Scientists and the policy process: why do we get it wrong?
What Richard Feynman, Susan Sontag and some others thought about science Richard Feynman in the 50’s
“It seems to me that we
[scientists] do think about
these [social] problems
from time to time, but we don't put full‐time
effort into them ‐‐ the reason being that we
know we don't have any magic formula for
solving [those sorts of] problems, that social
problems are very much harder than scientific
ones, and that we [scientists] usually don't get
anywhere when we do think about them.”
I am become death, The Shatterer of Worlds.
[Quoting from the 2,000‐year‐old Bhagavad Gita of India at the instant the first test atomic device exploded.]
J. Robert Oppenheimer
Feynman again in the 50’s
“I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific
problems is just as dumb as the next guy ‐‐ and
when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will
sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter.”
What is the title of James Hansen’s book? Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth about the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity What is the title of Gus Speth’s book? Red Sky at Morning: America and the Crisis of the Global Environment
What is the title of Lester Brown’s book? PLAN B 4.0
Mobilizing to Save Civilization
Feynman again, not so long after
“If you are a scientist you believe that it is good to find out how the world works, that it is good to find out what the realities are, that it is good to turn over to mankind at large the greatest possible power to control the world…. It is not possible to be a scientist unless you believe that the knowledge of the world, and the power which this gives, is a thing which is of intrinsic value to humanity….”
Feynman again, not so long after …
“If you are a scientist you believe that it is good to find out how the world works, that it is good to find out what the realities are, that it is good to turn over to mankind at large the greatest possible power to control the world…. It is not possible to be a scientist unless you believe
that the knowledge of the world, and the power which this gives, is a thing which is of intrinsic value to humanity….”
Which amounts to ‐‐ If something bad comes about because of the science, don’t blame the scientists. Susan Sontag on science fiction movies
THE IMAGINATION OF DISASTER 1965 in Against Interpretation “Science fiction films are not about science. They are about disaster, which is one of the oldest subjects of art.” Susan Sontag on science fiction movies
• 1) The arrival of The Thing. It is witnessed by just one person, a young scientist out on a nature hike. No one believes him including his sympathetic though incredulous and, of course beautiful girlfriend. Susan Sontag on science fiction movies
• 2) Confirmation of the young scientist’s report by other witnesses. Police are called in to deal with the problem and are massacred. Unusual weapons are involved. Susan Sontag on science fiction movies
• 3) Conferences are in the capital (usually the US capital because The Thing usually arrives in the US) between scientists and political leaders. Young hero scientist gives lectures with charts. International tensions are dissolved. All nations work together. Plans to destroy the invader are formulated. Susan Sontag on science fiction movies
• 4) Further atrocities. Nothing works. The girlfriend is in grave danger at some point. Usually captured by The Thing or trapped somewhere. Massive panic in cities as they are destroyed. People run around in frantic masses. Susan Sontag on science fiction movies
• 5) More conferences with the motif “They must be vulnerable to something”. Meanwhile young hero scientist has been working in his lab and comes up with a new weapon (usually a nuclear devise) that might work. It is deployed, succeeds and the world is saved. In the final scene the scientist hero and his girlfriend are cheek to cheek gazing at the sky and he says “But have we seen the last of them?” Vannevar Bush* Science: The Endless Frontier** Scientific progress on a broad front results from the free play of free intellects, working on subjects of their own choice, in the manner dictated by their curiosity for exploration of the unknown. Freedom of inquiry must be preserved under any plan for Government support of science ….
*Head of WWII OSRD, founder of Raytheon
** Report to the President of the US in 1945. Science: The Endless Frontier SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS IS ESSENTIAL. For the War Against Disease For Our National Security
And for the Public Welfare
WE MUST RENEW OUR SCIENTIFIC TALENT – public funding of private
universities for support of basic
research – NSF in 1950 Dan Sarewitz’s 5 myths
Frontiers of Illusion: Science, Technology and the Politics of Progress
• More science = more good
• Any field of research is just as likely to create social benefit as any other.
• Peer review is sufficient accountability.
• Scientific information provides an objective basic for resolving political disputes.
• New science is autonomous from its practical consequences in society. Dan Sarewitz’s 5 myths
Frontiers of Illusion: Science, Technology and the Politics of Progress
• More science = more good
•
The Trouble With Climate Science: More research makes the controversy worse. Sarewitz in Slate Magazine, 2010 Has anyone noticed that after 20 years and $25 billion in government‐sponsored research on climate change, the political controversy over global warming is actually more intractable and bitter today than it has ever been in the past? Of course there are good reasons, such as the failure of the recent U.N.‐sponsored Copenhagen climate conference, stubborn partisanship in the U.S. Congress, and recently discovered mistakes and distortions in the supposedly authoritative 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But these, like the tumors in a cancer patient, are symptoms of a mortal pathology, not its cause. Dan Sarewitz’s 5 myths
Frontiers of Illusion: Science, Technology and the Politics of Progress
•
Scientific information provides an objective basic for resolving political disputes.
A dangerous idea has taken hold in modern politics, and the sooner it is discredited, the better. The idea is that political disagreements can be resolved by science. Its basic logic seems sensible: As good children of the Enlightenment, we should turn to science to establish the facts about problems such as climate change before deciding what policies to implement. Yet the types of things that scientists are good at figuring out don't have much to do with the types of things that politicians need to decide.
Science is bringing bad news ‐‐ this is quite new.
1)
2)
3)
The environment is in deep trouble, global warming. We are doing it to ourselves (the “Thing” is not from outer space, we are the Thing). Sometimes willfully but also just doing ordinary things like staying warm or turning on the lights.
The “solution” is hard to achieve, scientists can’t do it and it will involve changes in life‐style not just in the bad things we do but in the ordinary things as well. So the burden of proof (that bad things lie ahead) becomes very important. The problems associated with prediction are critical. In some very important areas prediction is not key – the military does not try to predict the outbreak of conflict. Sometimes prediction is relatively easy. Transit of Venus can be predicted to minutes many years ahead Physics predicts from theory –
the Higgs boson was predicted to exists based on theory. Echoes of Feynman. The problem of prediction in climate
Scientists have insisted that prediction is their role, but the sciences that are needed most –
Geology, Biology, Ecology ‐‐ are not predictive at their foundation. In fact, they are more the opposite.
The problem of prediction
Scientists have insisted that prediction is their role, but the sciences that are needed most – Geology, Biology, Ecology ‐‐ are not predictive at their foundation. In fact, they are more the opposite.
L’Aquila, Italy April 2009
309 deaths, >1,000 injuries, 4000 homeless Occurred at 3:32 am, Magnitude 6.3, many people died asleep in their beds
I 309 martiri del sisma in Abruzzo
• 29 surviving members of the families of deceased victims brought the charges of manslaughter against seven government scientists.
• Seven members of the Major Risks Committee were convicted to 6 years in jail and ordered to pay over $10 million to the families.
• They were released and have appealed. • First time scientists have been charged. In the media
Nature magazine
From the National Research Council
The case of six Italian scientists sentenced to be jailed for failing to warn of the L'Aquila earthquake in Italy in 2009 highlights the difficult task facing scientists in dealing with risk communication and uncertainty.
We deal with risks and uncertainty all the time in our daily lives. Weather forecasts do not come with guarantees and despite the death tolls on our roads we continue to use bikes, cars, and buses. We have also long built our homes and workplaces in areas known to have a history of earthquakes, floods, or volcanic activity.
Much as society and governments would like science to provide simple, clear‐cut answers to the problems that we face, it is not always possible. Scientists can, however, gather all the available evidence and offer an analysis of the evidence in light of what they do know. The sensible course is to turn to expert scientists who can provide evidence and advice to the best of their knowledge. They will sometimes be wrong, but we must not allow the desire for perfection to be the enemy of good.
That is why we must protest the verdict in Italy. If it becomes a precedent in law, it could lead to a situation in which scientists will be afraid to give expert opinion for fear of prosecution or reprisal. Much government policy and many societal choices rely on good scientific advice and so we must cultivate an environment that allows scientists to contribute what they reasonably can, without being held responsible for forecasts or judgments that they cannot make with confidence.
So science claims that prediction is its core business, but if it proves to be wrong scientists don’t want to be help accountable – echoes of Feynman, science is always good. Warnings had been issued by an independent technician using privately made radon gas measurements Major Risks Committee The committee includes six
seismologists. What they said
on March 30th in response to
public concern just a week
before the quake was: “[there
is] no reason to suppose a
sequence of small [up to
magnitude
4
actually]
earthquakes could be the
prelude to a strong event [and
that] a major earthquake in the
area is unlikely but can’t be
ruled out.”
Mauro Dolce, who was director of the office of seismic risk at the Civil Protection Department
“The scientific community tells me there is no danger because there is an ongoing discharge of energy.” Dr Bernado de Bernardinis deputy chief of Italy's Civil Protection Department ‐‐ told residents to go home and enjoy a glass of wine. AFP PHOTO/ TIZIANA FABI
There had been a series of strong tremors and in response many people had been sleeping outdoors – a common strategy because building collapse is the main cause of death in earthquakes .
The prosecution Fabio Picuti argued successfully that people returned to their homes on the advice of the major risks committee, increasing the death toll by at least 29 over what it might otherwise have been. He claimed they did not adequately fulfill their commitments to the public. Their risk analysis he said was “flawed, inadequate, negligent and deceptive”. “Even a six‐year old knows you can’t predict earthquakes” • Why did this scientists say that there was “no danger”?
• Should he and the others go to jail?
• Did he get the science wrong? The special problem of climate prediction.
Range of predictions at the end of the century is huge.
39
40
41
Different model
outputs for one
scenario
Typical display of climate model predictions Worst case – pessimistic
scenario; high sensitivity
Best case – optimistic
scenario, low sensitivity
Model sensitivity
We are in big, big trouble
We’ll be OK
Scenario optimism