RE: [scisip] Canada's three chief scientist advisors
Glenn Hampson
I must be a sucker for chasing you down rabbit holes David, but this narrative is too nebulous for me---sorry. Can you please give a specific example of where contradictory evidence is being debated with regard to government policy? You’re certainly not talking about climate change or vaccine science, I hope. Can you please lay out a specific example of where actual subject matter experts (not advisors, spin doctors, and others holding court on subjects outside their area of expertise) have come to utterly different conclusions about scientific evidence? I’ll grant you the obvious ones: nutrition advice and disagreements about the merits of certain medical procedures are commonplace, but these issues aren’t often politically weaponized (with the exception of abortion in the US). What specific disagreements are you referring to here?
This is an important point. Brooke is kind of tiptoeing around it in his response, but it’s critical to ensure that science doesn’t become too politicized (recognizing there will always be some political influence with regard to investment decisions, priorities, etc.). There is no widespread disagreement amongst scientists about the essential facts of climate change, for instance. It must NOT be left to “reasonable people” to decide this kind of evidence. The science community has spoken, and the policy community needs to figure out what to do with this information and not be tricked into believing the narrative that scientists disagree, or that “reasonable people” are properly equipped to decide if vaccines cause autism, evolution is a hoax, or the earth would be better off a little warmer.
This isn’t to say that science alone has the answers, of course, and this is where your “reasonable people” come in. As I’m sure everyone on this list knows, what more often happens in the policy arena is that science ALONE can’t decide policy. Scientists might conclude, for instance, that one part per billion exposure to a certain pesticide increases cancer risk to the extent that 50 more people will die per year as a result. Is this sufficient to ban the use of this chemical? Maybe, maybe not. This risk needs to be weighed against the economic impact of stopping use---the cost to farmers, the risk to the food supply, the impact of alternatives, etc. Water use is an even more complicated example. We know that certain aquatic species may be endangered because of water use policies and procedures, but protecting these species is balanced against the backdrop of a myriad other issues---native rights to water, famer rights, state and local rights, international boundaries, energy production, conservation, etc.
So, we use science to inform our policy decisions. But the friction point isn’t necessarily that science is wrong, misinterpreted, improperly explained or in conflict with itself. It’s that science ALONE can’t always provide the policy solution. What I think Brooke is saying here and what I suspect most of the people on this list agree with is that we must not allow this friction to turn against science for our own political purposes. If someone is in favor of more offshore drilling, great---they should make their case using honest science and honest risk/reward/tradeoff calculations. They shouldn’t scare up the specter that actual climate scientists disagree about climate change in order to support their own political views. This “fake news” approach isn’t just politically cowardly, it’s doing genuine damage to science and delaying the creation of important science-informed policies.
Best regards,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
From: Science of Science Policy Listserv [mailto:SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV] On Behalf Of David Wojick
Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 10:27 AM
To: SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV
Subject: Re: [scisip] Canada's three chief scientist advisors
Dear Brooke,
I do not agree with your apparent thesis that when there is contradictory evidence, then the evidence does not inform the decision. On the contrary, the decision is informed that the evidence is contradictory, which is often the factual case in major policy matters. What we have then is decision making under uncertainty. Science does not change this. There is nothing unscientific about contradictory evidence, one simply decides based on how one sees this evidence, which will differ from person to person..
I think that Sarewitz's position is overly cynical. The fact is that the weight of evidence is relative to the observer. Disagreement does not imply bias or irrationality. Reasonable people can look at the same evidence in complex cases and come to opposite conclusions. The fallacy is to think that there is some scientific way around this fact, but there is not. It is why we have democratic decision making.
I have nothing against science advisors per se. But their proper job is to explain the evidence, especially if it is contradictory. It is not to argue for a particular position, as all too often happens. That is the job of the advocates.
David
At 12:14 PM 2/8/2018, Brooke Struck wrote:
Hi David,
Thanks for your response. I agree, sometimes there is too much evidence! Let’s explore that point further and see one way that it can play out. When we have so much evidence, much of it contradictory, we end up in a situation that Dan Sarewitz describes as the “excess of objectivity:†no matter what your position, you’ll be able to find some piece of evidence that backs it up.
In this case, there is definitely evidence available in the policy ecosystem; it’s even fair to say that there is evidence backing up the decision that is ultimately taken. However, the evidence has not actually informed the decision, it has only justified it. We have picked our evidence based on the outcome, rather than the other way around. This is completely antithetical to science. The gridlock of the “excess of objectivity†actually opens up the space for the evidence to be ignored, brought back in at the press conference for rhetorical purposes only, but never actually entering into the decision-making process. (Hyperbole, of course, but that doesn’t mean that lighter versions of this scenario don’t occur or that they aren’t a problem.)
What I’m pointing to isn’t the volume or availability of evidence, it’s about the way that the evidence is considered and used. There’s room for improvement on this front, and the Chief Scientists on the panel point out that they alone will not be able to bring about that change.
Thanks for your comment,
Brooke
PS: The point that the Chief Scientists won’t be able to address this problem alone is one that they themselves made. I agree with them, and I’m happy to defend the position, but I feel it’s important to emphasize that this point was one that they made and that I reported. Others have also reported on it, e.g.:
“Quebec’s Dr. Quirion said training the next generation of scientists is critical to making science relevant, meaningful and accessible to the public. “If we want to have an impact, well, we are only three,†he said, indicating his two colleagues sharing the stage.â€
https://www.universityaffairs.ca/news/news-article/tell-stories-advisers-urge-science-community/
You can also view the full video here:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAxI5w-KUIwN6aJwRiNGcxEGurvNuXJOW
Brooke Struck, Ph.D.
Senior Policy Officer | Spécialiste des politiques
Science-Metrix
1335, Mont-Royal E
Montréal, QC H2J 1Y6
Canada
![http://1science.com/images/Twitter_sign.png]()
T. 1.514.495.6505 x.117
T. 1.800.994.4761 x.117
F. 1.514.495.6523
brooke...@science-metrix.com
www.science-metrix.com
From: David Wojick [ mailto:dwo...@craigellachie.us]
Sent: February 8, 2018 11:57 AM
To: Brooke Struck <brooke...@science-metrix.com>; SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV
Subject: Re: [scisip] Canada's three chief scientist advisors
When you say this: "A small handful of prominent chief science advisors will not be enough to bring about a shift towards a culture of evidence in government," you seem to be saying that there is a lack of evidence in present policy discussions. In fact most major policy issues are awash in evidence, brought forth by all sides.
The problem is that this evidence is often contradictory, not that it is absent. Lack of evidence is not the problem.
David
David Wojick, Ph.D.
http://insidepublicaccess.com/
At 07:30 AM 2/8/2018, Brooke Struck wrote:Hello everyone,
In this week’s blog installment, we synthesize the major lines of discussion from the panel of three chief scientist advisors in Canada (federal, and provincial for Ontario and Quebec).
At issue was striking a healthy balance: on the one hand, science advice institutions must be rigid enough to withstand changes of political direction; on the other hand, they must be nimble enough to have their purpose evolve along with the changing world(s) of science & policy.
You can read the full post here: http://www.sciencemetrics.org/science-advice-in-canada-reborn-again/
Best wishes,
Brooke
Brooke Struck, Ph.D.
Senior Policy Officer | Spécialiste des politiques
Science-Metrix
1335, Mont-Royal E
Montréal, QC H2J 1Y6
Canada
![http://1science.com/images/Twitter_sign.png]()
########################################################################
To send to the list, address your message to: SCI...@listserv.nsf.gov
To subscribe to the list: send the text “subscribe SCISIP†to list...@listserv.nsf.gov
To unsubscribe: sent the text “unsubscribe SCISIP†to list...@listserv.nsf.gov
Content-Type: image/png;
name="image001.png"
Content-Description: image001.png
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="image001.png";
size=1068;
creation-date=Thu, 08 Feb 2018 12:30:47 GMT;
modification-date=Thu, 08 Feb 2018 12:30:47 GMT
Content-ID: < image0...@01D3A038.8E3C8520>
Content-Type: image/png;
name="image002.png"
Content-Description: image002.png
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="image002.png";
size=1109;
creation-date=Thu, 08 Feb 2018 12:30:48 GMT;
modification-date=Thu, 08 Feb 2018 12:30:48 GMT
Content-ID: < image0...@01D3A038.8E3C8520>
Content-Type: image/png;
name="image003.png"
Content-Description: image003.png
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="image003.png";
size=13360;
creation-date=Thu, 08 Feb 2018 12:30:48 GMT;
modification-date=Thu, 08 Feb 2018 12:30:48 GMT
Content-ID: < image0...@01D3A038.8E3C8520>
Content-Type: image/png;
name="image001.png"
Content-Description: image001.png
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="image001.png";
size=1068;
creation-date=Thu, 08 Feb 2018 17:14:06 GMT;
modification-date=Thu, 08 Feb 2018 17:14:06 GMT
Content-ID: <image0...@01D3A0D5.FD36EDB0>
Content-Type: image/png;
name="image002.png"
Content-Description: image002.png
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="image002.png";
size=1109;
creation-date=Thu, 08 Feb 2018 17:14:07 GMT;
modification-date=Thu, 08 Feb 2018 17:14:07 GMT
Content-ID: <image0...@01D3A0D5.FD36EDB0>
Content-Type: image/png;
name="image003.png"
Content-Description: image003.png
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="image003.png";
size=13360;
creation-date=Thu, 08 Feb 2018 17:14:07 GMT;
modification-date=Thu, 08 Feb 2018 17:14:07 GMT
Content-ID: <image0...@01D3A0D5.FD36EDB0>
########################################################################
To send to the list, address your message to: SCI...@listserv.nsf.gov
To subscribe to the list: send the text “subscribe SCISIP” to list...@listserv.nsf.gov
To unsubscribe: sent the text “unsubscribe SCISIP” to list...@listserv.nsf.gov
Glenn Hampson
Great article Brooke---I especially like the snowmen and zombies imagery. But I respectfully disagree that breaking down information siloes is necessarily the most workable approach. Would that we could, but the nature of any bureaucracy is to calcify and zombify---to build information silos and resist the need (as it inevitably arises) to shrink or at least transform. Complicating this dynamic are the political appointees who head most agencies, accelerating the “snowmen” effect.
Therefore, I think the “conduits” you mentioned in your article might in fact be the best approach (as long as they can be insulated from politics, sort of like the Congressional Research Service in the US)---a specially-trained and interconnected body of civil servants whose mission is to daylight and integrate the government’s science knowledge, and mediate robust connections between government scientists, policymakers and the public. Incidentally, I think the same approach should be considered in academia as well---science communication specialists who serve scientists and institutions by connecting research, shepherding data into repositories, etc.
I do wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion that science literacy is key, especially today when it’s becoming harder for the general public to discern real news from fake. To help with this, we need to build the capacity of science to communicate truth, now more than ever. Stronger “conduits” might be our best hope.
Sincerely,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
From: Brooke Struck [mailto:brooke...@SCIENCE-METRIX.COM]
Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 4:31 AM
To: SCIT...@LIST.NIH.GOV
Subject: Canada's three chief scientist advisors
Hello everyone,
In this week’s blog installment, we synthesize the major lines of discussion from the panel of three chief scientist advisors in Canada (federal, and provincial for Ontario and Quebec).
At issue was striking a healthy balance: on the one hand, science advice institutions must be rigid enough to withstand changes of political direction; on the other hand, they must be nimble enough to have their purpose evolve along with the changing world(s) of science & policy.
You can read the full post here: http://www.sciencemetrics.org/science-advice-in-canada-reborn-again/
Best wishes,
Brooke
Brooke Struck, Ph.D.
Senior Policy Officer | Spécialiste des politiques
Science-Metrix
1335, Mont-Royal E
Montréal, QC H2J 1Y6
Canada
F. 1.514.495.6523
******************************************************************************
The Science of Team Science (SciTS) listserv facilitates knowledge sharing among individuals engaged in, studying, facilitating, and supporting team science, in the US and internationally. It is maintained by the SciTS Team of the National Cancer Institute of the U.S. National Institutes of Health.
https://www.teamsciencetoolkit.cancer.gov/Public/ToolkitTeam.aspx
VISIT THE TEAM SCIENCE TOOLKIT, a one-stop-shop for resources to help you lead, manage, facilitate, support, or study team-based research - www.teamsciencetoolkit.cancer.gov
TO SUBSCRIBE:
Send an email with a blank subject line to: list...@list.nih.gov. The message body should read: subscribe SciTSlist [your full name]. Please do not include the brackets. For example, for Robin Smith to subscribe, the message would read: subscribe SciTSlist Robin Smith. You will receive a confirmation email.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE:
Send an email with a blank subject line to: list...@list.nih.gov. The message body should read: SIGNOFF SCITSLIST.
TO POST TO THE LISTSERV:
Send an email to SciT...@list.nih.gov. Any subscriber may post to the list.
TO VIEW THE ARCHIVES:
To view the archives of all previous postings, go to: http://list.nih.gov/archives/SciTSlist.html
TO RECEIVE MESSAGES IN A DAILY DIGEST:
The default setting sends you each message as it is posted to the listserv. To receive one daily digest, instead, go to:
http://list.nih.gov/cgi-bin/wa.exe?SUBED1=SciTSlist&A=1 and select “digest” as your subscription type.
TECHNICAL PROBLEMS WITH YOUR SUBSCRIPTION?
Contact the list administrator, Judy Kuan, at: ku...@mail.nih.gov. Please be sure to state that your email is in reference to the SciTS listserv.
******************************************************************************
Glenn Hampson
Agreed David. Debate is indeed central to science. But when our goal is to discover truth as opposed to craft public policy, I’m sure you agree this debate must happen amongst scientists, not between scientists and the non-expert public. Personally, thank you, I’d rather not have the public judge the efficacy of vaccines or use an opinion poll to determine whether dinosaurs roamed the earth 6,000 years ago.
And this is why the climate change “debate” is anything but. It is a gross mischaracterization to claim that climate scientists “most certainly” disagree. They most certainly do not. What makes this “the greatest science intensive policy issue in history” is that the far right has aggressively and relentlessly misinformed Americans over the last 20 or so years that climate change is a hoax, and that the judgement of non-expert policy advocates can be supplanted for the judgement of actual climatologists. In doing so, these actors have hopelessly confused policy makers and delayed critical action---to what moral and ethical end I cannot possibly imagine. And it’s critical to note that this sacrifice has most certainly not been made on the mantle of advancing scientific debate. Indeed, to claim this subterfuge has academic foundations is either deliberately disingenuous or willfully ignorant.
So yes---scientists will of course disagree and healthy debate (and often unhealthy debate) is the very ethos of science. But when we let imposters, swindlers and the tin foil hat crowd insert themselves into scientific debate and insist on equal time for their views, how does this help science at all? It doesn’t of course. At this point, the debate ceases to be scientific, and the damage caused by the debate---to science, society, the environment, public health, the global economy, political discourse, education---is almost incalculable.
I agree with you about a lot David and enjoy hearing your point of view. On this particular issue, however, I couldn’t disagree with you more.
Sincerely,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
From: Science of Science Policy Listserv [mailto:SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV] On Behalf Of David Wojick
Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 4:58 PM
To: SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV
Subject: Re: [scisip] Canada's three chief scientist advisors
Glenn, I have never seen a major science intensive policy debate in which scientists did not disagree, or a major lawsuit with scientific aspects for that matter.Debate is central to science.
As for climate change, the scientists most certainly disagree. That is what makes it the greatest science intensive policy issue in history.
In your domain we could just take the scientific question of whether or not OA increases citations? This is a major research issue and the results are not only debatable, they are actively debated.
David
At 02:43 PM 2/8/2018, Glenn Hampson wrote:
I must be a sucker for chasing you down rabbit holes David, but this narrative is too nebulous for me---sorry. Can you please give a specific example of where contradictory evidence is being debated with regard to government policy? You’re certainly not talking about climate change or vaccine science, I hope. Can you please lay out a specific example of where actual subject matter experts (not advisors, spin doctors, and others holding court on subjects outside their area of expertise) have come to utterly different conclusions about scientific evidence? I’ll grant you the obvious ones: nutrition advice and disagreements about the merits of certain medical procedures are commonplace, but these issues aren’t often politically weaponized (with the exception of abortion in the US). What specific disagreements are you referring to here?
This is an important point. Brooke is kind of tiptoeing around it in his response, but it’s critical to ensure that science doesn’t become too politicized (recognizing there will always be some political influence with regard to investment decisions, priorities, etc.). There is no widespread disagreement amongst scientists about the essential facts of climate change, for instance. It must NOT be left to “reasonable people†to decide this kind of evidence. The science community has spoken, and the policy community needs to figure out what to do with this information and not be tricked into believing the narrative that scientists disagree, or that “reasonable people†are properly equipped to decide if vaccines cause autism, evolution is a hoax, or the earth would be better off a little warmer.
This isn’t to say that science alone has the answers, of course, and this is where your “reasonable people†come in. As I’m sure everyone on this list knows, what more often happens in the policy arena is that science ALONE can’t decide policy. Scientists might conclude, for instance, that one part per billion exposure to a certain pesticide increases cancer risk to the extent that 50 more people will die per year as a result. Is this sufficient to ban the use of this chemical? Maybe, maybe not. This risk needs to be weighed against the economic impact of stopping use---the cost to farmers, the risk to the food supply, the impact of alternatives, etc. Water use is an even more complicated example. We know that certain aquatic species may be endangered because of water use policies and procedures, but protecting these species is balanced against the backdrop of a myriad other issues---native rights to water, famer rights, state and local rights, international boundaries, energy production, conservation, etc.
So, we use science to inform our policy decisions. But the friction point isn’t necessarily that science is wrong, misinterpreted, improperly explained or in conflict with itself. It’s that science ALONE can’t always provide the policy solution. What I think Brooke is saying here and what I suspect most of the people on this list agree with is that we must not allow this friction to turn against science for our own political purposes. If someone is in favor of more offshore drilling, great---they should make their case using honest science and honest risk/reward/tradeoff calculations. They shouldn’t scare up the specter that actual climate scientists disagree about climate change in order to support their own political views. This “fake news†approach isn’t just politically cowardly, it’s doing genuine damage to science and delaying the creation of important science-informed policies.
Best regards,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
From: Science of Science Policy Listserv [ mailto:SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV] On Behalf Of David Wojick
Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 10:27 AM
To: SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV
Subject: Re: [scisip] Canada's three chief scientist advisors
Dear Brooke,
I do not agree with your apparent thesis that when there is contradictory evidence, then the evidence does not inform the decision. On the contrary, the decision is informed that the evidence is contradictory, which is often the factual case in major policy matters. What we have then is decision making under uncertainty. Science does not change this. There is nothing unscientific about contradictory evidence, one simply decides based on how one sees this evidence, which will differ from person to person..
I think that Sarewitz's position is overly cynical. The fact is that the weight of evidence is relative to the observer. Disagreement does not imply bias or irrationality. Reasonable people can look at the same evidence in complex cases and come to opposite conclusions. The fallacy is to think that there is some scientific way around this fact, but there is not. It is why we have democratic decision making.
I have nothing against science advisors per se. But their proper job is to explain the evidence, especially if it is contradictory. It is not to argue for a particular position, as all too often happens. That is the job of the advocates.
David
At 12:14 PM 2/8/2018, Brooke Struck wrote:
Hi David,
Thanks for your response. I agree, sometimes there is too much evidence! Let’s explore that point further and see one way that it can play out. When we have so much evidence, much of it contradictory, we end up in a situation that Dan Sarewitz describes as the “excess of objectivity:†no matter what your position, you’ll be able to find some piece of evidence that backs it up.
In this case, there is definitely evidence available in the policy ecosystem; it’s even fair to say that there is evidence backing up the decision that is ultimately taken. However, the evidence has not actually informed the decision, it has only justified it. We have picked our evidence based on the outcome, rather than the other way around. This is completely antithetical to science. The gridlock of the “excess of objectivity†actually opens up the space for the evidence to be ignored, brought back in at the press conference for rhetorical purposes only, but never actually entering into the decision-making process. (Hyperbole, of course, but that doesn’t mean that lighter versions of this scenario don’t occur or that they aren’t a problem.)
What I’m pointing to isn’t the volume or availability of evidence, it’s about the way that the evidence is considered and used. There’s room for improvement on this front, and the Chief Scientists on the panel point out that they alone will not be able to bring about that change.
Thanks for your comment,
Brooke
PS: The point that the Chief Scientists won’t be able to address this problem alone is one that they themselves made. I agree with them, and I’m happy to defend the position, but I feel it’s important to emphasize that this point was one that they made and that I reported. Others have also reported on it, e.g.:
“Quebec’s Dr. Quirion said training the next generation of scientists is critical to making science relevant, meaningful and accessible to the public. “If we want to have an impact, well, we are only three,†he said, indicating his two colleagues sharing the stage.â€Â
https://www.universityaffairs.ca/news/news-article/tell-stories-advisers-urge-science-community/
You can also view the full video here:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAxI5w-KUIwN6aJwRiNGcxEGurvNuXJOW
Brooke Struck, Ph.D.
Senior Policy Officer | Spécialiste des politiques
Science-Metrix
1335, Mont-Royal E
Montréal, QC H2J 1Y6
Canada
![http://1science.com/images/Twitter_sign.png]()
From: David Wojick [ mailto:dwo...@craigellachie.us]
Sent: February 8, 2018 11:57 AM
To: Brooke Struck < brooke...@science-metrix.com>; SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV
Subject: Re: [scisip] Canada's three chief scientist advisors
When you say this: "A small handful of prominent chief science advisors will not be enough to bring about a shift towards a culture of evidence in government," you seem to be saying that there is a lack of evidence in present policy discussions. In fact most major policy issues are awash in evidence, brought forth by all sides.
The problem is that this evidence is often contradictory, not that it is absent. Lack of evidence is not the problem.
David
David Wojick, Ph.D.
http://insidepublicaccess.com/
At 07:30 AM 2/8/2018, Brooke Struck wrote:
Hello everyone,
In this week’s blog installment, we synthesize the major lines of discussion from the panel of three chief scientist advisors in Canada (federal, and provincial for Ontario and Quebec).
At issue was striking a healthy balance: on the one hand, science advice institutions must be rigid enough to withstand changes of political direction; on the other hand, they must be nimble enough to have their purpose evolve along with the changing world(s) of science & policy.
You can read the full post here: http://www.sciencemetrics.org/science-advice-in-canada-reborn-again/
Best wishes,
Brooke
Brooke Struck, Ph.D.
Senior Policy Officer | Spécialiste des politiques
Science-Metrix
1335, Mont-Royal E
Montréal, QC H2J 1Y6
Canada
![http://1science.com/images/Twitter_sign.png]()
########################################################################
To send to the list, address your message to: SCI...@listserv.nsf.gov
To subscribe to the list: send the text “subscribe SCISIP†to list...@listserv.nsf.gov
To unsubscribe: sent the text “unsubscribe SCISIP†to list...@listserv.nsf.gov
To subscribe to the list: send the text “subscribe SCISIP†to list...@listserv.nsf.gov
To unsubscribe: sent the text “unsubscribe SCISIP†to list...@listserv.nsf.gov
########################################################################
To send to the list, address your message to: SCI...@listserv.nsf.gov
To subscribe to the list: send the text “subscribe SCISIP†to list...@listserv.nsf.gov
To unsubscribe: sent the text “unsubscribe SCISIP†to list...@listserv.nsf.gov
Sheri Edwards
As an avid ”lurker” on this list, I quite agree with Glenn:
“…the far right has aggressively and relentlessly misinformed Americans over the last 20 or so years that climate change is a hoax, and that the judgement of non-expert policy advocates can be supplanted for the judgement of actual climatologists. In doing so, these actors have hopelessly confused policy makers and delayed critical action---to what moral and ethical end I cannot possibly imagine. And it’s critical to note that this sacrifice has most certainly not been made on the mantle of advancing scientific debate. Indeed, to claim this subterfuge has academic foundations is either deliberately disingenuous or willfully ignorant.”
It’s what charlatans do, and we are choked with them at great expense. Climate change deniers are frauds, and to accommodate them is to normalize their darker impulses. Lower taxes and smaller government is one thing; I don’t agree with it as an approach to making a robust society, but I can find compromise there. But look at how far the right wing has come in this country from the days when Nixon created the EPA, until now, when some “red” states (ironic color description, isn’t it?) are requiring creationism to be taught alongside science, rather than in a philosophy class where it belongs.
How such a large swath of people are so gullible to the “Climate change is a hoax” meme is a real conundrum. Increasingly, and whether we like it or not, the data suffocates any possibility of a debate about why, for example, southern hemispheric flora and fauna alike are creeping northward, and that polar bears are predicted to be extinct very soon.
We really do inherit the wind.
Respectfully,
Sheri Edwards
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Research & Scholarly Communications Network" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
rscomm+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rsc...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rscomm/00be01d3a15d%24c8c6f970%245a54ec50%24%40nationalscience.org.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Sheri Edwards
As an avid ”lurker” on this list, I quite agree with Glenn:
“…the far right has aggressively and relentlessly misinformed Americans over the last 20 or so years that climate change is a hoax, and that the judgement of non-expert policy advocates can be supplanted for the judgement of actual climatologists. In doing so, these actors have hopelessly confused policy makers and delayed critical action---to what moral and ethical end I cannot possibly imagine. And it’s critical to note that this sacrifice has most certainly not been made on the mantle of advancing scientific debate. Indeed, to claim this subterfuge has academic foundations is either deliberately disingenuous or willfully ignorant.”
Misinformation is what charlatans “do,” and we are choked with them at great expense. Climate change deniers are frauds, and to accommodate them is to normalize their darker impulses. Lower taxes and smaller government is one thing; I don’t agree with it as an approach to making a robust society, but I can find compromise there. But look at how far the right wing has come in this country from the days when Nixon created the EPA, until now, when some “red” states (ironic color description, isn’t it?) are requiring creationism to be taught alongside science, rather than in a philosophy class where it belongs.
How such a large swath of people are so gullible to the “Climate change is a hoax!” meme is a real conundrum. Increasingly, and whether we like it or not, the data suffocates any possibility of a debate about why, for example, southern hemispheric flora and fauna alike are creeping northward, and that polar bears are predicted to be extinct very soon.
We really do inherit the wind.
Respectfully,
Sheri Edwards
From: rsc...@googlegroups.com [mailto:rsc...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Glenn Hampson
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 11:24 PM
To: 'David Wojick' <dwo...@CRAIGELLACHIE.US>; SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV
Cc: rsc...@googlegroups.com
--
Sheri Edwards
As an avid ”lurker” on this listserv, I quite agree with Glenn:
“…the far right has aggressively and relentlessly misinformed Americans over the last 20 or so years that climate change is a hoax, and that the judgement of non-expert policy advocates can be supplanted for the judgement of actual climatologists. In doing so, these actors have hopelessly confused policy makers and delayed critical action---to what moral and ethical end I cannot possibly imagine. And it’s critical to note that this sacrifice has most certainly not been made on the mantle of advancing scientific debate. Indeed, to claim this subterfuge has academic foundations is either deliberately disingenuous or willfully ignorant.”
It’s what charlatans do, and we are choked with them at great expense. Climate change deniers are frauds, and to accommodate them is to normalize their darker impulses. Lower taxes and smaller government is one thing; I don’t agree with it as an approach to making a robust society, but I can find compromise there. But look at how far the right wing has come in this country from the days when Nixon created the EPA, until now, when some “red” states (ironic color description, isn’t it?) are requiring creationism to be taught alongside science, rather than in a philosophy class where it belongs.
How such a large swath of people are so gullible to the “Climate change is a hoax” meme is a real conundrum. Increasingly, and whether we like it or not, the data suffocates any possibility of a debate about why, for example, southern hemispheric flora and fauna alike are creeping northward, and that polar bears are predicted to be extinct very soon.
We really do inherit the wind.
Respectfully,
Sheri Edwards
From: rsc...@googlegroups.com [mailto:rsc...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Glenn Hampson
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 11:24 PM
To: 'David Wojick' <dwo...@CRAIGELLACHIE.US>; SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV
Cc: rsc...@googlegroups.com
--
Glenn Hampson
Hi David, Everyone,
David---your reply has made me rethink my criticism. I’ve only known you “virtually” for several years now and have always appreciated your thoughtfulness and insight. You are a scholar and a gentleman.
Unfortunately, you are also being used. You may indeed see your musings about climate change science as being harmless, and indeed, why shouldn’t we all be encouraged to think for ourselves? But in the modern era of communication where everyone with a website can be an “expert,” your views have been misappropriated by people with an axe to grind. You enjoy and are good at poking holes in arguments. However, those with a political agendas have latched onto your climate change skepticism as evidence of genuine scientific dissent, of which there is none on the essential question of whether human activity is responsible for climate change. You are not a climate scientist. You have never published a journal article on climate change, never presented work at a climate conference, and are not cited in UN climatology work, yet Heartland and others include you in their honor roll of scientists who think climate change is a hoax.
Something is wrong with this picture. And it’s troubling. We are knee-deep in an era of fake news, but we haven’t really focused yet on what impact this fakery is having on science. My area, as you know, is science communication. With regard to the Open Scholarship Initiative, of which we are both a part, our focus is on creating global, sustainable paths to more “open” information, including open data. But this open world has lots of onramps that aren’t regulated. What happens to science when fake information gets dumped into our databases from citizen scientists, hacks and imposters, fraudulent work and studies that haven’t been peer reviewed, and industry researchers with clear bias? What happens to science when we treat all inquiry and findings as being equal? That’s what happens when Bill Nye takes the stage to debate Ken Ham, and when the Heartland Institute puts obscure and non-expert dissent on the same level as the UN’s work. It’s one thing to be skeptical; it’s quite another to elevate non-mainstream skepticism and allow it to derail legitimate science and science policy.
The philosophers on this lists will recognize that we’ve seen this movie before. The western world of 400 years ago was just beginning to understand the critical importance of rational inquiry. It was no longer up to the church to decide matters of truth and fact; that role was being passed to “philosophers.” As a society, we do not want people with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo to put their thumbs on the levers of inquiry---whether this is the church of religion, big oil, or plutocracy. The independence of science made society free; losing that independence makes society less free.
Best regards,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
From: Science of Science Policy Listserv [mailto:SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV] On Behalf Of David Wojick
Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 3:09 AM
To: SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV
Subject: Re: [scisip] Canada's three chief scientist advisors
Glenn, as you know my field is issue analysis at the intersection of science, technology and public policy. As it happens the climate change debate has been a study of mine for many years. In fact I have run a listserv called Climatechangedebate.org since 1999.
There are several major scientific issues about which there is great disagreement. Perhaps the most central is that called climate sensitivity (CS) to CO2 levels. By convention CS is defined as the warming that will occur if and when CO2 reaches twice the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm, all else being equal (a qualification that is often lost in discussion).
Every climate model has an intrinsic CS. The first problem is that there is a huge range among the models, with most falling between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees. In addition there are observation based analyses that are claimed to argue for an even lower CS, on the order of 1.0 degrees.
This range is thought to be from harmless to dangerous, with 2 degrees often cited as the transition point, so the scientific issue then becomes whether or not the CO2 increase is dangerous. The true value of CS is being actively debated within the scientific community.
There is also a major issue over what the global temperatures are and are doing, because the ground based statistical models and the satellite measurements disagree deeply. In particular the ground based warming 1978-1997, which is the primary basis for concern, does not appear in the satellite observations. This too is being debated.
There are a great many smaller, but still important, scientific issues being debated as well. That there is no serious debate is actually a political position, one which is contradicted by observation.
I find the scientific issues to be fascinating in their complexity.
David
On Feb 8, 2018, at 11:23 PM, Glenn Hampson <gham...@NATIONALSCIENCE.ORG> wrote:
Agreed David. Debate is indeed central to science. But when our goal is to discover truth as opposed to craft public policy, I’m sure you agree this debate must happen amongst scientists, not between scientists and the non-expert public. Personally, thank you, I’d rather not have the public judge the efficacy of vaccines or use an opinion poll to determine whether dinosaurs roamed the earth 6,000 years ago.
And this is why the climate change “debate” is anything but. It is a gross mischaracterization to claim that climate scientists “most certainly” disagree. They most certainly do not. What makes this “the greatest science intensive policy issue in history” is that the far right has aggressively and relentlessly misinformed Americans over the last 20 or so years that climate change is a hoax, and that the judgement of non-expert policy advocates can be supplanted for the judgement of actual climatologists. In doing so, these actors have hopelessly confused policy makers and delayed critical action---to what moral and ethical end I cannot possibly imagine. And it’s critical to note that this sacrifice has most certainly not been made on the mantle of advancing scientific debate. Indeed, to claim this subterfuge has academic foundations is either deliberately disingenuous or willfully ignorant.
So yes---scientists will of course disagree and healthy debate (and often unhealthy debate) is the very ethos of science. But when we let imposters, swindlers and the tin foil hat crowd insert themselves into scientific debate and insist on equal time for their views, how does this help science at all? It doesn’t of course. At this point, the debate ceases to be scientific, and the damage caused by the debate---to science, society, the environment, public health, the global economy, political discourse, education---is almost incalculable.
I agree with you about a lot David and enjoy hearing your point of view. On this particular issue, however, I couldn’t disagree with you more.
Sincerely,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
<image001.jpg>
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
From: Science of Science Policy Listserv [mailto:SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV] On Behalf Of David Wojick
Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 4:58 PM
To: SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV
Subject: Re: [scisip] Canada's three chief scientist advisors
Glenn, I have never seen a major science intensive policy debate in which scientists did not disagree, or a major lawsuit with scientific aspects for that matter.Debate is central to science.
As for climate change, the scientists most certainly disagree. That is what makes it the greatest science intensive policy issue in history.
In your domain we could just take the scientific question of whether or not OA increases citations? This is a major research issue and the results are not only debatable, they are actively debated.
David
At 02:43 PM 2/8/2018, Glenn Hampson wrote:
I must be a sucker for chasing you down rabbit holes David, but this narrative is too nebulous for me---sorry. Can you please give a specific example of where contradictory evidence is being debated with regard to government policy? You’re certainly not talking about climate change or vaccine science, I hope. Can you please lay out a specific example of where actual subject matter experts (not advisors, spin doctors, and others holding court on subjects outside their area of expertise) have come to utterly different conclusions about scientific evidence? I’ll grant you the obvious ones: nutrition advice and disagreements about the merits of certain medical procedures are commonplace, but these issues aren’t often politically weaponized (with the exception of abortion in the US). What specific disagreements are you referring to here?
This is an important point. Brooke is kind of tiptoeing around it in his response, but it’s critical to ensure that science doesn’t become too politicized (recognizing there will always be some political influence with regard to investment decisions, priorities, etc.). There is no widespread disagreement amongst scientists about the essential facts of climate change, for instance. It must NOT be left to “reasonable people†to decide this kind of evidence. The science community has spoken, and the policy community needs to figure out what to do with this information and not be tricked into believing the narrative that scientists disagree, or that “reasonable people†are properly equipped to decide if vaccines cause autism, evolution is a hoax, or the earth would be better off a little warmer.
This isn’t to say that science alone has the answers, of course, and this is where your “reasonable people†come in. As I’m sure everyone on this list knows, what more often happens in the policy arena is that science ALONE can’t decide policy. Scientists might conclude, for instance, that one part per billion exposure to a certain pesticide increases cancer risk to the extent that 50 more people will die per year as a result. Is this sufficient to ban the use of this chemical? Maybe, maybe not. This risk needs to be weighed against the economic impact of stopping use---the cost to farmers, the risk to the food supply, the impact of alternatives, etc. Water use is an even more complicated example. We know that certain aquatic species may be endangered because of water use policies and procedures, but protecting these species is balanced against the backdrop of a myriad other issues---native rights to water, famer rights, state and local rights, international boundaries, energy production, conservation, etc.
So, we use science to inform our policy decisions. But the friction point isn’t necessarily that science is wrong, misinterpreted, improperly explained or in conflict with itself. It’s that science ALONE can’t always provide the policy solution. What I think Brooke is saying here and what I suspect most of the people on this list agree with is that we must not allow this friction to turn against science for our own political purposes. If someone is in favor of more offshore drilling, great---they should make their case using honest science and honest risk/reward/tradeoff calculations. They shouldn’t scare up the specter that actual climate scientists disagree about climate change in order to support their own political views. This “fake news†approach isn’t just politically cowardly, it’s doing genuine damage to science and delaying the creation of important science-informed policies.
Best regards,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
<image001.jpg>
<(null)>
From: David Wojick [ mailto:dwo...@craigellachie.us]
Sent: February 8, 2018 11:57 AM
To: Brooke Struck < brooke...@science-metrix.com>; SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV
Subject: Re: [scisip] Canada's three chief scientist advisors
When you say this: "A small handful of prominent chief science advisors will not be enough to bring about a shift towards a culture of evidence in government," you seem to be saying that there is a lack of evidence in present policy discussions. In fact most major policy issues are awash in evidence, brought forth by all sides.
The problem is that this evidence is often contradictory, not that it is absent. Lack of evidence is not the problem.
David
David Wojick, Ph.D.
http://insidepublicaccess.com/
At 07:30 AM 2/8/2018, Brooke Struck wrote:
Hello everyone,
In this week’s blog installment, we synthesize the major lines of discussion from the panel of three chief scientist advisors in Canada (federal, and provincial for Ontario and Quebec).
At issue was striking a healthy balance: on the one hand, science advice institutions must be rigid enough to withstand changes of political direction; on the other hand, they must be nimble enough to have their purpose evolve along with the changing world(s) of science & policy.
You can read the full post here: http://www.sciencemetrics.org/science-advice-in-canada-reborn-again/
Best wishes,
Brooke
Brooke Struck, Ph.D.
Senior Policy Officer | Spécialiste des politiques
Science-Metrix
1335, Mont-Royal E
Montréal, QC H2J 1Y6
Canada
<(null)>
David Wojick
In that regard, the climate change scientific debate is very real. The essential question is not, as you suggest, whether human activity is responsible for some climate change. That much is well established. For example the urban heat island effect is well established for major cities. The essential question is whether human caused climate changes are dangerous or not, calling for action or not, and that question is the subject of intense scientific and political debate. The central unresolved scientific issue is climate sensitivity.
Whether or not I am a climate scientist is itself an interesting question. I do not study climate; rather I study climate science as an activity, especially the reasoning therein. That is, I do the science of science, which is why I helped SciSIP get started.. I am a cognitive scientist, not a physical scientist. Perhaps I am a climate meta-scientist.
If you look carefully you will see that your posts are political in nature, not scientific. I understand that you take a strong political position, a position which issue analysis may not serve well. But I do not see this as an argument against issue analysis.
My best as always,
David
At 12:27 PM 2/9/2018, Glenn Hampson wrote:
Hi David, Everyone,
David---your reply has made me rethink my criticism. I’ve only known you “virtually†for several years now and have always appreciated your thoughtfulness and insight. You are a scholar and a gentleman.
Unfortunately, you are also being used. You may indeed see your musings about climate change science as being harmless, and indeed, why shouldn’t we all be encouraged to think for ourselves? But in the modern era of communication where everyone with a website can be an “expert,†your views have been misappropriated by people with an axe to grind. You enjoy and are good at poking holes in arguments. However, those with a political agendas have latched onto your climate change skepticism as evidence of genuine scientific dissent, of which there is none on the essential question of whether human activity is responsible for climate change. You are not a climate scientist. You have never published a journal article on climate change, never presented work at a climate conference, and are not cited in UN climatology work, yet Heartland and others include you in their honor roll of scientists who think climate change is a hoax.
Something is wrong with this picture. And it’s troubling. We are knee-deep in an era of fake news, but we haven’t really focused yet on what impact this fakery is having on science. My area, as you know, is science communication. With regard to the Open Scholarship Initiative, of which we are both a part, our focus is on creating global, sustainable paths to more “open†information, including open data. But this open world has lots of onramps that aren’t regulated. What happens to science when fake information gets dumped into our databases from citizen scientists, hacks and imposters, fraudulent work and studies that haven’t been peer reviewed, and industry researchers with clear bias? What happens to science when we treat all inquiry and findings as being equal? That’s what happens when Bill Nye takes the stage to debate Ken Ham, and when the Heartland Institute puts obscure and non-expert dissent on the same level as the UN’s work. It’s one thing to be skeptical; it’s quite another to elevate non-mainstream skepticism and allow it to derail legitimate science and science policy.
The philosophers on this lists will recognize that we’ve seen this movie before. The western world of 400 years ago was just beginning to understand the critical importance of rational inquiry. It was no longer up to the church to decide matters of truth and fact; that role was being passed to “philosophers.†As a society, we do not want people with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo to put their thumbs on the levers of inquiry---whether this is the church of religion, big oil, or plutocracy. The independence of science made society free; losing that independence makes society less free.
Best regards,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
![osi-logo-2016-25-mail]()
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
From: Science of Science Policy Listserv [ mailto:SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV] On Behalf Of David Wojick
Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 3:09 AM
To: SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV
Subject: Re: [scisip] Canada's three chief scientist advisors
Glenn, as you know my field is issue analysis at the intersection of science, technology and public policy. As it happens the climate change debate has been a study of mine for many years. In fact I have run a listserv called Climatechangedebate.org since 1999.
There are several major scientific issues about which there is great disagreement. Perhaps the most central is that called climate sensitivity (CS) to CO2 levels. By convention CS is defined as the warming that will occur if and when CO2 reaches twice the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm, all else being equal (a qualification that is often lost in discussion).
Every climate model has an intrinsic CS. The first problem is that there is a huge range among the models, with most falling between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees. In addition there are observation based analyses that are claimed to argue for an even lower CS, on the order of 1.0 degrees.
This range is thought to be from harmless to dangerous, with 2 degrees often cited as the transition point, so the scientific issue then becomes whether or not the CO2 increase is dangerous. The true value of CS is being actively debated within the scientific community.
There is also a major issue over what the global temperatures are and are doing, because the ground based statistical models and the satellite measurements disagree deeply. In particular the ground based warming 1978-1997, which is the primary basis for concern, does not appear in the satellite observations. This too is being debated.
There are a great many smaller, but still important, scientific issues being debated as well. That there is no serious debate is actually a political position, one which is contradicted by observation.
I find the scientific issues to be fascinating in their complexity.
David
On Feb 8, 2018, at 11:23 PM, Glenn Hampson < gham...@NATIONALSCIENCE.ORG> wrote:
- Agreed David. Debate is indeed central to science. But when our goal is to discover truth as opposed to craft public policy, I’m sure you agree this debate must happen amongst scientists, not between scientists and the non-expert public. Personally, thank you, I’d rather not have the public judge the efficacy of vaccines or use an opinion poll to determine whether dinosaurs roamed the earth 6,000 years ago.
- And this is why the climate change “debate†is anything but. It is a gross mischaracterization to claim that climate scientists “most certainly†disagree. They most certainly do not. What makes this “the greatest science intensive policy issue in history†is that the far right has aggressively and relentlessly misinformed Americans over the last 20 or so years that climate change is a hoax, and that the judgement of non-expert policy advocates can be supplanted for the judgement of actual climatologists. In doing so, these actors have hopelessly confused policy makers and delayed critical action---to what moral and ethical end I cannot possibly imagine. And it’s critical to note that this sacrifice has most certainly not been made on the mantle of advancing scientific debate. Indeed, to claim this subterfuge has academic foundations is either deliberately disingenuous or willfully ignorant.
- So yes---scientists will of course disagree and healthy debate (and often unhealthy debate) is the very ethos of science. But when we let imposters, swindlers and the tin foil hat crowd insert themselves into scientific debate and insist on equal time for their views, how does this help science at all? It doesn’t of course. At this point, the debate ceases to be scientific, and the damage caused by the debate---to science, society, the environment, public health, the global economy, political discourse, education---is almost incalculable.
- I agree with you about a lot David and enjoy hearing your point of view. On this particular issue, however, I couldn’t disagree with you more.
- Sincerely,
- Glenn
- Glenn Hampson
- Executive Director
- Science Communication Institute (SCI)
- Program Director
- Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
- <image001.jpg>
- 2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
- From: Science of Science Policy Listserv [ mailto:SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV] On Behalf Of David Wojick
- Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 4:58 PM
- Subject: Re: [scisip] Canada's three chief scientist advisors
- Glenn, I have never seen a major science intensive policy debate in which scientists did not disagree, or a major lawsuit with scientific aspects for that matter.Debate is central to science.
- As for climate change, the scientists most certainly disagree. That is what makes it the greatest science intensive policy issue in history.
- In your domain we could just take the scientific question of whether or not OA increases citations? This is a major research issue and the results are not only debatable, they are actively debated.
- David
- At 02:43 PM 2/8/2018, Glenn Hampson wrote:
- I must be a sucker for chasing you down rabbit holes David, but this narrative is too nebulous for me---sorry. Can you please give a specific example of where contradictory evidence is being debated with regard to government policy? You’re certainly not talking about climate change or vaccine science, I hope. Can you please lay out a specific example of where actual subject matter experts (not advisors, spin doctors, and others holding court on subjects outside their area of expertise) have come to utterly different conclusions about scientific evidence? I’ll grant you the obvious ones: nutrition advice and disagreements about the merits of certain medical procedures are commonplace, but these issues aren’t often politically weaponized (with the exception of abortion in the US). What specific disagreements are you referring to here?
- This is an important point. Brooke is kind of tiptoeing around it in his response, but it’s critical to ensure that science doesn’t become too politicized (recognizing there will always be some political influence with regard to investment decisions, priorities, etc.). There is no widespread disagreement amongst scientists about the essential facts of climate change, for instance. It must NOT be left to “reasonable people†to decide this kind of evidence. The science community has spoken, and the policy community needs to figure out what to do with this information and not be tricked into believing the narrative that scientists disagree, or that “reasonable people†are properly equipped to decide if vaccines cause autism, evolution is a hoax, or the earth would be better off a little warmer.
- This isn’t to say that science alone has the answers, of course, and this is where your “reasonable people†come in. As I’m sure everyone on this list knows, what more often happens in the policy arena is that science ALONE can’t decide policy. Scientists might conclude, for instance, that one part per billion exposure to a certain pesticide increases cancer risk to the extent that 50 more people will die per year as a result. Is this sufficient to ban the use of this chemical? Maybe, maybe not. This risk needs to be weighed against the economic impact of stopping use---the cost to farmers, the risk to the food supply, the impact of alternatives, etc. Water use is an even more complicated example. We know that certain aquatic species may be endangered because of water use policies and procedures, but protecting these species is balanced against the backdrop of a myriad other issues---native rights to water, famer rights, state and local rights, international boundaries, energy production, conservation, etc.
- So, we use science to inform our policy decisions. But the friction point isn’t necessarily that science is wrong, misinterpreted, improperly explained or in conflict with itself. It’s that science ALONE can’t always provide the policy solution. What I think Brooke is saying here and what I suspect most of the people on this list agree with is that we must not allow this friction to turn against science for our own political purposes. If someone is in favor of more offshore drilling, great---they should make their case using honest science and honest risk/reward/tradeoff calculations. They shouldn’t scare up the specter that actual climate scientists disagree about climate change in order to support their own political views. This “fake news†approach isn’t just politically cowardly, it’s doing genuine damage to science and delaying the creation of important science-informed policies.
- Best regards,
- Glenn
- Glenn Hampson
- Executive Director
- Science Communication Institute (SCI)
- Program Director
- Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
- <image001.jpg>
- 2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
- From: Science of Science Policy Listserv [ mailto:SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV] On Behalf Of David Wojick
- Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 10:27 AM
- Subject: Re: [scisip] Canada's three chief scientist advisors
- Dear Brooke,
- I do not agree with your apparent thesis that when there is contradictory evidence, then the evidence does not inform the decision. On the contrary, the decision is informed that the evidence is contradictory, which is often the factual case in major policy matters. What we have then is decision making under uncertainty. Science does not change this. There is nothing unscientific about contradictory evidence, one simply decides based on how one sees this evidence, which will differ from person to person..
- I think that Sarewitz's position is overly cynical. The fact is that the weight of evidence is relative to the observer. Disagreement does not imply bias or irrationality. Reasonable people can look at the same evidence in complex cases and come to opposite conclusions. The fallacy is to think that there is some scientific way around this fact, but there is not. It is why we have democratic decision making.
- I have nothing against science advisors per se. But their proper job is to explain the evidence, especially if it is contradictory. It is not to argue for a particular position, as all too often happens. That is the job of the advocates.
- David
- At 12:14 PM 2/8/2018, Brooke Struck wrote:
- Hi David,
- Thanks for your response. I agree, sometimes there is too much evidence! Let’s explore that point further and see one way that it can play out. When we have so much evidence, much of it contradictory, we end up in a situation that Dan Sarewitz describes as the “excess of objectivity:†no matter what your position, you’ll be able to find some piece of evidence that backs it up.
- In this case, there is definitely evidence available in the policy ecosystem; it’s even fair to say that there is evidence backing up the decision that is ultimately taken. However, the evidence has not actually informed the decision, it has only justified it. We have picked our evidence based on the outcome, rather than the other way around. This is completely antithetical to science. The gridlock of the “excess of objectivity†actually opens up the space for the evidence to be ignored, brought back in at the press conference for rhetorical purposes only, but never actually entering into the decision-making process. (Hyperbole, of course, but that doesn’t mean that lighter versions of this scenario don’t occur or that they aren’t a problem.)
- What I’m pointing to isn’t the volume or availability of evidence, it’s about the way that the evidence is considered and used. There’s room for improvement on this front, and the Chief Scientists on the panel point out that they alone will not be able to bring about that change.
- Thanks for your comment,
- Brooke
- PS: The point that the Chief Scientists won’t be able to address this problem alone is one that they themselves made. I agree with them, and I’m happy to defend the position, but I feel it’s important to emphasize that this point was one that they made and that I reported. Others have also reported on it, e.g.:
- “Quebec’s Dr. Quirion said training the next generation of scientists is critical to making science relevant, meaningful and accessible to the public. “If we want to have an impact, well, we are only three,†he said, indicating his two colleagues sharing the stage.â€ÂÂ
- https://www.universityaffairs.ca/news/news-article/tell-stories-advisers-urge-science-community/
- You can also view the full video here:
- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAxI5w-KUIwN6aJwRiNGcxEGurvNuXJOW
- Brooke Struck, Ph.D.
- Senior Policy Officer | Spécialiste des politiques
- Science-Metrix
- 1335, Mont-Royal E
- Montréal, QC H2J 1Y6
- Canada
- <(null)> <(null)>
- T. 1.514.495.6505 x.117
- T. 1.800.994.4761 x.117
- F. 1.514.495.6523
- brooke...@science-metrix.com
- www.science-metrix.com
- <(null)>
- From: David Wojick [ mailto:dwo...@craigellachie.us]
- Sent: February 8, 2018 11:57 AM
- To: Brooke Struck < brooke...@science-metrix.com>; SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV
- Subject: Re: [scisip] Canada's three chief scientist advisors
- When you say this: "A small handful of prominent chief science advisors will not be enough to bring about a shift towards a culture of evidence in government," you seem to be saying that there is a lack of evidence in present policy discussions. In fact most major policy issues are awash in evidence, brought forth by all sides.
- The problem is that this evidence is often contradictory, not that it is absent. Lack of evidence is not the problem.
- David
- David Wojick, Ph.D.
- http://insidepublicaccess.com/
- At 07:30 AM 2/8/2018, Brooke Struck wrote:
- Hello everyone,
- In this week’s blog installment, we synthesize the major lines of discussion from the panel of three chief scientist advisors in Canada (federal, and provincial for Ontario and Quebec).
- At issue was striking a healthy balance: on the one hand, science advice institutions must be rigid enough to withstand changes of political direction; on the other hand, they must be nimble enough to have their purpose evolve along with the changing world(s) of science & policy.
- You can read the full post here: http://www.sciencemetrics.org/science-advice-in-canada-reborn-again/
- Best wishes,
- Brooke
- Brooke Struck, Ph.D.
- Senior Policy Officer | Spécialiste des politiques
- Science-Metrix
- 1335, Mont-Royal E
- Montréal, QC H2J 1Y6
- Canada
- <(null)> <(null)>
- T. 1.514.495.6505 x.117
- T. 1.800.994.4761 x.117
- F. 1.514.495.6523
- brooke...@science-metrix.com
- www.science-metrix.com
- <(null)>
- ########################################################################
- To send to the list, address your message to: SCI...@listserv.nsf.gov
- To subscribe to the list: send the text “subscribe SCISIP†to list...@listserv.nsf.gov
- To unsubscribe: sent the text “unsubscribe SCISIP†to list...@listserv.nsf.gov
- Content-Type: image/png;
- name="image001.png"
- Content-Description: image001.png
- Content-Disposition: inline;
- filename="image001.png";
- size=1068;
- Content-ID: < image0...@01D3A038.8E3C8520>
- Content-Type: image/png;
- name="image002.png"
- Content-Description: image002.png
- Content-Disposition: inline;
- filename="image002.png";
- size=1109;
- Content-ID: < image0...@01D3A038.8E3C8520>
- Content-Type: image/png;
- name="image003.png"
- Content-Description: image003.png
- Content-Disposition: inline;
- filename="image003.png";
- size=13360;
- Content-ID: < image0...@01D3A038.8E3C8520>
- Content-Type: image/png;
- name="image001.png"
- Content-Description: image001.png
- Content-Disposition: inline;
- filename="image001.png";
- size=1068;
- Content-ID: < image0...@01D3A0D5.FD36EDB0>
- Content-Type: image/png;
- name="image002.png"
- Content-Description: image002.png
- Content-Disposition: inline;
- filename="image002.png";
- size=1109;
- Content-ID: < image0...@01D3A0D5.FD36EDB0>
- Content-Type: image/png;
- name="image003.png"
- Content-Description: image003.png
- Content-Disposition: inline;
- filename="image003.png";
- size=13360;
- Content-ID: < image0...@01D3A0D5.FD36EDB0>
- ########################################################################
- To subscribe to the list: send the text “subscribe SCISIP†to list...@listserv.nsf.gov
- To unsubscribe: sent the text “unsubscribe SCISIP†to list...@listserv.nsf.gov
- ########################################################################
- To send to the list, address your message to: SCI...@listserv.nsf.gov
- To subscribe to the list: send the text “subscribe SCISIP†to list...@listserv.nsf.gov
- To unsubscribe: sent the text “unsubscribe SCISIP†to list...@listserv.nsf.gov
- ########################################################################
- To send to the list, address your message to: SCI...@listserv.nsf.gov
- To subscribe to the list: send the text “subscribe SCISIP†to list...@listserv.nsf.gov
- To unsubscribe: sent the text “unsubscribe SCISIP†to list...@listserv.nsf.gov
- ########################################################################
- To send to the list, address your message to: SCI...@listserv.nsf.gov
- To subscribe to the list: send the text “subscribe SCISIP†to list...@listserv.nsf.gov
- To unsubscribe: sent the text “unsubscribe SCISIP†to list...@listserv.nsf.gov
Glenn Hampson
Hi David,
Thanks for your reply and for taking my email in the spirit in which it was intended.
There needs to be room in science for meta-scientists like you. What’s different in our age is, oddly, the conflation of this kind of work with science itself. This conflation isn’t happening INSIDE science, mind you---it’s happening at the intersection of science and policy, where dissenters grasp at straws to support their deeply held and deeply unscientific positions. The same dynamic happens in policy debates over evolution, vaccines, and other topics as well. I doubt this is a new dynamic in the history of science---take the Scopes trials or the eugenics movement spawned out of Darwin’s work, for instance. Maybe the science historians on this list can shed some light on how this issue was addressed in the past.
I’m not being critical of your work per se, David, but critical of the fact that it gets conflated with the work of actual scientists in this field. And this is a real problem---for climate science in particular and science in general. For someone as smart as you, I think maybe you’ve fallen into the “willful ignorance” camp on this when you say the central policy argument is not whether human activity is causing climate change but the issue of climate sensitivity. To the contrary, clearly, the central sticking point in the US debate for many years has been the far right’s insistence that there is doubt about whether humans are responsible for climate change. The debate has not centered on how much warming is too much (although this may be changing; recent utterances about how our planet might be better off a little warmer may be a tacit admission that warming is taking place).
To those who follow this debate, both of these positions---especially the denier position---are far right of where the global scientific consensus has in fact developed. To wit, there is no intense scientific disagreement---only US-led political debate---about whether climate change is dangerous and urgent action is needed. A reader would need to redact a lot of information from just about any IPCC report to reach any other conclusion. Indeed, the actual scientific debate is now moving toward whether we’ll be able to stop this change before our earth becomes uninhabitable---Stephen Hawking is betting no.
I’ll sign off on this conversation so as not to overstay my welcome on this list---right after replying to Jim Gover’s email.
Best regards,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
From: David Wojick [mailto:dwo...@craigellachie.us]
Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 11:15 AM
To: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>; SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV
Cc: rsc...@googlegroups.com
Glenn Hampson
Hi Jim,
Thanks for your email. Here are my replies:
- IN MY EYES, YOUR FIELD, IN-PARTICULAR, AND FEDERAL AGENCIES CONDUCTING CLIMATE SCIENCE RESEARCH, IN GENERAL, HAVE DROPPED THE BALL ON THE CLIMATE CHANGE COMMUNICATIONS ISSUE.
- You’re absolutely right. In fact, there are some communications researchers who have noted that the way the science communicators and the science community have pushed back on science deniers has been exactly wrong. In particular, the snarky, we’re-smarter-than-you approach has only made deniers become more entrenched. We need a new playbook for communicating science that doesn’t involve dismissing non-scientists and non-scientific concerns.
- MISTAKES ARE SOMETIMES MADE, BUT FRAUDULENT WORK RARELY PASSES JOURNAL PEER AND EDITOR REVIEW. I CANNOT IMAGINE THIS TO BE A REAL PROBLEM.
- To the contrary Jim, this is actually a growing problem and a real threat to science. The Internet Age, coupled with open access reform, increasing research, and increasing specialization, have together brought about an explosion in scholarly publishing. A great deal of this new publishing doesn’t follow the norms and traditions science depends upon. Cursory editorial review is often substituted for actual peer review, the credentials of these reviewers is often faked, and pay-to-play journals will publish anything for a fee. The US Federal Trade Commission recently took action to shut down the activities of OMICS, one of the most egregious scammers in the scholarly publishing environment.
- POLICY-MAKING IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY REQUIRES ALL OPINIONS TO BE WEIGHED.
- Naturally. But science itself is not a democracy. It’s a meritocracy. You’re referring to policy-making. I’m referring to the deliberative process inside science.
With best regards,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
From: James Gover [mailto:jgo...@kettering.edu]
Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 11:37 AM
To: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>; Glen Cheney <gtch...@ptd.net>; harry...@yahoo.com; Ed-Graham <ed-g...@comcast.net>
Cc: SCI...@listserv.nsf.gov
Subject: Re: [scisip] Canada's three chief scientist advisors
Glenn,
You expressed the following concerns that I also share; however, it was unclear to me how you propose to address these concerns.
"We are knee-deep in an era of fake news, but we haven’t really focused yet on what impact this fakery is having on science. ... What happens to science when fake information gets dumped into our databases from citizen scientists, hacks and imposters, fraudulent work and studies that haven’t been peer reviewed, and industry researchers with clear bias? What happens to science when we treat all inquiry and findings as being equal? It’s one thing to be skeptical; it’s quite another to elevate non-mainstream skepticism and allow it to derail legitimate science and science policy."
I offer my response to each concern:
1. We are knee-deep in an era of fake news, but we haven’t really focused yet on what impact this fakery is having on science. ONE WAY TO RESPOND TO FAKE NEWS ABOUT SCIENCE IS TO EXPOSE IT AND USE THE SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING COMMUNITIES AND THEIR PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES AS INSTRUMENTS TO CARRY THE TRUTH TO THE PUBLIC. SCIENCE HAS OVERCOME LARGER THREATS THAN THE OIL INDUSTRY AND FAR RIGHT POLITICIANS. THE SCIENCE COMMUNITIES CAN OVERCOME TODAY'S THREATS IS BY DOING BETTER RESEARCH AND BETTER COMMUNICATING SCIENCE-BASED FINDINGS TO BOTH THE SCIENTIFIC AND NON-SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITIES. SINCE YOUR FIELD IS SCIENCE COMMUNICATIONS, IN MY EYES, YOUR FIELD, IN-PARTICULAR, AND FEDERAL AGENCIES CONDUCTING CLIMATE SCIENCE RESEARCH, IN GENERAL, HAVE DROPPED THE BALL ON THE CLIMATE CHANGE COMMUNICATIONS ISSUE. FOR EXAMPLE, THE LAST TIME I LOOKED, IEEE-USA PREFERS TO NOT EVEN WEIGH-IN ON GLOBAL WARMING. FURTHERMORE, IN THEIR ENDLESS QUEST FOR MORE FUNDING, SCIENCE-BASED AGENCIES MIS-INFORMED CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT ABOUT THE INDUSTRIAL COMPETITIVENESS ISSUE.
2. What happens to science when fake information gets dumped into our databases from citizen scientists, hacks and imposters, fraudulent work and studies that haven’t been peer reviewed, and industry researchers with clear bias? MISTAKES ARE SOMETIMES MADE, BUT FRAUDULENT WORK RARELY PASSES JOURNAL PEER AND EDITOR REVIEW. I CANNOT IMAGINE THIS TO BE A REAL PROBLEM.
3. What happens to science when we treat all inquiry and findings as being equal? It’s one thing to be skeptical; it’s quite another to elevate non-mainstream skepticism and allow it to derail legitimate science and science policy. POLICY-MAKING IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY REQUIRES ALL OPINIONS TO BE WEIGHED. EXPERTS, VIPs, AND THE RICH AND FAMOUS HAVE HIGHER WEIGHTING FACTORS; NEVERTHELESS,THE ENTIRE USA STEM COMMUNITY MUST BE ENGAGED ON THIS ISSUE. THEY ARE UNLIKELY TO RESPOND TO FAITH-BASED ARGUMENTS REGARDING THE COLLECTIVE OPINIONS OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS.
jim
Glenn Hampson
Hi Brooke,
It’s a wonderful question and well above my pay grade. So please forgive me for proffering an answer, but since you asked…
I think the most important takeaway from this conversation is considering that how we debate science should be different than how we debate public policy that has science components. The former must be controlled by scientists and not politicians. Which isn’t to say that non-scientists should be shunned: History has plenty of examples of non-scientists jumping in and changing the course of science and history. Wilbur Wright, for instance, was a non-scientist outsider who proved everyone wrong (even the NSF, which awarded it’s heavier-than-air research grant to a favorite son who hadn’t done nearly the same quality of work as Wright). In the end, merit wins out. It wasn’t politicians who decided man can fly---it was science.
So, there is absolutely a role for nonscientists in science, but science needs to be the arbiter of these contributions, not the public.
As for public policy, though, that’s a different issue altogether and one that you and the others on this list have ample expertise. But from my perspective and experience, in order to be effective and sustainable, policy needs to be “owned” and not imposed. And to be “owned,” people need to be heard and respected. We need to hear the people who disagree with particular science conclusions, understand the basis of their disagreement, and understand how to speak to these audiences---not with disdain or pity for their ignorance, but with respect for their point of view and compassion for their concern, and with an eye toward finding common ground and ways to move forward on collaborative solutions. I don’t think this way forward can be found along the facts versus values trajectory because this approach on its face suggests that “values” are less important than facts, which effectively closes the door to dialogue. Rather, we need to recognize our common values---for protecting the future of our planet, educating our children, and ensuring the health and welfare of our families and our communities---and from this foundation, discover how we can work together. Science is a great “common language” in this regard---not at all the divisive tool it has been made out to be.
My $0.02, FWIW.
Best,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
From: Brooke Struck [mailto:brooke...@science-metrix.com]
Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 12:33 PM
To: Glenn Hampson <gham...@NATIONALSCIENCE.ORG>; SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV
Subject: RE: [scisip] Canada's three chief scientist advisors
Just a quick plug and then I’ll beat a hasty retreat once again—
Glenn, you mentioned in an earlier email that the non-science community shouldn’t have a role in determining the efficacy of vaccines, whether or not the dinosaurs roamed the earth 6000 years ago, and so forth. However, you acknowledge that engaging the public is important, and that the “we’re-smarter-than-you” approach has been ineffective (whoda thunk it?). But what are the appropriate contributions of scientists and the general public to these discussions? What is the relationship between those respective contributions? The facts–values distinction doesn’t hold water. I’m coming to believe that the science–policy divide might not actually fare much better, in practice.
To put it bluntly and provocatively: is non-science nonsense?
Brooke
Brooke Struck, Ph.D.
Senior Policy Officer | Spécialiste des politiques
Science-Metrix
1335, Mont-Royal E
Montréal, QC H2J 1Y6
Canada
Glenn Hampson
Hi Dan,
I’ll jump in on David’s behalf too. He’s way smarter than I’ll ever be. I secretly hope he’ll be willing to use his brain power and influence to encourage the Koch brothers to get on the right side of history.
What you’re suggesting here makes sense for policy development (in an ideal world, as Chris notes)---I tried to say something similar in my reply to Brooke. But to be clear, what I’m clamoring about from my soapbox with regard to David’s climate skeptic work is that there should be a scientific debate about climate change and a policy debate, and never the two should meet. To the extent the work of David and other Heartland Institute analysts has contaminated the policy debate, this is an unfortunate occurrence that has made policy development much more difficult---or worse. If their true service is to science and not some preset agenda, then as a matter of protocol, science skeptics should first debate their ideas with scientists, and then let the science community inform policy makers with one clear voice. This has nothing to do with excess objectivity, framing, abundant facts, worldviews, assumptions, contradictions, and what not---it just has to do with the proper conduct of science.
Do you disagree?
Best,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
From: Daniel Sarewitz [mailto:Daniel....@asu.edu]
Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 1:15 PM
To: Glenn Hampson <gham...@NATIONALSCIENCE.ORG>; SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV
Subject: Re: [scisip] Canada's three chief scientist advisors
After describing me as “overly cynical” I hope David won’t mind if I weigh in on his behalf here. Two things strike me: first the exchange between David and Glenn is a beautiful example of an excess of objectivity, because each is framing their position in a way that helps to make sense of the abundant facts that they see as pertinent. Of course, as Glenn says, there are fundamental things that pretty much all climate scientists agree on, but there also, as David says, remain huge areas of disagreement that are directly relevant to the question “what is to be done.” The second is that the discussion slips into theory about the political world and normative assertions about how one should behave in that world. David gets to be “smart” but he’s also in the “willful ignorance” camp and is “being used.” So now we begin to judge whose analysis is pure and “unused,” who is smart enough to really be able to see clearly and who is not, and of course the next step is to say whose voice should count and whose should not. Until we can collectively take a step back and examine underlying worldviews, assumptions, conflicts, and contradictions behind the way we assemble facts to yield coherent arguments, every climate discussion will end up pretending to be about science but really being about politics.
ds
To subscribe to the list: send the text “subscribe SCISIP” to list...@listserv.nsf.gov
To unsubscribe: sent the text “unsubscribe SCISIP” to list...@listserv.nsf.gov
Glenn Hampson
Hi Jim,
This is another great question well outside my wheelhouse---sorry. I will defer to the good folks on this list and off who have actual experience putting together the NexGen scicomm approach to climate change conversations. Y’all know who you are (I’ve spoken with one person off-list already today)---please do take the baton here. In a nutshell, this strategy goes way beyond Powerpoint shows and op ed pieces. It’s a real hearts and minds effort to speak with people where they are, and there are a number of good efforts underway. If no one chimes in by Monday or so Jim, I’ll try to do my best to pull together an answer for you (but again, I’m not the expert here).
Sincerely,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
From: Science of Science Policy Listserv [mailto:SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV] On Behalf Of James Gover
Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 4:15 PM
To: SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV
Subject: Re: [scisip] Canada's three chief scientist advisors
Thank you for your reply.
On your first point, what might change global warming communications for the better and what can I do? So far, I believe that a power point file supported by a lengthy written tutorial lecture would be an excellent way to start. I have seen these used in IEEE conferences to help researchers and managers gain a better understanding of the "big picture". NSF should have the knowledge to prepare these; I and other techies can link these to the public through a variety of mechanisms including writing op eds for our local papers. Agencies need to pay more attention to how they can empower the STEM community. You must have other ideas that you can share?
On your second point, I thought you were talking about journals with strong reputations, e.g., IEEE Transactions.
On your third point, I was talking about policy-making including science policy.
jim
Glenn Hampson
Interesting take Dan---thanks. I hadn’t considered it this way before. Of course, the early 90s also saw the emergence of politicians and political advisers like Frank Luntz, Grover Norquist, Pat Buchanan and Newt Gingrich who all started pulling the Republican party toward isolationism and a brand of hardened, divisive discourse largely impermeable to compromise. In the late 80s, a global approach to a global problem like climate change may have been greeted with an open mind by Republicans. We were, after all, still in the post-Cold War mindset that walls were falling, international cooperation was growing, and even nuclear disarmament was a possibility. By the mid-90s, however, this approach was dismissed with derision.
More broadly, though, you’re absolutely right about science coming with pre-packed policy prescriptions---this rubs many people the wrong way, not just conservatives. Climate advocates aren’t the only offenders of course---interest groups on both sides do the same thing. But these groups aren’t the actual researchers in most cases---they use science the same way policymakers use science (think environmental groups, the Union of Concerned Scientists, etc.). So maybe the problem with climate science is the perception---in the US at least---that it’s already politicized before it arrives at the desk of policymakers. Would this be accurate? And if so, would stripping away the policy component help---just deliver the facts---or even set up a new, nonpartisan, non-political group to collect and dispense climate research?
As for science speaking with one voice, I meant to policymakers, not fellow scientists. Still, I realize that even this isn’t realistic. Science policy (and political discourse in general) would be better served if we can at least agree on the same set of facts, but we’re living in interesting times right now aren’t we?
Thanks and best regards,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
From: Daniel Sarewitz [mailto:Daniel....@asu.edu]
Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 8:56 PM
To: Glenn Hampson <gham...@NATIONALSCIENCE.ORG>; SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV
Subject: Re: [scisip] Canada's three chief scientist advisors
Glenn, you say: "there should be a scientific debate about climate change and a policy debate, and never the two should meet.” This condition was violated when climate advocates and climate scientists allied starting in the early 1990s to advocate for what quickly became a canonical three-fold approach to climate policy that was fundamentally anathema to conservative beliefs: global governance, manipulation of markets, and social engineering. No wonder conservatives don’t trust the science! It has always come packaged along with non-negotiable policy prescriptions of the sort that liberals (like me!) have preferred since long before climate change was on anyone’s mind.
As for science speaking with one voice, that doesn’t actually sound like science to me, it sounds like textbooks. Or, put in a way that’s more responsive to your position, there may be one voice about the anthropogenic signal in global warming, but you go much beyond that and it’s a fractious cacophony, my favorite recent example being Mark Jacobson’s lawsuit against PNAS for publishing a critique of his energy models (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/11/01/stanford-professor-files-libel-suit-against-leading-scientific-journal-over-clean-energy-claims/?utm_term=.32b0826a85b7).
As for getting the Koch’s on the right side of history, I am with you there—and perhaps w/ David (Koch, that is) it’s not impossible.
d
Glenn Hampson
Hi David, Dan,
I don’t want to protract my objections---I’ve taken enough of everyone’s air time. But I also don’t want the final word on this topic to be that “the scientific community is just as divided as the policy community.” On what issue? Again, certainly not climate change. As Dan noted in his email, the scientific community is NOT divided on the central issue of climate change---that humans are causing this. Where the science community IS uncertain is about how much and how fast---I wouldn’t call it a “fractious cacophony,” though. It’s just science looking for firm answers and adjusting predictions as more data fills in the models.
And that’s a pretty big piece of common ground that policy makers should be able to build upon. For years, the main roadblock to climate change action in the US has been the far right’s insistence that climate change science was a hoax and that there was much disagreement about what forces were responsible for this. Maybe we’ll start seeing a change with the Trump administration starting to ask the “how warm is too warm?” question. Hopefully anyway. We could also spend the next 20 years debating the pros and cons of temperature rise---more oil drilling in the arctic versus sinking coastal regions, failing crops, and the risk of triggering a runaway greenhouse effect that could turn Earth into Venus in a short period of time. But at least this debate will be a step in the right direction, focusing on which models are more accurate instead of whether the entire debate is just a fairy tale.
The movement in this direction is just a baby step so far. Maybe David, Dan and other policy gurus can encourage policy makers on both sides of the aisle reach this first plateau of agreeing that change is happening and that humans are the cause. This would be a huge step forward and would open the door to real debate about what steps we should take next.
Again, thanks for your indulgence---sorry if I’ve carried on too much.
Best,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
From: David Wojick [mailto:dwo...@craigellachie.us]
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2018 3:57 AM
To: Glenn Hampson <gham...@NATIONALSCIENCE.ORG>
Cc: SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV
Subject: Re: [scisip] Canada's three chief scientist advisors
Glenn,
It is not a matter of skeptics debating scientists as there are plenty of skeptical scientists. These skeptical scientists do debate the "consensus" scientists, but without resolution of differences. As a result the scientific community is just as divided as the policy community so there is no "one clear voice" in the offing.
The policy implications certainly color people's judgement, including within the scientific community, in fact polls indicate that they are a primary determinant. But this is only possible because the science is largely vague and speculative, which is characteristic of environmental impact forecasting. If you look at the specific scientific questions that are being debated, it is easy to see that they are truly debatable.
If you want to get the flavor of the scientific debate, then Judy Curry's blog is the best place to see it. She was Chair of Georgia Tech's Atmospheric Sciences Department. All sides are pretty well represented.
Here are two current examples:
David
On Feb 9, 2018, at 5:38 PM, Glenn Hampson <gham...@NATIONALSCIENCE.ORG> wrote:
Hi Dan,
I’ll jump in on David’s behalf too. He’s way smarter than I’ll ever be. I secretly hope he’ll be willing to use his brain power and influence to encourage the Koch brothers to get on the right side of history.
What you’re suggesting here makes sense for policy development (in an ideal world, as Chris notes)---I tried to say something similar in my reply to Brooke. But to be clear, what I’m clamoring about from my soapbox with regard to David’s climate skeptic work is that there should be a scientific debate about climate change and a policy debate, and never the two should meet. To the extent the work of David and other Heartland Institute analysts has contaminated the policy debate, this is an unfortunate occurrence that has made policy development much more difficult---or worse. If their true service is to science and not some preset agenda, then as a matter of protocol, science skeptics should first debate their ideas with scientists, and then let the science community inform policy makers with one clear voice. This has nothing to do with excess objectivity, framing, abundant facts, worldviews, assumptions, contradictions, and what not---it just has to do with the proper conduct of science.
Do you disagree?
Best,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
<image002.jpg>
<image001.jpg>
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
From: David Wojick [mailto:dwo...@craigellachie.us]
Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 11:15 AM
To: Glenn Hampson <
Cc: rsc...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [scisip] Canada's three chief scientist advisors
Glenn, if what I say is true then I am not being used. My idea (and ideal) of issue analysis is to make clear what the issues and confusions actually are, especially without taking sides. See my crude (that is, pre-word processor, typewritten) 1975 textbook: http://www.stemed.info/reports/Wojick_Issue_Analysis_txt.pdf
In that regard, the climate change scientific debate is very real. The essential question is not, as you suggest, whether human activity is responsible for some climate change. That much is well established. For example the urban heat island effect is well established for major cities. The essential question is whether human caused climate changes are dangerous or not, calling for action or not, and that question is the subject of intense scientific and political debate. The central unresolved scientific issue is climate sensitivity.
Whether or not I am a climate scientist is itself an interesting question. I do not study climate; rather I study climate science as an activity, especially the reasoning therein. That is, I do the science of science, which is why I helped SciSIP get started.. I am a cognitive scientist, not a physical scientist. Perhaps I am a climate meta-scientist.
If you look carefully you will see that your posts are political in nature, not scientific. I understand that you take a strong political position, a position which issue analysis may not serve well. But I do not see this as an argument against issue analysis.
My best as always,
David
At 12:27 PM 2/9/2018, Glenn Hampson wrote:
Hi David, Everyone,
David---your reply has made me rethink my criticism. I’ve only known you “virtually†for several years now and have always appreciated your thoughtfulness and insight. You are a scholar and a gentleman.
Unfortunately, you are also being used. You may indeed see your musings about climate change science as being harmless, and indeed, why shouldn’t we all be encouraged to think for ourselves? But in the modern era of communication where everyone with a website can be an “expert,†your views have been misappropriated by people with an axe to grind. You enjoy and are good at poking holes in arguments. However, those with a political agendas have latched onto your climate change skepticism as evidence of genuine scientific dissent, of which there is none on the essential question of whether human activity is responsible for climate change. You are not a climate scientist. You have never published a journal article on climate change, never presented work at a climate conference, and are not cited in UN climatology work, yet Heartland and others include you in their honor roll of scientists who think climate change is a hoax.
Something is wrong with this picture. And it’s troubling. We are knee-deep in an era of fake news, but we haven’t really focused yet on what impact this fakery is having on science. My area, as you know, is science communication. With regard to the Open Scholarship Initiative, of which we are both a part, our focus is on creating global, sustainable paths to more “open†information, including open data. But this open world has lots of onramps that aren’t regulated. What happens to science when fake information gets dumped into our databases from citizen scientists, hacks and imposters, fraudulent work and studies that haven’t been peer reviewed, and industry researchers with clear bias? What happens to science when we treat all inquiry and findings as being equal? That’s what happens when Bill Nye takes the stage to debate Ken Ham, and when the Heartland Institute puts obscure and non-expert dissent on the same level as the UN’s work. It’s one thing to be skeptical; it’s quite another to elevate non-mainstream skepticism and allow it to derail legitimate science and science policy.
The philosophers on this lists will recognize that we’ve seen this movie before. The western world of 400 years ago was just beginning to understand the critical importance of rational inquiry. It was no longer up to the church to decide matters of truth and fact; that role was being passed to “philosophers.†As a society, we do not want people with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo to put their thumbs on the levers of inquiry---whether this is the church of religion, big oil, or plutocracy. The independence of science made society free; losing that independence makes society less free.
Best regards,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
<(null)>
David Wojick
Unfortunately, the hoax claim is made against the claim that humans are causing potentially catastrophic climate change, such that immediate drastic action is needed, especially decarbonization of the global energy system. Thus agreeing that humans may be causing a small amount of climate change does not automatically nullify the hoax claim.
I think that the hoax claim is semantically incorrect because it implies that those raising the alarm know that what they say is false, which is certainly not true. The hoax claim is just the usual political hyperbole for a disagreement. (So is your use of the term "far right" for that matter. Polls indicate that something like half of the US adult population is skeptical of the climate change alarm calls.)
If we translate the hyperbole into non-pejorative forms then the debate is still there, wide and deep, in the public and also in the science community.
David
At 12:23 PM 2/11/2018, Glenn Hampson wrote:
Hi David, Dan,
I don’t want to protract my objections---I’ve taken enough of everyone’s air time. But I also don’t want the final word on this topic to be that “the scientific community is just as divided as the policy community.†On what issue? Again, certainly not climate change. As Dan noted in his email, the scientific community is NOT divided on the central issue of climate change---that humans are causing this. Where the science community IS uncertain is about how much and how fast---I wouldn’t call it a “fractious cacophony,†though. It’s just science looking for firm answers and adjusting predictions as more data fills in the models.
And that’s a pretty big piece of common ground that policy makers should be able to build upon. For years, the main roadblock to climate change action in the US has been the far right’s insistence that climate change science was a hoax and that there was much disagreement about what forces were responsible for this. Maybe we’ll start seeing a change with the Trump administration starting to ask the “how warm is too warm?†question. Hopefully anyway. We could also spend the next 20 years debating the pros and cons of temperature rise---more oil drilling in the arctic versus sinking coastal regions, failing crops, and the risk of triggering a runaway greenhouse effect that could turn Earth into Venus in a short period of time. But at least this debate will be a step in the right direction, focusing on which models are more accurate instead of whether the entire debate is just a fairy tale.
The movement in this direction is just a baby step so far. Maybe David, Dan and other policy gurus can encourage policy makers on both sides of the aisle reach this first plateau of agreeing that change is happening and that humans are the cause. This would be a huge step forward and would open the door to real debate about what steps we should take next.
Again, thanks for your indulgence---sorry if I’ve carried on too much.
- Hi Dan,
- I’ll jump in on David’s behalf too. He’s way smarter than I’ll ever be. I secretly hope he’ll be willing to use his brain power and influence to encourage the Koch brothers to get on the right side of history.
- What you’re suggesting here makes sense for policy development (in an ideal world, as Chris notes)---I tried to say something similar in my reply to Brooke. But to be clear, what I’m clamoring about from my soapbox with regard to David’s climate skeptic work is that there should be a scientific debate about climate change and a policy debate, and never the two should meet. To the extent the work of David and other Heartland Institute analysts has contaminated the policy debate, this is an unfortunate occurrence that has made policy development much more difficult---or worse. If their true service is to science and not some preset agenda, then as a matter of protocol, science skeptics should first debate their ideas with scientists, and then let the science community inform policy makers with one clear voice. This has nothing to do with excess objectivity, framing, abundant facts, worldviews, assumptions, contradictions, and what not---it just has to do with the proper conduct of science.
Glenn Hampson
Hi David,
Can you please add some references to your last email so we’re not debating apples and oranges here? I just can’t agree with your statements as presented.
As you know, there has long been a partisan divide in the US on the topic of climate change. You can pretty much pick your poll---they all show the same thing. A Gallup poll from last June (http://bit.ly/2nXmR2f) showed that 66% of Democrats versus only 18% of Republicans worry “a great deal” about global warming or climate change (there are also 
differences that break along geographic, age and gender lines, less so along education lines). In a Yale survey from about the same time “more than half of Americans (58%) believe climate change is mostly human caused. That’s the highest level measured since our surveys began in 2008. By contrast, only 30% say it is due mostly to natural changes in the environment, matching the lowest level measured in our November 2016 survey.” In a Pew poll from 2016---http://pewrsr.ch/2dOkYCe---many other nuances of this debate are broken out as well, such as who should be in charge of formulating climate change policy (who do you trust?).
From all this, I can’t find evidence to support your contention that half the US population skeptical of climate change. Please let me know where that number comes from.
Given there are divisions in how we interpret this debate, there has been some interesting work in the past few years about how to break through information bubbles---how our opinions of issues like this are greatly influenced by the people in our “circle.” For this reason, reaching these influencers is a key strategy for improving climate change communication---encouraging the Kochs and others to use their influence to help reduce skepticism might be a good start.
I do completely agree with you on the partisan framing of these issues, however. The Yale poll showed exactly this affect---that people do indeed agree on the general outlines of this issue and the need for solutions, but when framed in a partisan manner, this support retreated to partisan boundaries. So getting the pejoratives (and perceived pejoratives) out of this conversation---and others---would be a great start. Getting rid of the imprecise words, like “hoax,” would also help. It may indeed mean different things to different people. To President Trump, it means this:
Finally, to your assertion that the scientific debate on this issue is “wide and deep,” it would help if you could get a climate scientist on this thread who’s willing to address your specific disagreements point for point. Until then, here are the facts the rest of the climate change community is working with:
J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”
J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”
Sincerely,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
########################################################################
Glenn Hampson
Hi Dan,
I agree with you that policy progress on this issue is a mostly political football at this point, not a scientific one. And to this end, I agree with Dr. Byerly’s assessment that policymakers need to understand how this issue affects their constituents. In 1989, illustrating this was a bit of a stretch. Today, with public opinion polls reading as they do (see my previous email), I seriously doubt any democrat could get re-elected if they publicly dismissed this issue---and republicans are starting to feel the heat, too (pun intended), especially in big coastal states like Florida and Texas. Part of the political pressure in these states is being applied not by voters but by the credit rating giant Moody’s, which is warning coastal states to prepare for climate change risk of have their credit downgraded (https://bloom.bg/2BwWRzx).
Can science and scientists help with all this? Absolutely. Better science communication gets us partway there. So does better science. For instance, a study published in Nature last month took a 60% bite out of the uncertainty figure you cite. Here’s a link to a good summary piece (the Nature article is paywalled): https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-sensitivity-analysis-2526562524.html. As for being an idealist, thank you. David and I do indeed share a vision of what the world can look like with better access to science, although we’re both very much realists in how we can get there from here and what this might mean. I guess we dwell in this world day in day out so it probably does seem “idealistic” to some, and that’s fine, but we’re also trying to connect this idealism to real solutions.
Best,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
From: Daniel Sarewitz [mailto:Daniel....@asu.edu]
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2018 8:24 PM
To: Glenn Hampson <gham...@NATIONALSCIENCE.ORG>; SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV
Subject: Re: [scisip] Canada's three chief scientist advisors
Glenn and David, it seems to me that one thing you both powerfully share is a highly idealized notion of what science is and what it can do to help achieve political progress in dealing with climate change. I don’t think there’s much reason to think that progress on climate has anything much to do with science at all. If that seems like a nutty proposition, I refer you to the little dialogue below. It was written in 1989 by a particularly acute observer of science and politics, the late Radford Byerly, Jr.. That’s 30 years ago. Note that the uncertainty level for a CO2 doubling was basically the same then as it is now.
DS
Glenn Hampson
I don’t know Dan. All these things you mention---computers, power, airplanes---operate on a grid, right? They need to be interoperable in order for the grid to function. CO2 scrubbing solutions do not. We could deploy or incentivize the deployment of (through the tax code by creating reverse carbon credits, by funding a federal X Prize for the most efficient/effective solutions, by encouraging or partly funding state and local actions, etc.) a great many one-off solutions---including, for now, simple actions like planting more forests, increasing composting programs to reduce methane-producing rot in landfills, and so on. Massive CO2 and methane scrubbers for sea and air may need to be on the drawing board, but the polling data suggests that republican voters aren’t ready to support these solutions yet and barely enough democrats---the first step has just been admitting that climate change is real---so any widescale, coordinated federal effort probably won’t get funding. And unfortunately, we’ve invested so much time an energy over the last decade debating the hoax-or-no-hoax aspect of this issue that we’ve been distracted from the question of “what now?”---Karen is absolutely right.
I’m not a policy guru like you guys and I don’t play one on TV. But judging by the fault lines on this issue, it seems we’ll head down one of these three paths: (1) better science communication will help change hearts and minds regarding the risk our planet faces from this issue (to what policy end I don’t know); (2) we’ll reach a plateau in our debate where we spend the next decade debating solutions but we won’t get around to building any; or (3) the worst-case models will become more probable and scare the pants off of everyone---we’ll be compelled to act quickly. Of course, in case 3, the longer we wait to act the more heroic our actions will need to be---desperate planet-sized solutions instead of the drip-drip of conservation, creativity and communication.
Personally, I prefer John’s just-do-it approach---let’s start tinkering along these lines and supporting this innovation with private, industry, federal and international dollars. The real question to me is leadership. I can’t envision (and maybe I’m wrong here---maybe this is just a matter of phrasing this as an opportunity and not a problem) where our current leadership in DC is going to grab this issue and run with it. And if this doesn’t happen, what other leadership structures exist that are capable of coordinating global action? California? The EU? Something new?
Best,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
From: Science of Science Policy Listserv [mailto:SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV] On Behalf Of Daniel Sarewitz
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 7:26 AM
To: SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV
Subject: Re: [scisip] Canada's three chief scientist advisors
John, yes of course, but isn’t the real problem what the “it” that we’re supposed to “just do” really is? As we’ve often discussed, what makes energy different from airplanes and computers is that they provided enormous performance improvements over incumbent technologies. Whereas electrons and BTUs are the same whether produced with oil or sunlight.
Germany, of course, has admirably decided to “just do it,” but the results at this point are decidedly mixed, e.g.: http://issues.org/33-2/inside-the-energiewende-policy-and-complexity-in-the-german-utility-industry/
ds
From: Science of Science Listserv <SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV> on behalf of John Alic <jxa...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: John Alic <jxa...@gmail.com>
Date: Monday, February 12, 2018 at 9:57 AM
To: Science of Science Listserv <SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV>
Subject: Re: [scisip] Canada's three chief scientist advisors
Oh I dunno. I could call myself a scientist but I guess I still think more like an engineer. If engineers could talk—some in fact can—they’d tell you there comes a point when you’ve just got to do it. That’s what gave rise to the industrial revolution, to powered flight, to the early internet. Reread Tracy Kidder’s Soul of a New Machine. Seems to me it’s been obvious for a couple of decades at least that climate science tells us “just do it.” Fussing over half-degrees or centimeters of sea-level rise is kind of beside the point. How to do it? Innovations and technological change almost regardless of details mostly originate in private firms (Du Pont & Union Carbide built the atomic bomb, not just scientists at Los Alamos) with science and research as feedstock. Profits create the incentive. At bottom, isn’t that what many of the political arguments are about? Profits for old energy sectors, and energy-consuming sectors, or new? For the more academic argument see the “Energy Innovation and Policy” chapter in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science, online since last June at http://climatescience.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-56.
########################################################################
To send to the list, address your message to: SCI...@listserv.nsf.gov
To subscribe to the list: send the text “subscribe SCISIP” to list...@listserv.nsf.gov
To unsubscribe: sent the text “unsubscribe SCISIP” to list...@listserv.nsf.gov
