A recent study published in the journal Environmental Science and Policy (see full citation at end) calls for greater efforts to enhance the use of scientific evidence in environmental policy decisions. The study was conducted by the Environment Research Funders' Forum, which brings together the main UK governmental funders of environmental research. As a result of a series of detailed interviews with both researchers and policy-makers, the authors recommended a means of increasing the integration of science with policy. While there is guidance for incorporation of science into policy-making, the study concluded that the current practice has not yet caught up, and they identify several actions that can be undertaken by the Forum and its members to narrow the gap.
One of the big issues seems to be when science is brought into the policy-making process; they conclude that it usually isn't early enough and that this delay can result in a mismatch between the objectives of policy and those of research. Essentially, scientists may be working on a particular line of research, but that research may then not always address the questions for which policy-makers need answers in order to make decisions. The study concludes that there are some practical steps that can be taken to improve the use of science in policy decisions, including:
- a stronger role for policy makers and their advisers in developing research questions and agendas;
- making it easier to find and access relevant experts and previous research and advice;
- strengthening interpretation capacity across the science-policy interface, systematically developing skills and providing an attractive career path; and
- developing the policy community as more discerning customers for science - providing more "policy pull."
The study can be found at: Holmes, J. and Clark, R. 2008. Enhancing the use of science in environmental policy-making and regulation. Environmental Science & Policy 11:702-711.
Cross-posted at The Dake Page
On Gather at:
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 42
We have too much junk science and science that makes assumptions but with further research are proven to be wrong.
A better idea would be to not make any rash decisions until the science has proven their conclusions and come up with the facts. Then a solution can be presented if in fact there is a solution that will correct the problem.
Legislation based on Theory is wrong.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean, Tammy. Climate researched studied this for decades before policy-makers ever even heard of climate change or global warming.
I do think that there are some who are searching for "science" to back up their viewpoints, though everything that they come up with has already been incorporated into the analysis, and continues to be incorporated as new data becomes available. All the new information actually appears to support the contention that climate scientists have underestimated the problem.
I think you misunderstand the concept of scientific "theory," Col. Scientists use the term theory differently than lay people. To the general public, theory has come to erroneously suggest that something is possible, but something else could also be possible. But in science, a theory is the state-of-the-art understanding of all of the facts, observations, data collection, testing, analyzing, and interpreting by a large number of scientists who check and double check before it reaches the level of theory. So theory in science is roughly equivalent to reality, based on the sum total of all the information.
That's quite a fancy way of explaining what a theory is. A theory in science is just that - a theory. It isn't necessarily true, but all the current data indicates that it is. To say that it is "roughly equivalent" to reality is to use the understanding of a few theories and apply it liberally to all of them.
You presented the global warming argument as if it were set in stone. Many scientists claim that it [anthro. global warming] is irrefutably true. And many, just as educated, qualified and knowledgeable, scientists claim that it's irrefutably false. Who do we believe?
By "credible science" I mean pure science... not targetted science. To me, targetted science is used similar to the way statistics are used. By changing your control, narrowing or enlarging your parameters, wordsmithing your theory,... as examples, you can manipulate the outcome. I think this type of targetted science is the reason for the "debate". It's money-driven, politically motivated, etc.... not PURE.
You are exactly, precisely and completely... WRONG! Nothing - I repeat... NOTHING - gets to be a scientific theory unless it IS, in fact "...roughly equivalent to reality..." The remainder of that statement is, simply put, nonsense.
As for the global warming "argument," it's 'roughly equivalent' to the Intelligent Design "argument." It amounts to a few know-nothings demanding to be accorded equal validity of opinion with scientists who actually know and understand their subject, and whose theory has been developed from generations of investigation, observation and experimentation.
A politician earns his/her living (and a very good living it is) by policy decisions that reflect the wishes of their contributors. That is why we have "the best Congress that money can buy".
Until "we the people" get tired of electing the same old corrupt crowd of Senators and Representatives and vote for some real "change", we will have corruption and, with it, the same policies that do not reflect either scientific fact or the public interest.
The consensus. Which is a living entity. Science doesn't stop...it continuously seeks and incorporates new data.
Let me ask a question, based on a comment I just left on my previous science-oriented thread.
If you have a barrel containing 1000 blue balls and one red ball, does the presence of the red ball prove that there are no blue balls in the barrel?
or maybe, just maybe... does the the presence of ONE red ball compared to 1000 blue balls mean the value of the red ball is greater, therefore less are needed...
I had to think about this one, Tammy. It seems what you are describing is actually the abuse of science (and statistics). A chain saw is great for cutting trees, but abused it can cut off your arm. It is true that science and statistics can be abused by people who are more interested in supporting their agenda than gaining scientific knowledge, or who just don't know how to properly use the tools. But that is not science.
There is, however, a difference between what "practical" (as opposed to targeted) science and "pure" science. Some of this has already been covered in my previous post about ethics in science, in which I present some information from a book called The Honest Broker by Roger A. Pielke, Jr.
Well, the presence of one red ball does not automatically give it more importance. But it is legitimate to consider the relative importance of each ball (piece of data). One piece of data could be weighted greater than all the other individual pieces of data. While it wasn't explicitly stated, relative weighting (importance) was, in fact, implicit in my question, as I wasn't thinking in terms of shear numbers alone but total data value of each data point. With respect to the climate change issue specifically, however, the "red balls" offered by those who believe it is a hoax are so far either of minor weighting relative to the other data, or in fact are blue balls that the offering simply through inexperience or lack of knowledge misperceives to be red.
As for "If you think that politicians will allow greater use of scientific evidence in environmental policy decisions, you are kidding yourself.," I can say from experience that scientific evidence is the core of environmental policy decision. That's not to say that ideological agendas don't impact priorities, because they do. We've seen that quite clearly with the environmental and energy priority decisions made by the Bush administration and by the goals thus far proposed by the Obama administration.
Mostly it comes down to the willingness to listen.
I saw your post about The Honest Broker. I'm trying to find the book locally. I may just have to order it online.
If the only purpose/parameter of the experiment is to quantify the relatively small amount of opinion that the red ball represents compared to the large amount of opinion that the blue ball represents, then yes.. the quantifiable (physical) weight/value of the red ball is little.
However, if the purpose/parameter of the experiment is to validate that the presence of the red ball distracts or detracts from the purity of the science supporting climate change, then the weight/value of the red ball could be seen as more significant than the combined weight of the larger amount of blue balls.
It's still the same 1,001 balls... and both can be scientifically calcutated....
Partisans area dime a dozen, a non partial scientist is far rarer and thus more valuable.
That's exactly what I mean. The one red ball could have such overwhelming importance to the equation that it changes the result. To date, that hasn't happened.
I would concur with your hesitation, Charles. There are advantages of being a "pure" scientist, since they don't care about the policy side. But the disadvantage is that some non-scientist with an agenda could misuse the science. The "Honest Broker" (at least the way Pielke describes it) would provide all the options along with advantages and disadvantages and make sure the science wasn't abused or twisted.
The "issue advocate" is probably the place where the greatest danger is for scientists, because they could confuse their ideological opinion with the actual science. I have seen this happen on an individual level. But for it to happen on a "consensus" level is far less likely since it's hard to defend data that are not supportable.
That's exactly what I mean. The one red ball could have such overwhelming importance to the equation that it changes the result. To date, that hasn't happened."
This depends, of course, on what we are talking about.
The same people who argue that "the red ball" proves that anthropogenic global warming doesn't exist also...
argue that the "red ball" representing extremely low levels of pesticides, pesticides that have been proven highly toxic to salmon at exactly such a low level, can't possibly be significant because it's just one ball out of a million...
And thus, the Bush government refused to following Federal law or rulings of Federal judges, all of which were based on careful science, often done by EPA.
This kind of selective use of logic, let alone science, has hopefully become extinct in Washington. Gather represents perhaps a more difficult frontier.
Can't argue with that, Charles. There does seem to be a difference of opinion on what constitutes "junk science," mostly by those who don't understand the science.
I'm glad you pointed this out, James. Sometimes I sit back and look at what people are saying, parsing the meanings behind the words (which to some, can be a bit irritating). Often we don't see the disconnect between how we apply our principles, in large part because our principles got lost in the ideological bumper sticker.
One obvious example is the idea that "government should stay out of our lives" and "we need to pass a Constitutional amendment to prevent gay people from getting married." [There are plenty of examples for the opposing ideology as well, but this one jumps out as the most egregious.]
No scientific organization in the world disputes the IPCC Reports that an observable rise in the global average temperature is "unequivocal", and that the observed warming is very likely (i.e., 90% probability) due to human activity. These scientific organizations include the U.S. National Academies of Science (NAS), the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Meteorological Institute (AMS), the American Geophysical Union (AGU), and the Royal Society (U.K.). So, I don't know who you believe, but this is one fact you should consider in making that decision.
I am optimistic, with the new administration's science director, that science will once again be represented in policy decisions. This has not been the case for some time. And that is likely the reason that so many absurd statements are made re: scientific "issues", like evolution and climate change. In any case, ideology has no place in policy debates - and I would submit that research into the influence of neoconservative ideology on policy would be a welcome study.
You make an important point here, Steve. Science is about debating issues openly and honestly. The key here is "facts," not ideology. Something like global warming is factual, and the debates among scientists are mostly about how accurate can they make the models, how bad the problem is, and what can be done about it. Unfortunately, the debates the public sees are ideological and pretty much are along the lines of "the consensus is" (i.e., the science) vs "all scientists are in the tank and can't be trusted" (the ideology).
I don't know if that indicates that the industry/ideological assault on science has had significant effect, but that (again) would be a worthy arena for research. For example, Frank Luntz, republican pollster, wrote in an infamous memo in 2002, instructing republican congressional candidates with the following "talking points":
Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field. (Emphsis in the original)
in
BTW, I doubt that Tammy, Becky, etc. are even aware that Luntz has since changed his mind.
It's nearly psychotic. Recently, one of these "skeptics" suggested that scientists were engaged in "group think", like the Jonestown cult.
The other point is that many of the originators of these talking points, like Luntz, no longer doubt the science. Rupert Murdoch gave a speech to News Corps, parent company of Fox News, re: the risks of warming. Taking note of the drought in Australia (this was a couple of years ago), his home, he stated he knows how to assess risks. I guess those talking points haven't been so widely disseminated, though.
think," like the Jonestown cult."
The odd thing about this (whether ironic or psychotic) is that scientists are inherently (and sometimes pathologically) tied to following logic. They question everything with the goal of gaining knowledge. "Group think" on the other hand requires a suspension of logic, or at least an incomplete perception of logical argument. So yes, the red ball doesn't make sense, but does it make any more sense to deny the existence of a thousand blue balls because one red ball exists? That isn't logical.
And ironically, that one red ball is like a flame to a moth - scientists want to investigate why that ball is red. Contrary to what skeptics claim, scientists don't ignore those things that make them question their beliefs, they embrace those things. They are intellectually compelled to understand what is it about that ball that makes it not fit the pattern. They seek knowledge.