Politicizing Science

Should science be more political?:

Science must be more political, by Michael Schrage, Commentary, Financial Times: ...The great tragedy of science today, complain its champions, is its ugly and polarising politicisation. ...

Perhaps the tragedy, though, is not that science is too political – it is that science is not political enough. ... Public policy would be significantly better off if scientists were treated with greater scepticism and less deference.

Public debate would be far better informed if scientists were pushed to make their work more accessible, self-critical and contextually aware of findings in complementary technical disciplines. Politicians in democracies should not hesitate to exploit publicly the inherent uncertainties and legitimate disagreements in scientific analyses on sensitive issues. Highlighting science’s flaws – not unlike highlighting flaws in healthcare, national security and economic programmes – is good politics and even better policy.

Science as an enterprise may be objective; scientists as individuals are not. ... Scientists can be as vulgar, pigheaded and contemptuously dismissive of contrary evidence as any lawyer, civil servant, journalist or elite professional. ...

An individual scientist deserves much the same standing in a science policy debate as would a parent or teacher in policy disputes over education. Institutionally, however, America’s National Academies of Science, the UK’s Royal Society and the acronymed jumble of United Nations agencies have increasingly abandoned traditional roles as science “advisers” in favour of actively lobbying for their quantitative models and scenario extrapolations to be public policy planning tools. In effect, scientific institutions have evolved into “special pleaders”, as vested in the rightness of their recommendations as any influence-seeking industrial trade group or bar association. The “scientific objectivity” of their forecasts is achieved through negotiated committee consensus.

Unfortunately, most of these consensus declarations minimise methodological disagreements, competing interpretations and self-criticism. Judicial rulings by supreme courts may include two or three cogent dissenting views from the bench; elite science review committees typically do not. Are distinguished scientists less ideological and more objective about evidence than distinguished jurists? Hardly.

The core problem is fundamental confusion over scientific consensus in public policy. A scientific consensus on how to split the atom is not a policy consensus on which bombs or nuclear reactors to build; a scientific consensus around the origins and transmission of HIV/Aids is not a consensus about public health interventions; and scientific consensus about climate change is not policy consensus around carbon taxes or renewable energy. History teaches that culture, ethics, economics and, yes, politics overwhelmingly determine how scientific consensus ultimately translates into policy. Scientific consensus is overrated as a successful policy rationale. ...

But to the extent rational people insist “consensus science” justifies brave new policies, they invite closer scrutiny of how that consensus was reached. Here science does not do well. Ask physicists, molecular biologists, meteorologists, climatologists or economists what rules define “consensus” in their respective disciplines. Their answers will disappoint. No scientific consensus exists about what constitutes a scientific consensus.

Not 20 years ago, the scientific consensus declared the human genome filled with useless “junk DNA”. Today the emerging “consensus” insists junk DNA is useful after all. A century ago, elite scientific consensus said “eugenics” should determine the west’s population, immigration and education policy. How sustained should the perceived scientific consensus be before multi-billion-pound, life-and-death public policies are fixed around it? ...

Scientists will be more credible and persuasive not if they are less political but if their arguments are more accessible, more testable and, yes, more humble. Then again, that is just a ... hypothesis.

I don't have any problem at all with an honest debate over the validity of scientific claims used to support a particular policy. I do have a problem with dishonest debate, with distorting what science says to support or oppose a policy.

Uncertainty will be present in most cases, but the mere presence of uncertainty does not justify inaction. If a broad, though incomplete scientific consensus exists on a particular topic, and if the science implies that we face large costs of one sort or another in the future, precautionary action may still be justified. We can't just worry about the consequences if the science is wrong. We also need to worry about what might happen if it is right.

Comments

[anne]

Michael Schrage is selling something, but I have no idea what, though likely the problem is in junk DNA not being kunk DNA but rather being junkless which is a problem if you've already thrown away most of it. Yes; junk DNA is definitely the problem. I think.

Huh?

[Mark Thoma]

"The writer, a researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has served on national scientific literacy and innovation committees"

I wonder if this is related in any way:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-09/iop-wln092507.php

World leaders need to remain alert to latest scientific thought on climate change

Melting icecaps and ‘climate chaos’ have put climate change at the top of the agenda for the UN General Assembly’s meeting this week. The meeting is a precursor to the November meeting in Bali where leaders will try to agree on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol.

A new Institute of Physics’ (IOP) report, Climate change prediction: A robust or flawed process?, published today reveals that while there is general consensus on the underlying causes of the changes in our atmosphere, there is not unanimity.

World leaders have been influenced by one very important document that drew its conclusions after wide consultation in the international science community, the IPCC Summary for Policymakers of the Scientific Assessment. Much of the IPCC report was compiled from extensive use of computer modelling systems which, governed by the laws of physics, have produced some very compelling theories on how and why the climate is changing.

Professor Alan Thorpe, Chief Executive of the Natural Environment Research Council, who spoke at a seminar debating the efficacy of climate change models on which the IOP’s report is based, said: “The computer models used to predict climate change take account of the range of factors that play a role in modulating the climate, such as solar activity, atmospheric particles, and feedback factors. We have, for example, been able to measure the input of greenhouse gases against the cooling effect that aerosols have on the atmosphere in order to predict the future rate of change and, by locating the main causes, suggest ways of reducing the damage.”

However, scientific understanding is constantly on the move and for every theory there is inevitably a counter argument. Professor Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology argued that a poor understanding of ‘feedback factors’, such as clouds and water vapour in our atmosphere, is undermining the credibility of models.

Lindzen argued that simple physical arguments led to much smaller sensitivity to increased greenhouse gases than found in current models implying that feedbacks in these models were excessively positive. He also noted that it was unlikely that current models adequately dealt with natural internal variability of climate.

Tajinder Panesor, Manager, Science Policy at the Institute of Physics, who organised the seminar, said: “The laws of physics underpin the advances we have made so far in our understanding of climate change. Even though there is evidence around us of climate change, and we need to continue to take action now; greater computing power and further debate is needed in order to make the modelling processes more robust to remove current uncertainties.”

[anne]

From Mark Thoma:

"A new Institute of Physics’ (IOP) report, 'Climate change prediction: A robust or flawed process', published today reveals that while there is general consensus on the underlying causes of the changes in our atmosphere, there is not unanimity."

Perfectly illustrating the problem of obfuscation in science reaearch and findings, so that a completely evident problem is allowed to be politically masked. But, this is in no way what Michael Schrage has remarked on to explain the complaint. Schrage has written an essay that is empty but allows for a proper writing that may have nothing to do with what Schrage intends.

[anne]

"World leaders need to remain alert to latest scientific thought on climate change"

Could there be a more inane ludicrous self-parodying headline? Now back to the day's $17 billion supplement to the $200 billion supplement for the coming year of fun and fame in Iraq.

[anne]

http://ebusiness.mit.edu/schrage/Articles/SchrageWashPost%205-11.pdf

May 11, 2003

"No Weapons, No Matter. We Called Saddam's Bluff"

Just so we understand, Michael Schrage, the gloriously political unpolitical political scientist, was the same Michael Schrage who would explain to us in the Washington Post how wonderful invading and occupying Iraq was no matter whether Iraq was a threat to America or not.

[anne]

Remember science kiddies, war and military occupation is fine for science types especially when there is no reason for war an occupation. So writes the political unpolitical political Michael Schrage, who is teaching us all how to worry about junk DNA being non-junk DNA.

Just so we know who the MIT science conscience really is. Notice how impressed I am.

[anne]

"No Weapons, No Matter. We Called Saddam's Bluff"

Remember kiddies, that the International Atomic Energy Agency showed clearly there was no bluff bluff bluff and there was no threat from Iraq, but science types, the real science types, Michael Schrage political unpolitical science types, will teach us the scientific love of war and occupation.

[anne]

When a scientist writes an incomprehensible essay telling us the problem with science is that scientists are not political enough, but the writing scientist has been political enough to have ignored scientific investigation showing that Iraq was no threat to America and besides a suitably political scientist should know that even if Iraq was no threat war and occupation is lovely, what are we to think of such a scientist?

[Noni Mausa]

From http://www.leighbureau.com/speaker.asp?id=168

Michael Schrage is one of the world�s most innovative thought leaders on innovation.

He has redefined how we think about innovation by focusing on customer acceptance of new products and services as an integral part of the innovation process.

He also has pioneered techniques for using rapid prototyping, simulations and modeling to improve return on innovation investment.

Michael is the author of two critically acclaimed books:

---Serious Play: How the World's Best Companies Simulate to Innovate

and

---Shared Minds-The New Technologies of Collaboration.

Michael is a columnist for Fortune, CIO Magazine and MITs Technology Review, and is widely published in the business press. He also consults to the U.S. government on national security systems innovation.

PS Folks, you have got to go see his picture -- it's stunning. http://www.leighbureau.com/data/speaker/MSchrage_full.jpg

[anne]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37165-2003May9?language=printer

May 11, 2003

No Weapons, No Matter. We Called Saddam's Bluff
By Michael Schrage

So that we understand, the stunningly pictured writer is stunningly (I swoon at the stunningness), the stunningly picture writer is the essence of anti-scientific war-wishing military-occupation-wishing amoral advocacy.

[anne]

Evidently there are pretend scientists who cannot be bothered to read reports of scientists....

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n006.shtml

March 7, 2003

The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq
By Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei - Director General IAEA *

United Nations Security Council

Inspection Activities

When I reported last to the Council, on 14 February, I explained that the Agency's inspection activities had moved well beyond the "reconnaissance phase" - that is, re-establishing our knowledge base regarding Iraq's nuclear capabilities - into the "investigative phase", which focuses on the central question before the IAEA relevant to disarmament: whether Iraq has revived or attempted to revive its defunct nuclear weapons programme over the last four years.

At the outset, let me state one general observation: namely, that during the past four years, at the majority of Iraqi sites, industrial capacity has deteriorated substantially, due to the departure of the foreign support that was often present in the late 1980s, the departure of large numbers of skilled Iraqi personnel in the past decade, and the lack of consistent maintenance by Iraq of sophisticated equipment. At only a few inspected sites involved in industrial research, development and manufacturing have the facilities been improved and new personnel been taken on. This overall deterioration in industrial capacity is naturally of direct relevance to Iraq's capability for resuming a nuclear weapons programme.

Inspections

The IAEA has now conducted a total of 218 nuclear inspections at 141 sites, including 21 that had not been inspected before. In addition, IAEA experts have taken part in many joint UNMOVIC-IAEA * inspections....

In conclusion, I am able to report today that, in the area of nuclear weapons - the most lethal weapons of mass destruction - inspections in Iraq are moving forward. Since the resumption of inspections a little over three months ago - and particularly during the three weeks since my last oral report to the Council - the IAEA has made important progress in identifying what nuclear-related capabilities remain in Iraq, and in its assessment of whether Iraq has made any efforts to revive its past nuclear programme during the intervening four years since inspections were brought to a halt. At this stage, the following can be stated:

There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites.

There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990.

There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminium tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges out of the aluminium tubes in question.

Although we are still reviewing issues related to magnets and magnet production, there is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in a centrifuge enrichment programme.

As I stated above, the IAEA will continue further to scrutinize and investigate all of the above issues.

After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq....

* International Atomic Energy Agency & United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission

[anne]

Forgive me, while I swoon at the stunningly pictured non-scientific nonpolitical political scientist of war and military occupation. Swooning....

[Matt]

Science is about pursing empirical evidence that leads to truth.

Politics is about pursing votes that leads to election.

[Arjun]

I'm a geneticist and his "Junk DNA" example always bugs the heck out of me. There never was a consensus among scientists that all non-coding DNA was non-functional. The thing is reporters grabbed on to the term "Junk-DNA" because it was catchy. Scientists being for the most part, poor communicators, compounded the problem by using the term further, though they knew its limitations.

See http://genomicron.blogspot.com/2007/09/junk-dna-let-me-say-it-one-more-time.html
for more discussion of Junk DNA

Michael Schrage is correct that scientists can be as partisan and dogmatic as anyone else, the difference is that we have to constantly defend our conclusions against other evidence with all the other scientists on our field looking on as judges. There's nothing a scientist likes better than to prove some big-shot wrong, and if you can prove everyone in your field wrong then you just might get a Nobel prize. That's the reason you almost always have someone challenging the very fundamentals of any field. People are still doing experiments to try to disprove Newton's law of gravity. That doesn't mean that Newton was wrong.

[anne]

Michael Schrage:

"Not 20 years ago, the scientific consensus declared the human genome filled with useless 'junk DNA'."

Apparently the stunning political scientist was wrong.

Thank you, Arjun.

[ken melvin]

Noni,

Innovate: to introduce as or as if new. Can one continue innovating forever?

[Post post post post everything]

As the astute dsquared has pointed out, uncertainty cuts in both directions. Critics like Schrage always assume that the situation must be as bad as or better than reported. While this is no doubt true for things from the Tabacco Institute, for real science it is not. They might be worse.

That caveat certainly applies to IPCC reports; in order to minimize controversy they omit trends for which the evidence is shaky. For example, glaciers have been moving and melting faster than expected from the IPCC reports.

Somehow, the Schrages of the world never mention that.

He is quite good looking, though. I wonder if he made it into the "Stud Muffins of Science" calendar (No, I didn't make that up. My imagination isn't that good).

P.S. I note that he managed to drag Lindzen into this. Lindzen is the last climate skeptic with scientific credentials left. Apparently, he simply loves being a contrarian.

[evagrius]

The dude was a director for Ticketmaster! He's on the Leigh Bureau speaker list as an expert on "Social Networks".

Truly an expert on science and scientific concensus.

[im1dc]

"Uncertainty will be present in most cases, but the mere presence of uncertainty does not justify inaction. If a broad, though incomplete scientific consensus exists on a particular topic, and if the science implies that we face large costs of one sort or another in the future, precautionary action may still be justified. We can't just worry about the consequences if the science is wrong. We also need to worry about what might happen if it is right."

Absolutely the most preceptive, intelligent and perfect paragraph I have read in a week.

Obviously, the take-away thought of the entire post. Thank you Mark Thoma.

[Patricia Shannon]

I expect that this is in response to the recent news about record melting of ice in the Artic, with the following news about Greenland ice melting just coming out in the last few days. The articles I have seen point out that the Artic melting will not greatly affect ocean levels because it is ice in water. They sometimes mention that melting of the Greenland ice would have great effects on sea level. Now the following news has just come out. Based on their record, we can expect the Bush administration to cut the budget and/or eliminate programs at NASA which study these things.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070925160630.htm

Greenland Snow Melting Hit Record High In High Places, NASA Finds

A new NASA-supported study reports that 2007 marked an overall rise in the melting trend over the entire Greenland ice sheet and, remarkably, melting in high-altitude areas was greater than ever at 150 percent more than average. In fact, the amount of snow that has melted this year over Greenland could cover the surface size of the U.S. more than twice.
.....
Tedesco's work also confirmed that the melting index this year in lower altitude areas of Greenland, though not record breaking, was higher than average by 30 percent, placing 2007 in fifth place for the highest melting index after 2005, 2002, 1998 and 2004, in that order.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/15/AR2007011501049.html

Cutbacks Impede Climate Studies

The government's ability to understand and predict hurricanes, drought and climate changes of all kinds is in danger because of deep cuts facing many Earth satellite programs and major delays in launching some of its most important new instruments, a panel of experts has concluded.

[robertdfeinman]

There are those who are wedded to the capitalist/consumerist model. For some like the GMU crowd they owe their livelihood to believing what their corporate benefactor believes. (For those who haven't been following, that would be Charles Koch.)

For others they are involved in commerce and anything which may dampen future growth is a threat. I think many internalize this and become things like climate change deniers because they can't bear to face the alternative. Schrage seems to sell innovation. Less economic expansion, less need for his services.

There is an interesting philosophical question behind his argument, only he doesn't appreciate it. The question is what course of action to take when the alternatives contain degrees of uncertainty? The typical case is when one gets advice from a physician. It's usually of the form: "Let's try this and see if it works". At this point one gets a second opinion. Then what? Ultimately one is forced to go on trust. Do you trust the authorities when you don't have the expertise to make a choice on your own or when the best course of action is unknowable?

There have been many cases where the scientific consensus was wrong. Consider the view of the solar system before Galileo or the idea of the four humors as controlling health. What science does is test these beliefs and refine theories in the light of better information.

This still leaves open the issue of what to do at the moment. The Stern report tried to put a price on inaction. There has been criticism of his economic model, but it certain that there is some price to be paid if the world continues on its present course. I lean on the side of caution. The damage from inaction will be so great that some sacrifice of economic activity now should be seen as a small price to pay for "insurance".

Apparently the lesson of proactive action has yet to be learned even after Katrina.

Presumably Schrage is a scientist, but his misunderstanding of the scientific method makes one wonder what he learned in school.

As usual I have an essay which touches on this philosophical question:
Trust vs Faith - The Role of Authority

[donna]

Read Kim Stanley Robinson's latest series on global warming for a great story of when science gets political. In Fifty Degrees Below the NSF gets political and helps get a president elected that actually listens to the scientific community. ;^)

[evagrius]

Presumably Schrage is a scientist, but his misunderstanding of the scientific method makes one wonder what he learned in school.

From his curriculum vitae, (http://web.mit.edu/ssp/people/schrage/Schrage_CV.pdf)

He is a 1980 graudate of the University of Illinois
with a Bachelor's in Computer Sceince and Economics.

The "graudate" and "Sceince" is "sic".

[bakho]

There is a whole area of risk assessment/ risk management that many government agencies use to inform policy with scientific and technical knowledge. There is even an economic cost/benefit component. This model is used by many regulatory agencies including EPA.

The current problem under Bush is a crony system that bypasses or ignores the process completely. This is what Dilulio meant by "Mayberry Machievellis". Scienc can only inform policy if the leadership is open to being informed. When leadership rules from its "gut" or by its commitments to political patrons and ignores science altogether, then science is altogether toothless to affect government policy.

Media uses a he said/she said sound bite policy to present controversy that will stimulate viewership, not necessarily inform the viewers. Media could use a different model that would inform establish its own "expert panels" to inform viewers. However, ratings. might not be as good.

[John Morrison]

> P.S. I note that he managed to drag Lindzen into this.
> Lindzen is the last climate skeptic with scientific
> credentials left. Apparently, he simply loves being a
> contrarian.

I don't know how much of a skeptic Lindzen really is. Lying about a subject does not make one a skeptic. And for some reason, he has decided that he must lie to the public about the climate science behind global warming.

First he endorses the notion that the overall increase (averaged over all cycles and averaged over the earth's surface) in temperature of a small fraction of a degree a year, is no different from the cyclic or random temperature increases one might encounter sitting in one's car at a traffic signal.

Then he displays a graph of temperature against year, starting only at 1998, which was a high outlier, to claim that the earth hasn't warmed since 1998. Showing the numbers starting a decade earlier would manifestly exhibit the warming trend.

[Lord]

Criticizing consensuses for being consensuses? Sure, why don't they just shut up if have something to say. We only want to hear the disputes so we can offer our baseless opinions in rebuttal.

[MT57]

I agree with the last phrase, that in policy debates scientists should be more humble. That is true of all of us, however, as there is no non-scientific participant who has a stronger claim to have his or her analysis prevail than a scientist does. Beyond that, the argument seemed to me to overstate the problem and to embody the usual intellectually dishonest pundit strategies of a) ignoring all the good produced by the alleged problem-causing activity and b)failing to forthrightly consider the potential costs and harms of the pundit's proposed solution.

[calmo]

Such a daring point me Lord:

Criticizing consensuses for being consensuses?
[this could be the start of my speech impediments]

How dare you (Not me Lord but *you*, unshutuppable...and baseless) [There's no use...where's the masking tape?] express your opinion when *we* (not little insignificant-soon-to-be-gagged *you*) have that base! That
consensus. That.
So important to be unanimous (that 50bp for instance)...and spread the guilt democratically when it B discovered weall made that mistake...and not that some smartass with masking tape on his cheeks was right all along.

But that is a baseless view of consensuses which entail the existence of a dissenting (somewhat respectable) view(s) (there is a very strong consensus about this, so backoff.) The informed view (with a sizeable base) notes that it is incorrect to say that 'There is a consensus that water runs downhill.' No consensus is needed in this case (according to them) and those dissenting are dismissed as poor English speakers or pathological skeptics unfamiliar with the empirical world.

So we have the current Champion, consensus, (new-> well established-> shifting-> aging-> dated-> suspect) in one corner...and the Challenger (upstart-> radical-> plausible-> emerging-> new consensus) in the other.

Maybe.

[calmo]

Noni, I cutanpasted for the stunning picture...expecting big ideas for Halloween maybe...Did I get the right blackanwhite picture ('60's?)...of Pillsbury Dough Boy?
I am not fit to be stunned, maybe...overpowered by "innovative thought leader" maybe...and it's inherent laxative properties.
Can I trust Noni with "stunning"?
Dang.

[anne]

Context is important, and last I read meterologist Richard Lindzen, climate change skeptic, was busily proving that indeed smoking actually does not cause cancer. R. A. Fisher tried to do much the same, but that was several generations ago.

[ctm]

I think politicians should be more scientific.

[calmo]

R. A. Fisher tried to do much the same, but that was several generations ago. I was sure the "but..." would have gone something like:
"but due to circumstances beyond his control...was run over by a bus...he failed to see while lighting his cigar mid-street...in a bravado move...intended to regain his composure...from the devastating news that his lung cancer had spread to his brain."
But anne, the reporter, is so clear and factual and I am not. (ok, how can I, not-so-competent reporter, leave it like that? I cannot leave it alone. I must Fisherize the snot out ofit.)

[Holly W.]

It seems to me that when Schrage brings up "junk DNA" and a 20-year time frame, he only undermines the point he's trying to make. Yes, scientific consensus changes over time as we learn more -- but scientists have been looking at global warming for the past 25-30 years by now, and the "consensus" that it's human-caused and developing faster than we expected has only become stronger, bolstered by climate models which are much better than they used to be, and the discovery that some of what previously appeared to be confounding evidence was due to miscalculations. How much evidence does Mr. Schrage think people should demand?

There will always be a few naysayers who deny any generally accepted scientific theory -- people trying to disprove evolution, continental drift, or even gravity. But just because they exist, does that mean they somehow take away from all the evidence in support of those "consensuses"?

As one analogy goes, if your doctor says you have cancer, and you go see nine other doctors, eight of whom agree and one of whom says, "You're healthy as a horse, don't worry about a thing," are you really going to believe that one out of 10 and praise her/him for being a brave maverick? Or are you going to accept the "consensus"?