Dr. Jane Lubchenco took over the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on March 22, 2009. A day later she did a joint interview with writers from two of the most prestigious science news journals - Science and Nature. When asked what her top priorities were as she took over the agency, she responded:
"Clearly, science is a priority for me."
Expanding on that idea, Dr. Lubchenco said:
It's my belief that a resilient society and economy depend on informed decisions regarding environmental challenges and resource-management issues. The role of science is to provide the knowledge to do that informing. Those decisions might be made by individuals or governments or by companies; I believe those decisions will be better if they are informed by science. I use "informed" judiciously because I don't think the science should dictate any particular outcome. Decisions are going to take into account a number of different things - values, politics, economics - but science should be at the table in a way that is understandable and relevant and credible and salient. NOAA, as an applied-science agency, has the responsibility to develop and communicate and use science to make policy and management decisions, but also to inform policy and management decisions that are made by others.
When asked whether there was "a big problem in terms of scientists being muzzled in the last administration," she said that it's probably hard to know for sure, but that "as we move forward science will be respected; it will not be muzzled. It will not be distorted. And scientists will be free to share their scientific findings whether they fit any preconceived policy or not." She also indicated that she and John Holdren, the new presidential science adviser and director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, would be reviewing all policies and practices to ensure scientific integrity.
Lubchenco also said that one thing she would like to do is "establish a National Climate Service in partnership with other agencies."
The full interview can be read in Nature magazine.
Check out Science for Everyone
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
email
print
Comments: 33
Science may develop theories or even reach conclusions, but the application of science to public policy is always a matter of opinion because policy involves other factors, such as economics, quality of life, and national security, to name a few. For example, Lubchenco has advocated economic systems to limit overfishing rather than relying solely on regulation. The relative roles of regulation and economics in the control of overfishing are a matter of opinion rather than science.
The article could also have disclosed that Lubchenco founded the Aldo Leopold Leadership Program to teach mid-career scientists how to participate in public policy debates. Again, the debating of public policy involves more than science and opinion plays a significant role in policy debates.
Feel free to disclose away. This is a Gather article, not a Wiki compendium. Feel free to read my other articles on the interactions between scientists and policy-making.
That would be the Department of the Interior, not NOAA, which is part of the Department of Commerce (it's a long story).
but science should be at the table in a way that is understandable and relevant and credible and salient.
Yes, it needs to be understandable, no shrouded in mystery, as some "educated" types would do.
Let's hope she is not just saying the word, science, in order to pull the wool over our eyes while politics, as usual, gets practiced.
Yes, it needs to be understandable, no shrouded in mystery, as some "educated" types would do." (all to here from Bob)
This is an excellent point, Bob. Scientists are pretty good talking to other scientists but not always very good talking to the public. This is largely because like any other profession there is "jargon," i.e., words that scientists use that the public would never know...or worse, words that are the same as common words but have different meanings than the public would think (e.g., "theory").
The other complicating factor is, of course, that the science is pretty complicated. It's unrealistic to think that anyone could understand the highly technical stuff that others spend years learning about through education and/or life experience. I wouldn't want my plumber doing open heart surgery on me, but I also wouldn't my heart surgeon fixing my leaking house plumbing either. By the same token I wouldn't want my accountant predicting future climate patterns, nor a climatologist telling me how to structure my finances for the greatest tax benefit.
Bob, there are a couple of things I don't understand in your post.
First, why is "educated" in quotes? I am educated (MS in Wildlife Biology and Ecology/Environmental Science from Utah State University {don't ask}), and I doubt anyone on Gather would say I am not understandable.
Second, I'm not sure what "...shrouded in mystery..." means. Scientists speak jargon for a reason - it's precise, specific and undebatable as to meaning. Look at all the trouble we get into because scientists have traditionally used a common word (theory) in terms such as the "Theory" of Evolution... of Gravity... of Relativity. Unfortunately, often only "educated types" know the definition of jargon terms. Still, when speaking/writing to peers, it's essential.
I have always written on science matters as if my father, who had to leave school as a high school sophomore, would read it. It often takes a LOT more words. Those who don't take the time to do that and accommodate the "uneducated" risk losing the argument based simply on a lack of understanding by their opponents.
And that she will not just be a mouthpiece for the global warmist agenda of the Obama administration.
In 2005 (during the Bush administration) NOAA began a Reanalysis of Historical Climate Data for Key Atmospheric Feature which was released December of this last year.
I am hopefull when I see the research continues despite the claim by global warmists that the question has been answered no further debate is needed.
Name-calling isn't helpful. "Global warmists" makes people who think their esperiments have not successfully proven their hypothesis (that global warming is caused, at least in part, by human activity) wrong look like religious nuts. Now, I know you didn't mean for THAT to be...
Oh, you did?
Sorry... my bad.
Chuck,
Research does equal debate, when we have an organization like the IPCC, who's head officer has publicly stated the debate is over, it is a clear signal that the IPCC is not trying to find their hypothesis wrong, it is up to others to try and prove the IPCC's hypothisis wrong and the skeptics are doing a very good job of that, with their research.
As for the rest of your comment.........What was that you posted earlier about being a good communicator? More work is needed to get to that good communicator status!