we could all ever at least play by the rules of the science policy game when we can't even agree on the rules for informal softball games. According to the DCCC blog (via Digby) Republican teams on Capitol Hill have just seceded from the Congressional Softball league and formed their own - "after accusing its Democratic commissioner, Gary Caruso, of running a socialist year-end playoff system that gives below-average teams an unfair chance to win the championship." This "league" is an informal tradition that has been going on for 37 years. The year I worked as a research assistant at the now defunct OTA (~1987), they even let me play. To avoid embarrassment, I would have been happy just to be there to watch and catch a late afternoon breeze, but with some encouragement, I even managed to hit a few balls. I probably still have a "TechSox" t-shirt somewhere. Most of what I recall is that the rules, if they existed at all, got made up along the way, and that the teams of Republican staffers took the thing way too seriously. The whole point was that we could all at least get along on the softball field. No more I guess. Now, even in Major League baseball, the political affiliation of team owners is becoming a criteria for whether to fund baseball stadiums....

Does anybody else feel like we are all in the back seat of a car that is being driven by a two year old? This may seem like a minor issue but, to have any hope of resolving larger social conflicts, there has to also be what has been called the "capacity for peace." I can't remember what book I found that term in so pardon me for not including a reference but, what becomes important are those things we continue to do that transcend social and political divisions, like playing softball... Or assessment of science for policy - oh wait - OTA doesn't exist anymore. If we can't do that, what can we do? I'm not sure a single government can preside over parallel universes....

Posted by Sylvia S Tognetti at 9:55 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 30, 2006

Difficult science - in a parallel universe

by Sylvia S Tognetti

For the sake of expedience, I put up Jerry's comments in the last post without much pause for reflection as I was absorbed by other things at the moment, one of which was the seminar on the Crooked Timber blog regarding Chris Mooney's book, the Republican War on Science, which is becoming more interesting than the book itself, and is not unrelated to the topic of "hard and difficult science" - which I'll come back to. First, let me back up. RWOS is great journalism. It didn't get me very excited at first because, conceptually, it doesn't offer much that is new for someone who has worked in the science and policy field for over 20 years. Still, it merits a place on the shelf closest to my desk because it provides documentation, not just of assaults on environmental science, but on science across many fields related to controversial policy issues, or of what John Quiggin calls the construction of a whole parallel universe based on "sound science" that is fabricated by networks of right wing think tanks, industry funded scientists and unqualified opinion writers, through which "approved views are amplified by the echo chamber of repeated mutual quotation until they appear as established facts." And even using post-modernist and social constructivist arguments! Lets call it the twilight zone, where the true believers also isolate themselves by going to separate universities like Liberty College.

The fabrication and distortion of evidence is qualitatively different and yes, worse, than pretending that science of any kind dictates a particular policy decision. This is a persistent problem but is old news. The so-called climate sceptics usually don't even try to defend their contentions in any substantive way - usually it is enough to make headlines. Benny Peiser, who clings to his conclusion even after finally admitting to errors in how he made his case, being just one example.

Given that context, other issues with RWOS seemed like minor quibbles not worth getting into - for now. For example, Mooney's tendency to romanticize science doesn't seem any different or worse than what many scientists themselves do and that he himself acknowledges. So, while romanticization of science and privileging scientific justifications for decision-making above all else are important topics, I regarded it as one that could be treated separately from the book - and will surely come back to this in future posts. However, by documenting this parallel universe, RWOS does what the best science does, which is lay a foundation from which a whole area of discussion and inquiry can emerge, that goes well beyond what is actually in the book, as to why it is happening. This is what is going on in the Crooked Timber seminar. It is also much more interesting than getting into food fights with so-called climate sceptics who use fraudulent technical arguments for which my patience is thin - so I am grateful that there are other blogs like RealClimate sorting all of that out and setting the record straight. But lest we forget, this is a diversion from issues of how to actually respond to changes in climate whether it be through various forms of mitigation, adaptation or better yet, multitasking.

The seminar commentary that most got my attention was that of Daniel Davies regarding the cause of all this, and whether it is associated with a peculiarly American brand of anti-intellectualism. What he suggests is that it represents a kind of "authoritarian irrationalism" that is "rooted in status insecurity and a consequent distrust of ambiguity" - which gives the PR industry the raw material with which to fabricate "sound science." As he also points out, this is what makes it impossible for any journalism to adequately deal with nuance and ambiguity. I am not familiar with his sources but it sounds very much like what John Barry describes as being at the root of much racism and the rise of the KKK in his book, The Rising Tide, about the Mississippi flood of 1927 and how it changed the country. A creepy book because it sounds so much like what is going on today, even more so after Katrina. I have also had my own share of conflict with well-meaning editors and PR people regarding the use of inappropriate soundbites and metaphors.

I'm not sure that this syndrome is particularly American or whether the Europeans just have a better way of keeping it in check, rooted in lessons learned the hard way. Roberto Benigni has made a career out of making fun of irrational authority, which gives it more transparency. But his is also a sense of humor that has deep cultural roots in what I'll just call a "Low Tolerance for Irrational Authority".

I have also made reference to "Low Ambiguity Tolerance" in the media in an earlier post about the post-normal hurricane season and global warming:

Global warming? Or flip flop, from inactive to active hurricane period? Or both? Or is this debate merely an artifact of the media's obsession with finding a smoking gun - which makes a better story line, given Low Ambiguity Tolerance among consumers of news? And of presenting complex and multifaceted science and policy issues as a two sided debate.... or maybe it is the policy process itself that has a Low Ambiguity Tolerance.

It has certainly been a great source of material for Roger Pielke Jr., who seems to have made a career out of arguing nuances that get glossed over in policy discourse. As it has been for me - much of my work on payments for watershed services dives in to all those messy issues that get glossed over in project planning phases but that are inevitably faced when anybody tries to actually implement such a concept. Anyway, thanks to Daniel Davies for explaining the source of LAT.

John Quiggin also discusses how Post-Modernism has served to further the war on science by providing arguments with which to challenge the privilege that science is given over other criteria for decision-making, so that it can be replaced with "politically reliable alternatives such as 'sound science'. Post-Modernism is a school of thought which probably had some excesses - I've only read a sampling of it myself but, Davies also makes the observation "that it is in the American university system that quite sensible French theories of literary criticism have been given a specifically irrationalist interpretation that was never really there in the originals." So I suspect that the culprit really isn't Post-Modernism but the abuse and misinterpretation of it, the same way that uncertainty is abused, as a license for arbitrary and capricious policy decisions.

Going back to the subject of hard science and difficult science - Jerry Ravetz and another commenter, Eli Rabett, both had reservations about David's broad definition of science to include "any systematic open inquiry into the nature of reality" in which he includes novels and poetry. According to Eli, this definition is more akin to the German concept of Wissenschaft, that roughly translates to "the pursuit of knowledge." But he also provides a link to a translation of an article about the collapse of the dream of a Grand Unified Theory as physics comes to terms with string theory and the possibility of an unknowable multiverse, which to some, would mean the end of science as we otherwise know it, and relegate physics to the status of esoteric religious theory. Jerry provides a reminder that defining what is and isn't included in science is not quite so simple and ponders whether it is realistic to always assume there is a ‘we’ available for taking a unified authoritative stand with respect to the problem of quality control.

While David's definition of science is indeed general to the point that it may not be very helpful, it does highlight important issues about the process of science, the purpose of which is not to construct a parallel universe, but through openness to mutual challenge and correction, to find areas of agreement or overlapping consensus. This is important because science is always conditional, and therefore, only presents a partial even if valid source of insight. As a process therefore, it may not be so different from that of story telling, as it is described by Leslie Marmon Silko, a contemporary native American author, who describes the process of storytelling in indigenous Pueblo communities of the Southwestern US in a book about Pueblo migration stories:

Communal storytelling was a self-correcting process in which listeners were encouraged to speak up if they noted an important fact or detail omitted. The people were happy to listen to two or three different versions of the same event of the same hummah-hah story. Even conflicting versions of an incident were welcomed for the entertainment they provided. Defenders of each version might joke and tease one another but seldom were there any direct confrontations. Implicit in the Pueblo oral tradition was the awareness that loyalties, grudges, and kinship must always influence the narrator’s choices as she emphasizes to listeners that this is the way she has always heard the story told. The ancient Pueblo people sought a communal truth, not an absolute truth. The them this truth lived somewhere within the web of differing versions, disputes over minor points, and outright contradictions tangling with old feuds and village rivalries.

It is also not so different from how I once heard an Arctic indigenous person describe traditional knowledge (at a workshop I had the opportunity to attend several years ago in Yellow Knife, regarding regional impacts of climate change in the Mackenzie Basin) - as a process of community dialog that enables them to reconcile different perspectives. By reconciling the historical knowledge of the elders with the regional changes witnessed by the young people, they had been able to confirm many of the changes that scientists reported and attributed to climate change. This person also pointed out that traditional knowledge systems are dynamic and exist because survival depends on it and have enabled them to take immediate action as a group. Inherent is a method of transmission across generations as well as communication in the present. What is new is the context of rapid global change and the need to reconcile local, regional and global knowledge - for which that workshop provided a forum.

What is important here, is the objective of even doing science, to find enough agreement about what is going on in a situation of high stakes in which facts are uncertain, values are in conflict, and decisions and actions are urgent - which will sound familiar to anyone familiar with the concept of "Post-Normal Science." The value of multiple perspectives is to provide a system of checks and balances against inevitable blinders and biases. But this approach also presumes some measure of civility, intellectual integrity, and a shared goal of finding mutual accommodation and ultimately, to survive in changing conditions. Given the existence of the parallel universe documented in RWOS, this presumption may also be naive. I shudder to think of the alternative. If we put science on too much of a pedestal, we risk falling into the same trap as the fundamentalists, which can only fuel more polarization - note Tom Delay's new talking point in his continuing attack on the rule of law, and the last check on power outside of blogostan, that there is a "War on Christianity" - ugh. That doesn't have to mean being so open-minded as to let ones brains fall out. But to wrap this up for now, as the hard sciences come to grips with the collapse of the dream of a Grand Unified Theory, and confront the complexity of the multiverse there may be something that can be learned from the difficult sciences - and I look forward to more participation of blogs like Crooked Timber in discussions about science. They have been on the PNT blogroll for awhile.

[revised 4-3-06 - I removed the Doonesbury link because I had misread it. But the point is, when you have parallel universes without even any attempt at finding common ground well, Iraq may not be the only place that civil war breaks out. I don't really think that will happen here, but I could be wrong. If things got any closer to going over the edge, it is possible that those more interested in Jennifer Aniston's hair might actually start paying attention to what else is going on. (I threw in that last reference as an experiment - to see what impact it has on google traffic...]

Posted by Sylvia S Tognetti at 12:09 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

March 20, 2006

Politicizing science?

by Sylvia S Tognetti

No time for substantive blogging over the next few days but there is an interesting comment thread on a post of Roger Pielke's from last week, here, where Benny Peiser actually admits to a mistake! For background on Peiser, see this post from several months ago, and links therein to Tim Lambert's site. But there are also some substantive comments from several others including yours truly, on issues of uncertainty, the role of NAS committees, and on the legitimacy, or not, of including the perspective of so-called sceptics in scientific debate.

Another link from the past week that I never got around to blogging - and a must read for anyone who questions the need for environmental and any other scientists engaged in science intended to inform policy to role up their sleeves and actually get involved in politics is this post at Effect Measure - a public health blog -which states:

Public health has the word "public" in it. It is by its nature political and we are political as a consequence. We make no apologies for this. We interpret public health broadly to take in all those cooperative activities done for the health, well-being and fulfillment of our communities. While we are writing for our colleagues in public health, we include as colleagues many people in walks of life or with personal commitments not ordinarily considered public health workers. Hotel and restaurant workers, at all levels, for example, because they have expertise in caring for and feeding people who might otherwise have no shelter or prepared food. "Hotel" and "hospital" are words with a common root, places where shelter was provided for travelers, strangers and the sick. Likewise teachers, sanitation workers, water utility workers, and many others, are all engaged in tasks that can provide for the common good. In a crisis we will all need each other's help and each other's expertise.

As someone who once got sick from drinking water served at a conference on the role of watersheds in providing freshwater, I speak from experience when I say that environment is critical to public health - but unlike others, I could return home to a safe water supply. Over one billion people without access to safe drinking water sounds to me like a disaster worse than a few hurricanes. In addition to which, one third of the world's population is expected to face major water shortages within the next 20 years. Climate has something to do with that too... Speaking of which, there is also a World Water Forum taking place in Mexico City, for which you can find coverage here, courtesy of IISD.

Posted by Sylvia S Tognetti at 12:50 PM

January 31, 2006

With us or against us

by Sylvia S Tognetti

I was going to follow-up on the last post with a few more comments about scientists taking policy positions but sometimes events and even scientists speak for themselves. So you have probably already seen or heard about the conflict between Jim Hansen, who directs the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, and the administration, through politically appointed officials in charge of public affairs, about whether or not he or any other government scientist are free to explain or express opinions about the policy implications of their scientific findings. So I'll be brief.

As Dr. Hansen pointed out, in an interview with the New York Times, "It would be irresponsible not to speak out, particularly because NASA's mission statement includes the phrase "to understand and protect our home planet." On the other hand, the job of politically appointed public affairs officers, is "to make the president look good" - according to comments made by the recently appointed George Deutsch to Leslie McCarthy, a public affairs officer at Goddard who is a career civil servant. Of course, as Hansen also points out, there is no paper trail of this - which, as Chris Mooney suggests, is probably deliberate.

So, as in the wiretapping case, what we have here is a president who is circumventing the laws of the United States that he is sworn to uphold. Bush could, of course, seek a change in the law so as to redefine NASA's mission - and admit that he gives higher priority to searching for water on Mars than to the health and welfare of Americans and other human beings, for which maintaining a habitable Earth is a prerequisite. And if he is successful, we would then be able to send him to Mars too. But if not, let the impeachment proceedings begin.

Desperate to hear someone take leadership and present a strategy for this actually happen, I went to hear Al Gore's speech a few weeks ago, live at Constitution Hall, and was not disappointed. Although the main focus of Gore's speech was on illegal eavesdropping on American citizens, his core message was about danger to the Constitution caused by the loss of checks and balances among the different branches of government. Well, Gore wouldn't be Gore if he didn't also make an example out of science and global warming - he also mentioned White House censorship of James Hansen, in making a case for why checks and balances are critical to getting good scientific and other information to be considered in policy decisions. Here I think he departed from prepared remarks when he explained that it is only because of checks on power that policy agendas must be sup