Patrick Brown of The Breakthrough Institute had
an interesting Tweet today. It reminded me of an apocryphal story of the Forest Service’s Dr. Tom Mills, an economist. When working as Station Director at the Pacific Northwest Station during the development of the
ICBEMP. For those of you who weren’t around then, that was the “
Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project.” It was finalized in 2000. I heard it referred to as “ickybump” but have also heard other pronunciations. This was one of those massively expensive and lengthy effort by scientists to do some kind of regional assessment/analysis/planning.
I think it would be interesting, just as with the NWFP, to take an interdisciplinary group not affiliated with the effort to review the original intent and whether it was successful or not. It’s intriguing to me which efforts seem to get a formal “lessons learned” and which do not.
As I recall, I was on a WO review of PNW and Tom Quigley seemed to believe that people who didn’t want tree cutting or grazing would change their minds based on monitoring. I remember thinking “do you really understand these people? What are your alternative hypotheses to “more info, folks will agree?” I also wondered whether the fact that scientists and monitorers would be getting more work (or the Station getting more bucks) make this a bit of a conflict of interest for them?
What disagreements of that time have been resolved since, and which not? Maybe more long-term research on conflict resolution efficacy would have been a useful investment?
Anyway, back to the Tom Mills story.
Supposedly he said something like “I don’t want to see any “shoulds” in this (ICBEMP) report” which led to much wailing and gnashing of teeth among the authors (according to the story).
Maybe other scientists aren’t as rooted in philosophy as economists. Maybe they are not required to take courses in the philosophy of science. Maybe, since economists get feedback from the real world sooner, and results can be observable to all without sophisticated equipment, many have more humility.
One more ICBEMP economist story.. I remember Richard Haynes remarking that he was surprised to find that the biologists he was working with didn’t use sensitivity analysis in their models. And yet, some lump all this stuff together and claim the authority of “science.” Others among us remain skeptical.
Anyway, back to Patrick’s tweet. Patrick’s background is in atmospheric science although he has recently done some work in wildfire, as we shall see.
*********************
Is high-impact climate science really just “science”?
Greg Mankiw’s, Principles of Macroeconomics textbook makes an interesting distinction between the different roles that economists play: “When economists are trying to explain the world, they are scientists. When they are trying to help improve it, they are policy advisers.” He alludes to Hume’s is-ought distinction, saying scientists make descriptive claims about how the world is, not prescriptive claims about how the world ought to be.
Critically, he says, “Deciding what is good or bad policy is not just a matter of science. It also involves our views on ethics, religion, and political philosophy.” This is a very interesting distinction in the context of high-impact “scientific” publishing on climate change because in order for “science” to be “high-impact” (of sufficient interest to a general readership), it is often incredibly helpful for it to be framed as having important prescriptive implications for contemporary policy debates. The journal Nature, for example, recommends that the end of the abstract/intro paragraph give a “broader perspective” on the findings, which in practice often means “state why these findings are of sufficient interest and palatability to our readership.”
In the climate science landscape, this recommendation often manifests as studies focused on the physical and biological world but concluding with a prescriptive claim about how the world ought to be (a claim that does not actually follow from the study itself because the study is way too narrow to make said claim).
These types of abstracts very much blur the lines between Mankiw’s definition of a “scientist” and a “policy advisor.” What’s particularly insidious is that having a strong prescriptive implication on e.g., reducing greenhouse gas emissions acts as a selection mechanism for what studies get published and amplified as the most important “science”. This muddying of the waters between researchers acting as scientists or policy advisors wouldn’t be such a problem except that the public perceives that a journal like Nature is a scientific journal, and thus, it produces more-or-less authoritative truths, not claims that rely on ethical, philosophical, and moral assumptions. This can be partially remedied if the public understands that the prescriptive statements emanating from these journals are subjective and do not deserve the perceived authority typically bestowed upon the idealized concept of “Science.”
I can’t believe no one has commented on this post yet, but I will wade in because there is much, for me, to comment on.
First, I share a similar nagging interest in the ICBEMP, what it accomplished and why it did not share the political traction, financial investment or impact of the NWFP. Not to mention that it defined quite a few research careers. To think we could have 20 years of data on interior columbia basin community and demographic dynamics!
I agree to some extent about the problems of asking scientists to make normative statements, and certainly agree with the tenets put forth by Mankiw, “Deciding what is good or bad policy is not just a matter of science. It also involves our views on ethics, religion, and political philosophy.” But I don’t agree that when economists act as policy advisors they are making ‘ought’ statements. I see them as using economic tools to reveal trade-offs among various policy proposals or options so that the public can weigh in on which set of trade-offs they prefer, i.e. reveal their preferences.
The expectations of Nature and other journals (and don’t forget funders) that science have real-world applications may be somewhat concerning, but they should have to answer the “why does this study matter?” question. But also, maybe it is a response to the public’s declining trust in science? IDK.
Sadly, I foresee more agenda-based science, for a public that doesn’t want to learn about and fully understand the issues. The “Balance of Harms” should be a good guide, powered by non-partisan science.
Perhaps the answer to “why [ICBMP] did not share the political traction, financial investment or impact of the NWFP,” is ICBMP lacked a court injunction. NWFP, on the other hand, was super-charged by court orders. Court orders often catalyze agency action.
Or “East Side stuff is never the Big Kahuna politically” because NW forest policy (and science) has traditionally been “of the West Side, by the West Side and for the West Side.”
Tautology call-out: NW forest policy is big politically because NW forest policy is northwest.
I don’t think it’s that simple. Part of the NW Forest Plan is on the East Side. If the East Side doesn’t count as NW.. then.. where does it belong?
Does the East Side get to have its own forest science and policy?
Having been there during that period of time, yes the East Side should have gotten it own forest policy.
In fact, eastern Washington and northern California were outliers relative the west side spotted owl research and science.
It was basically ignored by the Gang of Four, despite the fact the Wenatchee Forest Lab had a lots of “science” between NCASI, the state wildlife department and the forest. Quite frankly, they were not interested.
BTW, I always found it interesting that the first spotted owl found in Washington state in 1900 or so was at Blewett Pass, not in western Washington.
Yes, I remember a field trip on the Wenatchee some 30 ish years ago where they predicted owl habitat would burn up based on the fuel loads observed. At least the NWFP FACA folks realize that wet forests and dry forests are different.
Historically, I do have to wonder how a few scientists’ views, not in the area (Corvallis and LaGrande) came to dominate East Side forest policy in that area. At first I would have thought it had to do with sheer numbers of scientists- at universities rather than FS facilities. But then I do wonder about the role of personalities.
After a summer on the LaGrande Ranger District (Wallowa-Whitman NF) building barbed-wire fences to protect cows from streams, I can assure you that LaGrande is on the East Side.
Chelsea, thanks for commenting!
Certainly such a study could be done.. and maybe should be done. I can imagine 1) interviews with folks involved who are still alive. 2) their expectations at the time, 3) what’s written in the document, and 4) what actually happened and 5) what it amounts to. I think the East Side screen amendment being held up in court tells us that the whole issue is still relevant.
Also the idea that scientists would round up the info and others decide. The NWFP FACA committee has scientists and interests mixed together, which perhaps gives the impression that Some Sciences are More Important Than Others. There’s a lot there!
Ah but who would fund it? That is always the problem.
I agree with your statement “I see them as using economic tools to reveal trade-offs among various policy proposals or options so that the public can weigh in on which set of trade-offs they prefer, i.e. reveal their preferences.” Conceivably that is also true for all the other sciences.
At the risk of being cynical, I have found that many scientists want to say that their science is useful to people but don’t want to actually involve the people (to whom it’s supposed to be useful) in research design or prioritization. As a former grant administrator, many times it only has to pass the “the utility sounds plausible to other scientists and journal editors” test.
My view from the inside of ICBEMP. The Northwest Forest Plan was also known at the time as “The President’s Plan” (which I agree with Andy may have been related to litigation); ICBEMP was not. The difference was that for ICBEMP there was no high-level authority that could resolve differences between Forest Service/BLM and Fish and Wildlife Service/NMFS/EPA, or to actually get it done, which was probably a win for the latter group with the NWFP. On the other hand, the former land management group was successful in not tying its hands with any actual decisions from ICBEMP.
The comment attributed to Mills about no “shoulds” in the ICBEMP “Report” may have been about the assessment rather that the decision. The final product included some “shoulds,” but no substantive “musts.”
Jon: It was called the “Clinton Plan” because he facilitated its creation and made the final selection of one of the 10 variation-on-a-theme “reduced logging” plans that were created in the “Tower of Power” by the “Gang of Four.” Massive wildfires, unhealthy air pollution, dead wildlife, and bankrupt rural communities ever since, as predicted.
Jon, I thought the diameter limit was a “must” and maybe some riparian requirements?
The diameter limit was in the Eastside Screens amendment – which ICBEMP was supposed to replace. ICBEMP produced only a “strategy” which I remember only spelled out principles, processes and considerations.
To put this all in forest planning terms, the positive statements would be in an assessment. This is followed by normative statements about the “need for change,” then the proposed changes. Then there is something not addressed here, which are conditional statements – “if we did this, here is what we think would happen” (including the option of taking no action). I see these as being closer to positive than normative, just with a greater degree of uncertainty.
I think those conditional positive statements are where most of the climate change science is. I understand your point that the difference can sometimes be opaque, but I don’t agree with your climate change examples of normative statements. The idea that the current rate of climate change is caused by human-induced carbon doesn’t “rely on ethical, philosophical, and moral assumptions.” It relies on scientific conclusions that have moved it from normative to positive. In court, judges can take “judicial notice” of facts that need not be proven at a trial where the facts are well-known, and they have done this in climate change cases. There is no reason scientists shouldn’t be able to accept the known causes of climate change when addressing possible mitigation of effects in their field.