Role of science

GAO Report on FS R&D- the Conveyor Belt Model

by

Some of you may be interested in this piece I wrote for Roger Pielke, Jr.’s blog on the GAO report on FS R&D, and the comments. Roger also put in links to some key work including this article by Sarewitz and Pielke which is well worth a read. If you are not familiar with this literature, which examines how scientific processes work, I recommend this piece as an introduction. In the FS, one of our leaders once described self-awareness as a key component for her selection of individuals for leadership positions. In my view, science policy studies is a field that is key to self-awareness of the scientific community.

Here’s a quote from the Sarewitz/Pielke paper:

The idea that the creation of scientific knowledge is a process largely independent from the application of that knowledge within society has had enormous political value for scientists, because it allows them to make the dual claims that (1) fundamental research divorced from any consideration of application is the most important type of research (Weinberg, 1971) and (2) such research can best contribute to society if it is insulated from such practical considerations, thus ensuring that scientists not only have putative freedom of inquiry, but also that they have control over public resources devoted to science. The continued influence of this perspective was recently asserted by Leshner (2005), Chief Executive Office of the American Association for the Advancement of Science: ‘‘. . . historically science and technology have changed society, society now is likely to want to change science and technology,
or at least to help shape their course. For many scientists, any such overlay of values on the conduct of science is anathema to our core principles and our historic success.’’

I know that many in the natural resource/forestry/public lands community are not aware of, or do not have time to keep up with, the science policy literature. I am curious as to what readers think of my post on the conveyor belt model and the Sarewitz/Pielke paper.

Science, Relationships and Wolf Policy

by

Roger Pielke Jr. had this interesting post about a recent dust-up between an individual (or more?) at Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks and a researcher (or more?) at Montana State University.

A couple of points from me..

1) I really like the PLOS publication -free to the world- with open comments. I believe that all publications based on government funded research should be free.
2) It’s hard to have good policies, fully illuminated by open discussion, when people have bad relationships.
3) If you are a researcher studying something that resource managers do, it would generally (for those of you who don’t have bad relationships with managers) be a courtesy to give them a heads up before you publish something that questions what they are doing, and, of course,
4) There is a thought in the science policy literature that more science doesn’t really solve “hot” values disputes. In Pielke’s “Honest Broker” book, he calls this “abortion politics.” See this review of his book for a summary. But Roger isn’t the only researcher to make this observation.

Virtual Book Club with Kellow’s Science and Policy Book

by

This is an interesting and throughtful exchange in the science – policy world between the author of this book, Aynsley Kellow,  and our very own Andy Stahl. Roger Pielke has offered to host our virtual book club on his blog.

Some of us have personal experience with some of the topics.

So if you are interested, let me know and let me know ([email protected])  when you think you can get it from your library and have a chance to read it- so we can schedule a time.  Wish there were virtual white wine to sip!

Secretary of Interior Issues Science Integrity Order

by

The Secretary of Interior issued a new Science Integrity Order yesterday, which directs Department of Interior (DOI) employees, both political and career, to never suppress or alter, without new scientific or technological evidence, scientific or technological findings or conclusions.  Further, DOI employees will not be coerced to alter or censure scientific findings, and employees will be protected if they uncover and report scientific misconduct by career or political staff.

The policy is receiving generally favorable reaction, although it has not been codified into enforceable regulations.

The Secretary’s Order is an expansion of a draft DOI manual policy released in August with a public comment period ending September 20.  A sticking point for critics of the draft policy was that it did not cover political appointees if they alter scientific documents.  Yesterday’s order seems to address those concerns.

The Interior action could be a template for other government agencies to adopt because the development of a government-wide policy in response to the President’s March 2009 memo has been delayed.

It’s Not About Science, It’s About Values

by

As I was catching up from vacation, I ran across this interesting post on Roger Pielke, Jr.’s blog. It appears that you can’t get the paper he refers to without a subscription (hopefully I missed something).

The discussion and quotes reminded me a bit of our “science of fuel treatments” discussion.

Here’s a piece:

A quote from the article Roger cites:

Individuals tend to assimilate information by fitting it to pre-existing narrative templates or schemes that invest the information with meaning. The elements of these narrative templates—the identity of the stock heroes and villains, the nature of their dramatic struggles, and the moral stakes of their engagement with one another—vary in identifiable and recurring ways across cultural groups. By crafting messages to evoke narrative templates that are culturally congenial to target audiences, risk communicators can help to assure that the content of the information they are imparting receives considered attention across diverse cultural groups . . .

And Roger’s point

Again ironically, efforts to identify or label those who are skeptical of certain expert views as “anti-science” or “deniers” are like to become self-fulfilling in the sense that they reinforce the rejection of expert views as they play directly to a narrative conditioned on cultural considerations. Consequently, breaking down, rather than reinforcing differences across cultural groups would this seem key to broader acceptance of certain scientific findings. Building bridges is harder work than tearing them down

Through the impenetrable prose of academic science-technology studies-speak, do I detect a glimmer of a practical idea about talking to the public about risk?

Why our environmental laws are failing: The system isn’t working — and here’s why : An Essay from High Country News

by

Since our previous discussion was so close to this topic, couldn’t resist posting another essay from High Country News, this one by Eric Jantz.

Ask most people about how the environmental laws in this country get implemented, and you’re likely to meet with a blank stare. No one really knows the details, but the BP spill — combined with less well-publicized leaks from the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant — signal to most people that the system isn’t working.

I’m a practicing environmental lawyer, and I’ll be the first to admit that our nation’s environmental law framework is dense and arcane. I’ll also be among those to second-guess whether it’s working. I suspect that one of the biggest problems can be summed up in the words “agency deference.”

Agency deference is the judicial doctrine that found its legs with the U.S. Supreme Court case Chevron v. NRDC in 1984. It precludes judges from revisiting decisions made by an administrative agency except in the most extreme circumstances. It’s also the doctrine that makes it nearly impossible for there to be any independent review of decisions made by agencies, some of which have become more like industry enablers than hard-nosed regulators.

Although it may not have been the Supreme Court’s intent, the Chevron case effectively gives administrative agencies nearly unlimited power over whether a community is subjected to pollution. Statistics bear this out. At the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, for example, agency decisions are overturned only 1.5 percent of the time. Other federal circuits report similarly dismal numbers. In other words, no one is watching the watchmen.

In a perfect world, where regulatory agencies are serious and neutral and where regulators are never influenced by politics, turning life-and-death decisions over to a class of technocrats might have made sense. But in the real world, regulatory agencies are more often than not under substantial pressure from elected officials to acquiesce to demands from regulated industries. These agencies are also often staffed by bureaucrats who anticipate plum jobs in the industries they regulate once their government pensions have vested.

The BP oil explosion and resulting leak in the Gulf of Mexico is a case in point. The now well-documented coziness between regulators and the regulated industry resulted in an environmental catastrophe that has cost millions of dollars, ruined countless businesses and harmed a vast ocean ecosystem.

So what to do? There are probably many legitimate solutions to the problem, from getting big money out of politics to abolishing corporate personhood. But three concrete things can be done immediately. First, the federal and state governments should adopt what’s known as the precautionary principle. It would require a polluter to prove that an activity, though risky, would not harm the environment. Using the precautionary principle would relieve pollution-impacted communities of the current burden of proving that a polluting activity was so risky and dangerous it should not have been attempted.

Second, state and federal judges ought to once again assume their review authority over administrative agencies. Even in light of the Chevron decision, our federal Constitution and all state constitutions give the judicial branch the authority to review the actions of the other branches of government to make sure they’re in line with the governing laws and constitutional provisions. Reviewing courts should carefully scrutinize agency decisions and act aggressively in revisiting agency decisions that put communities at risk. If expertise is the issue, then judges who have technical backgrounds should be recruited and appointed to the bench. Alternatively, judges could specialize in particular areas of administrative law and develop a deep understanding of the technical issues in that area, just as practicing lawyers do.

Finally, the judiciary needs to abandon what’s almost become a cult of the technocrat. Instead of throwing up their hands and relying on the “expertise” of agency bureaucrats, judges should begin to respect the expertise of the people that live in communities affected by a polluting industry. Members of communities impacted by polluting industry know who’s been sick in their neighborhoods and when they got sick. They know which water sources are discolored and smell bad. They know whose child has had a recent asthma attack. This kind of knowledge should not be subordinated to the knowledge brought in by hired guns with lots of letters after their names — although it usually is.

These suggestions meant to strengthen judges to do the right thing are by no means a panacea. But I think they’re a good place to start to make environmental laws mean something on the ground.

Eric Jantz is a contributor to Writers on the Range, a syndication service of High Country News (hcn.org). He is an attorney with the New Mexico Environmental Law Center in Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Lessons from Climate Science – Judith Curry Interview

by

The recent Troubles of climate science have led to some deep thinking (as well as a great deal of vitriol- too bad we can’t use it as a renewable fuel ;)). Here is a thoughtful quote from Judith Curry at Georgia Tech with my italics as she discusses sustainablity. There is an interesting interview with her (from which this quote is excerpted) here.

The point is this. I have gotten hundreds of emails from practicing scientists and engineers in a range of different fields and holding positions in academia, government, and the private sector. I have also had discussions with a number of climate researchers who are concerned about the politicization of the field and the overconfidence in the IPCC. They are encouraging me to continue standing up for the scientific method and against the politicization of science. I’m sure that there are some of my colleagues that don’t like it or wonder what the point is, but they are not talking to me about it. I am getting feedback from scientists that like what I’m doing.

In terms of something more productive to do, I would encourage climate scientists to reflect on how to dig out from the hole we’ve dug for ourselves. Time to listen to some new ideas and some new experts. This time, I suggest listening to a plurality of viewpoints, and for scientists to make sure their data and methods are transparent to the public. And stop trying to simplify all this into a straight climate change science drives global energy policy strategy, which was misguided and naïve, to say the least. The real problem is sustainability, which is a complex confluence of ecosystems, food, water, energy, population growth, finite natural resources, and the desire for economic development. Sustainability is a value that nearly everyone can share. The fundamental spatial unit of sustainability is the region, which makes it easier for people to identify their common concerns and secure their common interests. Yes, there are global elements to all this in terms of climate change and finite natural resources, and the realization that regional instabilities can have global consequences. It’s not a simple problem, and there is no silver bullet, but there are millions of little solutions that can all add up. Climate change needs to be considered as but a single element in the context of all these issues. And independently of the broader sustainability issues, we need rational energy policies that account not only for environmental issues, but also economic and national security issues.

Once you start thinking about sustainability and the broader issues of energy policy as the main challenges, and not climate change, then the overwhelming barrier of politics and economics becomes less monolithic. And more importantly, climate science can get back to being science rather than being about politics. My citations of Feynmann on the RC thread were to remind people of the difference. Climate science is a fascinating and important scientific problem. Lets step back and figure out how to do a better job so that our field can regain the respect of the Nobel laureates in physics, scientists and engineers from other fields, and credibility of the public. Most importantly we need to stop playing the power politics of climate science by saying “Here is what science says we must do” and start saying “Here is our best understanding, and here is where our uncertainties are . . .”

Note: when Curry refers to RC, she means a blog called Real Climate.

A Good Word for Politics

by

From a piece by John Andrews in today’s Denver Post.

Hecklers, on guard. On this Independence Day, in a stormy election year when Americans are out of sorts, I’m fool enough to mount a soapbox and orate upon the proposition that “politics” should be an honored word, not a dirty word, in our vocabulary.

Politics deserves its bad name, you scoff. It’s a hustle wherein we are lied to and led on, defrauded and dumped on. H.L. Mencken nailed it, you say, when he groused that an election is but an advance auction of stolen goods. Will Rogers was right that just as “con” is the opposite of “pro,” so Congress is the opposite of progress. Fie upon the politicians, the parties, and all their tribe.

I concede your indictment — up to a point. But before you let fly with the rotten vegetables, remember that the Greek derivation of politics, 2,500 years and counting, simply denotes those things concerning the community, or city, and its individual members, or citizens. Can we write off those things? Not unless we’re prepared to live in solitude as hermits or in servitude as slaves. I’ll take my chances with politics, messy as it is.

Like any human endeavor, politics can be done in a noble or a base way. July 4 commemorates the noblest political moment of all — our nation’s birth in genius, blood and fire. But the Fourth also looks forward, reminding us how timeless our political challenges are across the centuries, powdered wigs and parchments aside.

Prove it to yourself today by reading quickly through the Declaration of Independence. The framers, after a lofty opening argument on “laws of nature” and “self-evident truths,” enumerate specific grievances like hammer-blows to pound home the case for change. They deliver (speaking of indictments) a 27-count rap sheet convicting king and parliament of intolerable misrule.

This piece is worth a read in its entirety, although the examples are mostly Colorado politics.

Often in natural resource or environmental disputes, we read opinions that infer that politics is inherently bad and that “science” is a better decision tool. You have probably seen the raised eyebrow and sneering tone, as in “that decision was political.”

There are varying degrees of this; one thing they have in common is an apparent lack of reading in the field of science and technology studies. In this field, people study how to use science in policy; yet many of their findings are not listened to or acknowledged by people attempting to make the science-first case. Yes, irony abounds here.

On this Fourth of July, let’s reflect on how we all (whether we like to admit to it or not) are continuing the Nation’s work of politics.

Fuel Treatments and the Northern Spotted Owl

by

This post is related to Foto’s comment below. Here is an interesting piece by Scott Learn in the Oregonian on twenty years of efforts to protect the Northern Spotted Owl.

But as you know, I find the topic of science and fuel treatments fascinating from a science policy wonk point of view.

So here’s a quote from that article:

Forsman and other scientists agree that the relatively dry forests on the east side and in southern Oregon could use measures such as thinning and clear-cut corridors to act as fire breaks. There’s much more debate when it comes to wetter westside forests.

If everywhere east of Eastern Oregon is dry or drier than Oregon, then are we really all in agreement? Why does it seem to be “scientifically” controversial in some places like Colorado and less “scientifically” controversial in other places (if we believe this story, the east side or Oregon and Washington? Is it due to different disciplines, different scientific tools to look at the problem, different framings of the problem, just random scientist to scientist variation, or due to real differences of the behavior of fuels or fires?

It might be interesting to ask firefighters and incident commanders, who may have experiences throughout the west, how they perceive the differences among these places.

Science vs. Advocacy in Natural Resource Management

by

Photo of a scoured stream channel in a roadless area that resulted from a flash flood in a burn area in 2009 in South Fork Salmon River drainage, west central Idaho.

A guest post by Michael Dixon.

I believe the line between science and advocacy is often blurred in natural resource management. I am convinced that often the people doing the science and the advocacy do not know the difference. The public and special interest groups often cite their favorite “science” that supports their point of view, and down play the other views, or worse yet, actively discredit other points of view. To me this is advocacy and politics, using selected science to support your position. This is common and obviously your or my science is better than the opposing positions.
This has been taken a step further by advocacy groups who fund their own science, I’m starting to see more of this or maybe I’m just more aware of it.

Locally where I live the Wilderness Society has their own report on how to deal with fire dependent Ponderosa Pine Ecosystems. They presented this to the FS as science a nice little booklet with glossy photos and citations. I think The Wilderness Society believed that this was state of the art science, and the FS should adopt their recommendations. I skimmed through it and got the impression that the “science” was pretty much what the FS had known for years concerning Ponderosa Pine ecosystems, with the WS’s recommendations on how to manage it was what you would expect from them with the slight admission that thinning stands by logging might be acceptable in some limited cases. I am sure there are cases where the Forest Products Commission does something similar but recommends much more logging as the proper course of management. To me this is just political advocacy with a sprinkling of selected science that the advocates tout as science.

What is more disturbing to me is when researchers and scientists do not appear to know the difference between science and advocacy. An example that I know is as follows: The local Forest Fisheries biologist hired a college professor with a doctorate in fisheries to monitor macro invertebrates in recently burned and unburned drainages to see what effects fire had. Sounds reasonable, he found that the macro invertebrates in the wilderness streams he sampled were more numerous in the burnt drainages. More sunlight and nutrients in the water in the burned drainages, makes sense. Then he sampled some steep gradient streams outside the wilderness. This was the year after the 1997 flood and many of these drainages experienced channel scouring debris torrents. He sampled two of the channel scoured drainages; one had a road in it and was salvaged logged by helicopter after the 1994 fires. The other was in a roadless area. He found only two species of macro invertebrates instead of the five or six species he had found in the other streams. His conclusion was the stream in the roadless area was an anomaly, where as the lack of species in the other stream was due to salvage logging. A better conclusion might have been channel scouring debris torrents remove macro invertebrates. This particular scientist was one of the authors of a widely circulated science paper that sharply criticized salvage logging after fires.

Fisheries biologists, as do many biologists, tend to favor natural conditions as that’s where the species evolved. Roadless and wilderness areas tend to be favored for their pristine/natural conditions. The science report for the ICBEMP (Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan?) did a study comparing fish habitat to road density, and they found a correlation between road density and fish habitat, generally the higher the road density the poorer the fish habitat. I can believe this is generally true, the higher road densities probably also correspond to higher levels of development. I believe there were a few drainage basins in the ICBEMP study area with higher road densities and good fish habitat. The fish biologist for the science report was concerned that the high road density/good fish habitat areas are threatened by the road density. A better response may have been to ask why they are different from the other areas. Is there something to be learned in areas where good fish habitat exists in areas with a high road density? I think this would be important to ask when the big emphasis is restoration.

The study has been taken forward into Forest Planning as a watershed condition indicator. This is considered by some as a direct cause and effect. I would tend to favor more stream based indicators such as; stream temperatures, pool riffle ratios, man made fish barriers, bank stability, riparian conditions and large woody debris. The Boise, Payette, and Sawtooth Forests in Idaho adopted road density as one of the watershed condition indicators, however the ESA consultation process with Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries went a step further and added the following descriptions to road densities: less than 0.7 miles per section is functioning properly, 0.7 to 1.7 miles per section as functioning at risk and anything over 1.7 miles per section as functioning at an unacceptable risk. This categorization basically calls all areas that have been developed for timber management in the past an unacceptable risk to listed fish species due to road density.

This all seems rather ironic in west central Idaho where wildfire, especially in 2007, primarily in roadless and wilderness areas have had a considerable impact, on both old forest structure and stream channel condition. Hundreds of stream channels have been scoured by flash floods and debris torrents in the burn areas, leaving raw and unstable banks. Hundreds of thousands of acres of old forest have been lost to wildfire. Is ecologic integrity assured in roadless and wilderness areas? Not from what I have seen.

About the Author
Michael Dixon has over 30 years of Forest Service employment, including over 25 years as a member of project level NEPA teams. He has worked on two Forest Plans as well as post plan project level implementation and monitoring. He has been a member on Burn Area Emergency Recovery (BAER) teams on 6 major wildfires.