EPA Dealing with Censorship, Hostile Takeover by New Administration

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) woke up this week to a barrage of restrictions that a former Administrator under George H.W. Bush called "going down a very dark road." All Agency communications have been shut down and must now go through political review by the new administration. That includes all "public-facing documents" such as "news releases, fact sheets, news feeds, and social media content." The administration has also put a freeze on any new work, on contract approvals, on grant awards, and on new hiring. Essentially, the Agency is in lockdown. Similar actions have been taken to restrict all other federal agencies.

The first casualty was the Department of Interior twitter feed, which had retweeted a photo showing the extremely small crowds at Trump's 2016 inauguration versus President Obama's first inauguration in 2008. Many news media reported that Trump was embarrassed by the low turnout and thus closed down the twitter feed, as well as all other twitter feeds from federal facilities. This ban on tweeting did not, of course, extend to his own unsecured twitter account, which he used to fabricate lies about the crowd size that were proven false by actual facts (in contrast to the "alternative facts" [aka, blatant lies] pushed by Trump).

Temporary freezes on agency outreach have happened before, mainly as a way for the new administration to get its team in place and figure out what the EPA is doing. But former EPA administrators confirm that the current censorship and bans far exceed practices under past administrations, either Republican or Democratic.

But the new administration has stated clearly its intent is to restrict agency science and roll back regulations that protect human health and the environment, deal with man-made climate change, and even improve gas mileage standards. The head of the transition team was Myron Ebell, head of the anti-science, anti-regulation libertarian consulting organization, the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Trump's pick to run the EPA is Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma Attorney General who has been the fossil fuel industry's ally, issuing multiple lawsuits to block health protections that would require corporate accountability. He also apparently lied to Senators during his confirmation hearings. Rex Tillerson, the former CEO of ExxonMobil and a key funder/promoter of climate change denial and a close ally of Russia's Vladimir Putin, is the pick for Secretary of State.

All of these signal a return to the early days of past Republican administrations who used their political power to censor scientific information and destroy the EPA. Ronald Reagan, for example, had hired Anne Gorsuch, another pro-fossil fuel/mining attorney general, as EPA administrator. She was forced out after intentionally trying to subvert science. Likewise, George W. Bush put fossil fuel lobbyist Philip Cooney in charge of his Council on Environmental Quality. Cooney was caught intentionally editing scientific documents to downplay the severity of man-made climate change. He too was forced to leave the administration, immediately taking a position at ExxonMobil.

So Americans have a valid reason for concern. The incoming administration has been vocally hostile to the EPA since the beginning of the campaign. They have nominated people who have histories of being aggressively anti-EPA and anti-science. Their first acts were to restrict public communication and outreach. They have already signaled rollbacks of congressionally-mandated health and safety rules, while promoting the interests of fossil fuel corporations (many of whom are now part of the administration).

Scientists must push back against such politically motivated anti-science. A few agencies who have had their twitter feeds blocked have apparently set up "Alt-feeds" to continue serving the public. Given the huge success of the Women's Marches on the day after the inauguration (that far exceeded inauguration crowds, despite Trump's blatant lies to the contrary), a group of scientists are planning a Scientists March on Washington.

Meanwhile, the EPA and other agencies have internal scientific integrity document:

The EPA's 14-page scientific integrity document, enacted during the Obama administration, describes how scientific studies were to be conducted and reviewed in the agency. It said scientific studies should eventually be communicated to the public, the media and Congress "uncompromised by political or other interference."

All of us, the public and scientists alike, need to be vigilant to make sure the new administration does not try to remove scientific integrity from the science agencies, as, unfortunately, has been the case in prior Republican administrations.  

[Photo source: Union of Concerned Scientists]

NASA Reaffirms Scientific Integrity Policy

According to a press release issued on December 16th:

NASA has reaffirmed its commitment to science with the release of a new framework on scientific integrity. The framework summarizes the agency's policies and practices that strengthen and uphold scientific integrity. This represents the first time NASA has codified these policies under the umbrella of scientific integrity.

"Integrity is woven throughout the fabric of NASA, and science plays a leading role in that," NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said. "This framework reflects and strengthens our commitment to open, honest, unrestricted and fair science practices, and sustains a culture that promotes them."

To support this culture of transparency, the framework reaffirms NASA's public communications policy of 2006, which states NASA scientists may speak freely with the public about scientific and technical matters.

"The ability to accurately and widely communicate our amazing science discoveries is one of our highest priorities," said NASA Chief Scientist Waleed Abdalati at the agency's headquarters in Washington. "NASA set a high standard with its forward-looking communications policy in 2006, and today we welcome the opportunity to join other agencies that are re-dedicating themselves to the highest standards of scientific excellence and advancing public trust in our discoveries."

NASA and other federal agencies submitted scientific integrity policies in response to a memorandum issued by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy in December 2010. NASA's framework expands on the President's Memorandum to Department and Agency Heads on Scientific Integrity issued March 9, 2009, and specifies how the agency will address key issues.

In addition to public communications, the framework addresses professional development of government scientists and engineers, peer review and other topics. In developing its framework, NASA leadership evaluated the agency's existing policies and sought opportunities to improve and build on them. The agency currently is revising certain policies, including directives on the use of federal advisory committees. NASA will continue evaluating and improving policies within the framework through its formal review and renewal process.

Click here to download a PDF and read NASA's Framework on Scientific Integrity.

EPA Issues Final Plan to Review Regulations in an Effort to Remove Regulatory Burdens on Industry

The USEPA this week issued its final regulatory review plan in accordance with an Executive Order signed by President Obama earlier this year.  The goal of the review is to modify or eliminate regulations that are overly burdensome or costly.  EPA wants to develop a "21st century approach to environmental protection."

Under the plan, EPA will review a total of 35 separate regulations. About half (16) fit into the category of "early actions" and will be reviewed during 2011, with the rest scheduled for longer term actions in subsequent years.  For the early action list EPA "intends to propose or finalize an action to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal a regulation or related program."  The 16 regulatory topics to be reviewed in 2011 include:

• Gasoline and diesel regulations
• Equipment leak detection and repair
• Regulatory certainty for farmers
• Modern science and technology methods in chemical regulation
• Electronic online reporting of health and safety data under TSCA, FIFRA, FFDCA
• National Priorities List rules
• Quick changes to some TSCA reporting requirements
• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
• National primary drinking water regulations
• Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) and integrated planning for wet weather infrastructure
• Vehicle regulations, e.g., GHG and fuel economy standards and emissions standards
• Multiple air pollutants, e.g., coordinating emission reduction regulations
• NSPS reviews and revisions under the Clean Air Act
• Clean Air Act Title V Permit program simplification
• Innovative technology, i.e., seeking to encourage innovation
• Costs of regulations, i.e., seeking to improve cost estimates

EPA notes that the actions it has taken just in the last few months have resulted in streamlined regulations and savings of up to $360 million per year.  Overall the EPA expects this regulatory review to result in $1.5 billion in savings over the next five years.  EPA further noted that it expects to conduct regulatory reviews on a "predictable, transparent, five-year cycle," including public requests for nominations of additional regulations for review.


The full EPA final regulatory review plan can be downloaded from the White House web site.

EPA Issues Draft Scientific Integrity Policy

The USEPA has issued a draft scientific integrity policy, following similar documents by NOAA and the Department of the Interior, and in response to President Obama's Executive Order calling for all agencies to develop such a policy.  The draft policy comes as no surprise, as EPA in June named long-time EPA staffer William Sanders as the "Scientific Integrity Officer."

The 12-page document, which can be downloaded as a PDF here, essentially formalizes integrity policies that have already been in force at EPA for years.  It covers all scientific staff and is designed to:

• Ensure that their work is of the highest integrity, free from political influence.
• Represent their own work fairly and accurately
• Represent and acknowledge the intellectual contributions of others.
• Avoid conflicts of interest and ensure impartiality.
• Be cognizant of and understand the specific programmatic statutes that guide the employee’s work.
• Welcome differing views and opinions on scientific and technical matters as a
  legitimate and necessary part of the scientific process.
• Accept the affirmative responsibility to report any breach of this Scientific
  Integrity Policy.

The policy specifies four areas in which these goals are to be achieved, "a) the culture of scientific integrity at EPA, b) public communications, c) the use of Federal advisory committees and peer review, and d) professional development of government scientists and engineers."

The draft policy also "establishes a Scientific Integrity Committee," which is charged with implementing the policy across EPA.  The makeup of the committee is still under development, but will be responsible for "implementing, reviewing, and revising as needed" the policy.

The draft policy is open for public comment through September 6, 2011 and should be emailed to osa.staff@epa.gov.

More information, contact info, and links to the policy can be found in EPA's news release.

NOAA Issues Draft Scientific Integrity Policy for Public Comment

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has issued a draft scientific integrity policy for public comment.  It joins a similar release by the Department of the Interior in February as a response to President Obama's executive order requiring federal agencies to provide guidance on how they will ensure scientific integrity. NOAA would like interested parties to provide feedback by August 20, 2011.

The policy, which can be read in full here, establishes Codes of Conduct and Ethics and identifies eight "Principles of Scientific Integrity."  They include such things as how NOAA employees conduct, publish, and communicate research and results, and the benefits and limitations of NOAA scientists' participation in professional organizations, as well as rules for receiving awards. The primary goals are to ensure transparency, maintain the highest of levels of scientific integrity, and assist in the accurate communication of scientific findings to the public and policy-makers. 

To support this policy, among other things, NOAA will facilitate the free flow of scientific information online and in other formats, document the scientific findings considered in decision-making, and ensure selection of scientific staff "based on a candidate's integrity, knowledge, credentials, and experience relevant to the responsibility of the position." 

The new draft policy was welcomed by at least one scientific organization, the American Geophysical Union, which issued a press release.


The link for the NOAA scientific integrity policy, and instructions for providing feedback to the Agency, can be found here.

EPA Gets a "Scientific Integrity Officer"

The USEPA now has its first scientific integrity officer.  EPA named William Sanders, an EPA veteran who is currently the Director of the National Center for Environmental Research (NCER) at EPA to the position.  Sanders will be in charge of implementing EPA's new scientific integrity policy, which was initiated by executive order from President Obama and is due to be completed some time in the fall.

Sanders' appointment comes before an expected report from the Inspector General's office within EPA, which will include advice on what steps need to be taken to ensure the integrity of all scientific work done at EPA.  The IG recently faulted EPA for its lack of action identifying endocrine disruptor chemicals as required by two laws passed in 1996.  The upcoming IG report, expected this summer, reviewed EPA internal policies and processes and will provide advice on maintaining scientific credibility, identifying and dealing with scientific misconduct, and record keeping. 

Sanders has been at EPA for more than three decades in a variety of roles.  According to sources, the role as NCER chief has caused some to question his ability to take on the new appointment.  Apparently morale has been dropping since he started at NCER, with many employees choosing to leave.  Still, the scientific integrity officer role will allow Sanders to oversea the new integrity policy and incorporate the suggestions from IG and others.

House Republicans Vote to Repeal Climate Science Funding

In a vote held just before 2 am ET, Republicans in the House of Representatives voted Saturday to eliminate the United States' contribution to funding the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  The final vote on the amendment was 244-179 on an essentially party line split.  The vote is disturbing to scientists because the basis for it, as presented by its sponsor, Republican Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-9) was contrary to established fact and science.

Rep. Luetkemeyer argued that the IPCC is "fraught with waste and fraud, and engaged in dubious science," though these arguments have largely been shown to be both false and specious.  Luetkemeyer also cited a list of "more than 700 acclaimed international scientists have challenged the claims made by the IPCC, in this comprehensive 740-page report."  The report is the list of quotes and abstracts compiled by Marc Morano (a lobbyist funded non-scientist) when he worked for James Inhofe during Inhofe's previous chairmanship of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.  While some of the scientists listed are in fact acclaimed, mostly they are in completely separate fields of study and have never done any climate research.  Others are not scientists at all.  And many of the quotes and abstracts have been edited to suggest positions many of the scientists say they do not hold.  Rep. Luetkemeyer also cites an opinion by "famed Princeton University physicist Dr. Robert Austin, who has published 170 scientific papers and was elected a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences."  It's unclear why Luetkemeyer believes Dr. Austin's opinion holds more sway than active climate researchers that are also members of the National Academy of Sciences and have similar publication records, given that Dr. Austin works in a completely different field of science and has never done any climate science research.  Meanwhile, actual climate scientists with thousands of scientific papers in climate science are dismissed by Luetkemeyer as less capable and/or trustworthy.

Luetemeyer also cited the 2009 "climategate" emails in which more than 1000 emails dating back 13 years were stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit in the UK. Again, Rep. Luetemeyer suggests that the emails indicate foul play on the part of scientists, despite the fact that at least five separate investigations have debunked that contention as utterly false.  In fact, the investigations showed that climate scientists had worked with great diligence and that the anti-science accusers had cherry picked and intentionally misinterpreted selected passages out of context to misrepresent what was said.

While Luetemeyer and his fellow House Republicans vote to defund our portion of the IPCC commitment (note that he also misrepresents the actual funding amount), the US National Academy of Sciences has recently said that:

"...the compelling case that climate change is occurring and is caused in large part by human activities is based on a strong, credible body of evidence."

NASA, NOAA and the World Meteorological Organization, along with all the major Academies of Sciences around the world and all major relevant scientific organizations, all concur that the climate is changing and that human activity is the cause.  The science that led to this conclusion is robust and voluminous. 

But apparently the Republican Congress thinks they know better than climate scientists and can overrule basic atmospheric physics going back through more than 200 years of understanding.  Ironically, a group of scientists recently wrote a letter to Congress asking it to avoid inserting politics into science.  The letter "emphasizes the importance of truly understanding the science of climate change, and stresses the need to prevent political ideology from clouding our scientific understanding of how climate change is impacting our way of life." 

It remains to be seen whether the Senate will follow suit in denying scientific funding, or whether any such amendment would survive the conference committee reconciliation of the separate House and Senate appropriations bills. 

Obama Administration Revisits Scientific Integrity Policy

Over a year and a half ago I reported on the Obama Admininstration's call for Agencies to develop scientific integrity rules, and even asked for the public's input. The main activist group representing government scientists also called for a formal policy.  Just last week I noted that the Department of Interior has finally issued their rules, though OMBWatch, the Office of Management and Budget watchdog organization, felt they didn't go far enough. Now the National Commission set up earlier this year to monitor and evaluate the response to the BP Deepwater Horizon oil catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico has come out to say that the White House could have done a better job.

So where is the Administration on developing these guidelines, and why is it taking so long?

Remember that the rationale for developing scientific integrity rules in the first place was because there were so many complaints about how the Bush Administration had suppressed science that conflicted with its political goals.  As Francesca Grifo from the Union of Concerned Scientists says in a recent edition of "All Things Considered" on NPR: 

The point is that you don't want to have political appointees using science as a cover and changing the science so that it appears that what they're doing is science-based when it's not. And that's certainly what we had eight years of. And we really were hoping, with this administration, that that was not what we're going to see. 

The problem seems to be one of the trials of getting new policies through the federal bureaucracy, including the OMB, and the fact that this administrations agenda has been been quite full during the first 21 months, as opposed to any attempt to suppress science.  But clearly the administration needs to step up the pace and ensure policies are in place.  According to John Holdren, Obama's "science czar," (again, from the NPR transcript) they expect to have guidelines in place by December.  Holdren also says that "the administration is already living by the principles of scientific integrity. But he adds, even when the guidelines are finally published, putting them in practice will be a challenge."

The full recording of the NPR discussion and a transcript can be found here.

Department of Interior issues policy on scientific integrity

The US Department of the Interior, led by Secretary Ken Salazar, has finally issued a new policy to ensure scientific integrity.  According to the "Secretary's Order," the policy is designed to "guide and ensure the integrity of science and scientific products developed and used by the [DOI] in decision making and in the creation of policy related to the conservation and responsible development of our Nation's natural resources, protecting our heritage, and honoring native cultures and tribal communities."

The policy is in line with President Obama's call last year for all agencies and departments to establish a means by which they could ensure scientific integrity.  One of the main rationales for calling for policies was the numerous accusations of suppression or manipulation of scientific data in previous administrations, most notably those regarding protection of endangered species and climate change.

While the Union of Concerned Scientists praises the DOI policy as "a great first step," the watchdog organization OMB Watch suggests it doesn't go far enough.  As the representative from UCS says,

“While this is a great framework, the real work begins now. Without specifics and a timeline, these principles will end up as just another good idea. There are many details the plan must address, including deadlines for releasing information and disclosing meetings with special interests. Interior must move quickly to put flesh on these bones."

OMB Watch Says DOI Policy Inadequate to Protect Scientific Integrity

OMB Watch, a watchdog organization focusing on scrutinizing Office of Management and Budget activities, has given support to comments filed criticizing the Department of Interior's proposed scientific integrity policy.  The policy is in response to the March 2009 memo from President Obama establishing six principles for scientific integrity.  OMB Watch joins comments filed by the Union of Concerned Scientists and other public interest and environmental groups in saying that the policy "fails to address the full range of threats to scientific integrity at DOI, such as those evidenced by abuses at the former Minerals Management Service."

The commenters do agree that the proposed policy "does take steps to prevent misconduct by scientists."  But they charge that it "fails to protect scientist whistleblowers" and "does little to improve either the transparency of scientific activities or the ways that scientific information is used in decision making."  They further state that the proposed policy effectively "does nothing to prevent political interference with science."

OMB Watch and the Union of Concerned Scientists provide comments that discuss three areas where reforms are needed: 1) protecting government scientists, 2) making government more transparent, and 3) gathering scientific information and advice.  More information can be found at OMB Watch, the comments themselves, and the web site of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Recommedations are more than a year overdue.

SURPRISE!! - US Government Asks for Public Input on Scientific Integrity

In a surprise move, the US government published in the Thursday, April 23rd Federal Register a "request for public comment" on a scientific integrity memo. This relates to the memorandum issued by President Obama on March 9, 2009, in which he required "the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)to craft recommendations for Presidential action to ensure scientific integrity in the executive branch." I discussed the memo in a previous post.

The Federal Register notice "solicits public input to inform the drafting of those recommendations." The notice asks "a series of questions to help guide the public in responding to this request."

As defined in the current Federal Register notice, the six principles of the President's March 3rd memorandum, and on which public comments are solicited are:

(a) The selection and retention of candidates for science and
technology positions in the executive branch should be based on the
candidate's knowledge, credentials, experience, and integrity;

(b) Each agency should have appropriate rules and procedures to
ensure the integrity of the scientific process within the agency;

(c) When scientific or technological information is considered in policy decisions, the information should be subject to well-established scientific processes, including peer review where appropriate, and each agency should appropriately and accurately reflect that information in complying with and applying relevant statutory standards.

(d) Except for information that is properly restricted from disclosure under procedures established in accordance with statute, regulation, Executive Order, or Presidential Memorandum, each agency should make available to the public the scientific or technological findings or conclusions considered or relied on in policy decisions;

(e) Each agency should have in place procedures to identify and
address instances in which the scientific process or the integrity of
scientific and technological information may be compromised; and

(f) Each agency should adopt such additional procedures, including any appropriate whistleblower protections, as are necessary to ensure the integrity of scientific and technological information and processes on which the agency relies in its decision-making or otherwise uses or prepares.

There is a 21 day period for public comment from April 23, 2009 to May 13, 2009.

The fact that this request for public comment relates to a presidential memorandum - which generally are edicts from the President without any public input - is a sign of a greater openness not just in providing the final results but also the underlying research and the process that went into developing the final outcome. It instills a greater degree of public confidence in the scientific process. It also gives all viewpoints - dissenting opinions as well as proponents - a chance to be heard. Which is likely to increase the chances of strong science-based policy decisions being made with less ideological manipulation.

Ten Replies...Advocacy vs Science (From Helicity)

I came across a very interesting blog called Helicity that was replying to the replies of a climate change skeptic (to his earlier post). I thought many of his responses were both patient and insightful, and it's a topic I have covered myself. For those (like me) who aren't familiar with it, helicity is a meteorological term that, "in the most general sense, illustrates to what extent a fluid flows in a corkscrew manner. It’s used in forecasting the likelihood of tornadic development through the Storm Relative Helicity scale (SRH)." The blog's author, "Daniel ‘counters’ Rothenberg, a student of Atmospheric Science at Cornell University," uses helicity as a metaphor for the wild spinning of academic and everyday life.

It's a long post, and I highly recommend you read it. I hope Daniel won't mind that I've included a couple of excerpts here that I found interesting.

Regarding consensus:

"What does “consensus” mean? It means that the people that actually do climate science generally reach the same conclusions and interpretations of the data they work with. In climate science, there is a strong consensus that AGW is the best interpretation of the pertinent data. What this response fails to hit almost entirely is that it’s not the consenus that matters; it’s how that consensus came to be. In the case of climate science, AGW continues to be supported by new lines of evidence. It allows us to answer questions, but also to ask more questions. The important thing is that ain’t nobody done gone and knocked AGW’s knee-caps out! There is a consensus precisely because not only is AGW the most robust explanation of the data out there, but no one has come and falsified it yet."

Regarding peer-review (or lack of it):

"You know, when a skeptics scientific thesis can thoroughly be debunked and refuted in a short, few-paragraph blog post, is it any wonder that it can’t pass the muster of peer-review? Peer-review is far from a perfect, flawless process, and it certanly can insulate the scientific establishment from major changes - even changes which prove to be necessary. But the issue isn’t politics in the peer-review process; it’s flawed science wasting peer-reviewers time."

Regarding refuting data:

"If someone has a serious issue with the latest Mann paper (or any paper in the climate science literature), then it’s about time that they draft a formal refutation and publish it. I can guarantee that if the refutation is legitimate, it won’t have any problem making it into a respected journal. If skeptics are really sitting on AGW-shattering calculations and have better theories formulated, then they need to start publishing them. The problem is that they don’t."

As I said, these are only excerpts from the Helicity post. I recommend reading it in its entirety.

[And for those who are easily confused...this is a blog, so it isn't science, merely an opinion about science.]

Scientists as political activists?

I mentioned previously the climate change conference held in Copenhagen, which was designed to stimulate some activism on the part of scientists in preparation for December's much anticipated international climate change conference. Despite this goal, however, one point made repeatedly was that "formulating an action plan to curb climate change is not the job of scientists."

Herein lies a dilemma (wrapped inside a conundrum, or is it the other way around).

Scientists traditionally prefer to do the science and leave the policy development to others. For one thing, public policy must consider many more things than just the science. There are sociological, economic, political, and pragmatic considerations. But at the same time politicians are asking scientists, for example climate change scientists, what action they should take to address the problem. Unfortunately, while they can predict what may happen, it's even more difficult to provide guidance on what to do about it. This is true for a couple of reasons.

First, models can never provide a perfect prediction of how and where the climate will change. One participant in Copenhagen noted: "Tell me what the stock market will do in 100 years and I will tell you what the climate will do." Second, most climate scientists will tell you that their role does not include policy formulation. They can provide scenarios of what will happen if emissions hit certain thresholds, but when politicians ask what is the absolute maximum amount of CO2 we should allow, there is no easy answer. In the end, it depends on how much risk we are willing to take. That, and how good we are at predicting tipping points.

So the organizers of the Copenhagen conference hoped that they can encourage scientists to take a more active role and speak not as scientists but as concerned citizens. Some may feel uncomfortable with "blurring the line between science and activism," but they also know that no one understands the risks better than they do and no one is better placed to give informed opinions.

One positive note from the current Obama administration is that he has placed scientists in key appointee positions, jobs that too often in the past have gone to political friends whether they know anything about science or not. These scientists as risk managers are "people who are willing and able to weigh up the risks, costs and benefits of various degrees of action."

Better Scientific Understanding = Better Policy Decisions

An underlying theme of this page is how science meets policy. In a recent commentary, UK scientist and Professor Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute and special adviser to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, says that "getting understandable science information to policy makers remains a great challenge." I agree. As I noted in Sunday's Dake Page, some with political or ideological motivations often try to obfuscate the science. Professor Sachs suggests "the effective flow of information from the scientific community to the public and to policy-makers, and the systematic application of that information in policy-making remains a great and growing challenge." He opines that "the Bush administration exemplified a government that ignored, distorted, and even disdained scientific information, to the enormous cost to the US and the world."

To counter this, Professor Sachs offers five areas of action "to improve the link between science and policy."

First, he says "the general public must broadly understand scientific issues such as climate change in order to be able to call for and endorse sound public action. Yet the scientific issues are inherently complex, and the public arena is filled with misinformation (by innocent error) and disinformation (by calculated misdirection) by vested interests. To overcome the confusion, it is vital to establish processes such as the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that inform the public of the boundaries of real knowledge and consensus, especially based on the peer reviewed literature. Other venerable scientific institutions and societies (such as the Royal Society or the National Academy of Sciences) can also play this role."

Second, he states that "the public must be informed of the consensus in an intelligible manner." That is something that is sometimes difficult for scientists, who Sachs says, "notoriously neglect to be intelligible, usually not in order to be intentionally obscure, but rather to avoid the imprecision of non-scientific, day to day language." He also suggests that "science journalists (with proper scientific training), the media, and scientist-statesmen are needed to play an important role in translation."

Third, Sachs says that "policy-makers need detailed and systematic inputs beyond the broad public debate." He touts the US President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) as "a vital institution." Sachs believes it is a good step that President Obama has "revitalised it by appointing world class scientific leaders."

Fourth, he emphasizes that "science needs to inform public policy systematically, not only through advising the executive and legislative branches (and indeed, often, the judicial branch), but also through a seat at the table in rule-making and public decision-making." Sachs is highly supportive of "government bodies such as environmental agencies, national laboratories, and standard setting bodies," and suggests that they need "not only their own internal experts, but also panels of independent (non-governmental) scientific experts, free from conflict of interest, and beyond the reach of politics or governmental bureaucratic control."

Sach's fifth and final recommendation is to note that "while expertise is vital...it is not enough." Ultimately, he says "we can't leave...decisions to the scientists, though we want the scientists very close to the ultimate decisions, and to express their views strongly and publicly." Rather, he suggests that the "ultimate decisions depend on democratic processes and consensus building around the scientific evidence that are needed to combine scientific knowledge with ethical guidelines, public values, and a sense of justice, fairness and social cohesion."

While he says that "this meshing of science knowledge and ultimate democratic decision-making is a never ending challenge,...the general commitment to the combination of scientific rigour, public consensus and democratic accountability should be a guidepost for action and institutional design."

In short, scientists and policy-makers must communicate, with each other and with the public.

Read the original commentary here.

Global Warming Denialists - The Art of Deception

Global warming denialists are carrying on an ideologically motivated campaign to discredit real climate science. And they are doing so by willfully and repeatedly misrepresenting the state of our knowledge. They have several methods that all scientists and every citizen should be on the look out for, and these methods should be exposed for what they are - purposeful deceit of the public.

Some of the more prevalent methods to deceive the public include:

"Global warming is just a theory, and the science is still unsettled"

Denialists are fond of manipulating the public by misrepresenting the meaning of scientific theory. They do this to suggest that the science of climate change is still unsettled. But the science of climate change is clear. The scientific consensus is clear.

"The IPCC is ignoring the science"

Except that it isn't. The IPCC, and the thousands of researchers on whose studies the IPCC relies for its compilation of the state-of-the-science, examine every legitimate study that has been conducted regarding climate science. Any new valid data are also incorporated into the discussion, which is why the IPCC, for example, revises its reports every few years - they are incorporating newer data. Claims of "they are ignoring solar forcing" and others, for example, are patently false, and the denialists know this but continue with their charade.

"Many scientists disagree with the IPCC"

Some legitimate scientists legitimately disagree with parts of the consensus. And as legitimate scientists they present their real scientific data to real scientific peer-review. As yet, the legitimate disagreement has been on specific data or on specific interpretation. But these disagreements have been unpersuasive to the vast community of scientists as far as changing the consensus. It comes down to the preponderance of evidence. And the preponderance of the evidence remains clear. Most of the time these legitimate scientists actually, in the end, provide support to the consensus by helping to fine-tune specific details.

"So and so scientist says that global warming is wrong"

To scientists this is one of the most despicable and deceitful ploys used by global warming denialists. They "quote" a certain scientist to suggest that the scientist agrees with their denialist position. Except they selectively quote to misrepresent the scientist's position. Several scientists have had to issue corrections - often repeatedly - to clarify their position or even to deny that their research says what the denialists say it means. One scientist has been fighting for years to stop denialists from continuing to misquote his research, which they continue to do intentionally to claim the exact opposite of what the scientist's research actually concludes. Another had to issue a statement - and even ensure it was posted on his Wiki biography - to refute the way denialists have mischaracterized his views. A major scientific organization had to issue a press release to warn that denialists had fraudulently mimicked its journal design with the explicit goal of suggesting the organization supported their view. It does not.

"Independent organization scientists refute global warming"

One of the favorite means for denialists to deceive the public is to create a "science sounding" organization and pass it off as independent. This despite the fact that all the funding comes from industry donors, ideological foundations, and "private citizens" (who oddly enough tend to be associated with industry donors and ideological foundations). The claim of independence is farcical, as these organizations are merely front groups for the industrial and ideological firms who fund them. Even the handful of scientists they employ are shared amongst the groups to create the illusion that there are more dissenters than are there in truth. More deceit.

"A conference to present the science refuting the global warmist agenda"

Another trick of the denialists is to sponsor a conference in which will be presented "the real science that global warmists ignore." As noted above, no real science is ignored, so this in itself is deceit. But the deceit goes even further as the conference is billed as a scientific conference when in fact it is nothing but an advocacy meeting designed to confuse the public and influence politicians. The recent conference sponsored by the conservative Heartland Institute is a perfect example of the deception employed by the global warming denialist industry. Besides the ideologically oriented HI, the conference was co-sponsored by 57 other organizations, every one of which were ideological, libertarian, anti-tax, pro-business and free-market organizations. No scientific organizations participated. The handful of "science sounding" organizations (about 6 of 57) were the deceitful front groups mentioned in the last point. No new scientific data were presented, and in fact the only science presented was the same old information that has been repeated for years. Any legitimate science would be presented at legitimate scientific conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. As such, any legitimate science is already part of the consensus and any new legitimate data will be added to the analysis. The conference was a sham designed to deceive.

"Such and such a source says..."

One common ploy is circular citation. The denialist industry creates a "press release" masquerading as scientific opinion. It then ensures that it circulates to its network of bloggers - some paid, others merely ideological lackeys - for distribution. Call it the "cut-and-paste" method of creating the impression that there is more uncertainty than there is, more disagreement than there is, and more authority than there is. Citing a blog that stole from another blog that stole from another blog that got it from the industry denialist machine is a combination of lazy and deceitful. The intent is to create an implied volume of information when it is in fact nothing more than creative plagiarism. Given that any person with a computer can publish anything they want without any kind of check on its factual integrity, no blog can be used for anything more than ascertaining the blogger's opinion, which by definition is tuned to their inherent biases. That's why you get the same sort of "conspiracy theory" stories showing up on "conspiracy theory" blogs. In short, citing a blog as a source of scientific fact is meaningless, not to mention that it and shows a lack of scientific understanding and/or a willingness to deceive.

"The science definitively says that global warming is not happening"

False. Often this comes in the form of "we know that the temperatures are cooling" or "the sun is causing global warming." These are third-grade level misunderstandings (at best) or intentional misrepresentations (most likely) of the science. But by making the statement definitively the denialists know it sounds authoritative to the public. Just like former vice-president Dick Cheney stating definitively that Saddam Hussein had WMDs (he did not) and that Iraq was involved with the 9/11 attacks (they were not). Being authoritative does not change a lie into the truth, but it does cynically take advantage of the natural tendency for people to assume forceful statements represent reality. This is deception and should be called deception.

"Global warmists are pushing a political agenda for the funding"

This is a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black. Climate scientists toiled for decades doing research, generally with very limited funding. Anyone who knows how much scientists get paid know they don't do it "for the money." In fact, for the denialist industry (funded lavishly by some of the biggest corporations on the planet) to disingenuously suggest that the science is political and their obvious political is science is, well, audacity at its most cynical.

"Al Gore's theories..."

One common ploy - called misdirection by public relations firms and professional magicians alike - is to suggest that Al Gore "invented" global warming, and thus it is a political rather than scientific consensus. Al Gore is a former politician and now businessman who also just happens to have a three decade interest in science issues. His "Inconvenient Truth" presentation is designed to communicate the long-time research of climate scientists. He didn't invent global warming, he is merely a messenger. The science itself has nothing to do with Al Gore, and the denialists know this. They merely use Gore in their sleight-of-hand attempts to misdirect attention away from the fact that there is a clear scientific consensus on global warming.

"Repetition"

Repetition ties all the previous deceit together into a continuous stream of "information" that by shear volume and tenacity is designed to create the illusion of authority. The same handful of "points" are repeated over and over again long after they have been discredited as false, illogical, or just plain silly. The same "experts" are trotted out even though it has been shown that their scientific credibility and integrity is equivocal (to be clear, some of these are legitimate scientists who legitimately disagree, but many are being used as shills by the denialist industry and others are mere charlatans selling snake oil for the industry money). The same "science is being ignored" line is repeated even after it has been shown that the science has already been incorporated into the consensus (even, in fact, after pointing to a specific set of pages in which this point is discussed). The repetition of falsehood is part of the ploy. And it is dishonest.

"Global warmists only demean the "skeptics" because they can't discredit the science"

This is a favorite tactic. As noted above, all real science is presented to the scientific community for peer-review and discussion. Most of the "science" of the skeptics has been shown time and time again to be spurious, incorrect, or irrelevant. Much of it is deliberately misleading, misrepresented, or outright fraudulent. Many scientists and others have spent considerable time evaluating the "cut-and-pasted from blog" science of denialists, and even after their contention is shown to be false and/or completely uninformed or illogical, they continue to repeat the same untruths.

As scientists, and as human beings, we must ask ourselves whether it is "unkind" to call a liar a liar. Should we ignore dishonesty by the denialists because to point out their dishonesty might hurt their feelings? But think about this. Would one not call a murderer a murderer because it would be "unkind" to the murderer? Is it not unkind to the victims to not stand up for their rights? Is it unkind to call Bernie Madoff a swindler, when he in fact is a swindler? What of the rights of his victims? Is it unkind to refute deception?

Should we not call a deceiver a deceiver?

The denialist industry has undertaken a campaign of deception that follows the same playbook as the "smoking isn't addictive and doesn't cause cancer" playbook of the past. Even some of the players are the same. So should a scientist, or a non-scientist who also lives on this planet, stand back and allow the denialists to deceive the public for their own ideological profit?

I think the answer is clear.

Will the Real Roger Pielke Please Stand Up?

A while back I wrote a piece from a book by Roger A. Pielke, Jr. called The Honest Broker. In my article I mentioned the four idealized roles of scientists in Pielke's view: The Pure Scientist, the Science Arbiter, the Issue Advocate, and the Honest Broker of Policy Alternatives. After I published the piece it was pointed out to me that Pielke is a "climate skeptic." Since I'm about to write a follow up piece on another concept Pielke raises in the Honest Broker, I thought it worth looking into Pielke further. And here the plot thickens.

To begin with, there are two Roger A. Pielke's, Jr. and Sr. Both are professors and both have expressed their concerns about climate science. And both have been offered by climate skeptics as "one of their own." Ironically, the Wiki article on Roger A. Pielke, Sr. says that he "has a somewhat nuanced position on climate change, which is sometimes taken for skepticism, a label that he explicitly renounces." In fact, Pielke, Sr. has said:

the evidence of a human fingerprint on the global and regional climate is incontrovertible as clearly illustrated in the National Research Council report and in our research papers (e.g. see http://climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-258.pdf).

Similarly, Pielke, Jr. is often used as an icon of the skeptics, yet he too is not so much of a critic as the skeptics would have you believe. Dylan Otto Krider, founder of Whoslying, "a nonprofit devoted to correcting statements that do not responsibly reflect objective reality," today writes in a "Skepticism Examiner" blog called "Who is Roger Pielke, Jr." about his knowledge of the man and what he really thinks about climate change. It's an interesting article and I highly recommend that people read it.

The point is that all of us must be very careful not to simply take at face value what we hear on the news or read in blogs. It is always wise to get information from multiple sources and, whenever possible, go to the original source of the information. Believe it or not, people have been known to "reinterpret" information, either intentionally or through intellectual indolence.

Politicians as "Scientists" - Is This a Good or a Bad Thing?

This past week, former U.S. Vice President Al Gore urged scientists to exert their influence on global climate change. In short, he said that scientists must play a more active role in how their science is used to make policy. "For those of you who haven't communicated, there is no time to sit back," Gore says.

Which, of course, begs the question of how this can be accomplished? Should scientists become "Issue Advocates" as described in Roger A. Pielke Jr.'s book "The Honest Broker," or should they be the "Science Arbiter?"

But it also begs the question, what role should politicians play in advocating science? Gore himself has been a highly visible icon communicating the science of global warming to the public and to the legislators with whom he once worked. In one sense, he has been far better at communicating the issue than have the scientists themselves. But in another sense, he has become a foil for those who say that global warming is merely a liberal political movement and scientists are only claiming there is a crisis to get funding. And we all remember the Terry Schiavo case when then Republican Senate majority leader Bill Frist took the Senate floor and challenged the diagnosis of Schiavo's physicians that she was in a persistent vegetative state: "I question it based on a review of the video footage which I spent an hour or so looking at last night in my office." While Frist was a medical doctor prior to entering politics, many medical scientists took offense to him making a diagnosis based solely on an edited video tape.

Both Gore and Frist's advocacy have provided fodder for discussion about the relative roles of politicians in science and scientists in politics. Are they communicating from knowledge, or are they using the science to further their political ideologies? Many arguments have been offered for both sides of the discussion.

In his speech last week to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Gore encouraged the "world of science" and "the world of politics" to work together to respond to the climate crisis. He called for the scientist to deliver the sense of emergency to their colleagues, networks, and policy makers. In essence, he called on scientists to be issue advocates.

When Scientists Go Bad - The Ramifications of Ethical Lapses

A doctor in the UK "changed and misreported results" in his research, "creating the appearance of a possible link" between the MMR vaccine and autism, according to an investigation by The Sunday Times . In 1998 the results are published in a well-respected medical journal, The Lancet. After publication the rates of MMR (Mumps Measles, Rubella) inoculation fall from 92% to below 80%. And last week official figures show that 1,348 confirmed cases of measles in England and Wales were reported last year, compared to only 56 in 1998. Two children have died from the disease.

Scientific integrity is occasionally called into question, and cases like this, while rare, can make the public reconsider the trust they put in us. In this particular case, the data published in the Lancet did not reflect the actual data collected during the research. According to the Times investigation, there were clear cases of data being manipulated to create false conclusions. Worse, there appears to be significant conflicts of interest and litigation bias that influenced the findings. None of these conflicts were reported by the doctor. And the fraudulent data led to a mass scare and distrust of the MMR vaccine, leading to the very epidemic that many years of the vaccine's use had held off. Fear of the cure caused the disease to rise for not only the individuals refusing the vaccine but the population as a whole since the diseases are so contagious.

Cases like this demonstrate why scientific fraud is rare. True, the peer-review process of journal publication missed this one, largely because the data presented were not the data collected. Without external review of the original files, it is hard to determine that someone has "fixed" the numbers. But another tenet of science, repeatability, helped flush out the deceit. Other scientists attempting to replicate the findings were not able to reach similar results. Samples that were reported to show signs of disease were reanalyzed at other laboratories and found to show no signs of those diseases at all. Digging into the raw data, which by law is kept confidential, especially when it involves children as did this study, was made possible by permission given by the parents for outside review.

In the end, the ramifications of deceit can be catastrophic. Which is why scientists work so hard to keep high ethical standards. But while that is true as a group, sometimes individual scientists lose their way.

Click here and here for a full account of the Sunday Times investigation. For a timeline of key dates in the crisis, click here.

Funding Science - From Whence the Money Comes?

Science is expensive. And basic science in particular has no immediate connection to making a profit. So where do scientists get the money needed to pay for laboratory equipment, research vessels, online surveys, attendance at scientific meetings, page costs, and even the occasional ramen noodle brick cooked over a bunsen burner in those late night sessions staring at a gas chromatograph? Does the source of the funds matter? All very interesting questions for scientists and funding agencies alike.

There are a variety of possible sources of science funding, depending on whether the money is for basic research (e.g., pure science) or applied research (e.g., finding a cure for pancreatic cancer).

• Government: Government used to be the biggest source of funding for science. But whereas 40 years ago the federal government financed more than 60% of all Research & Development in the United States, that trend has been reversed where now about 65% of R&D is being funded by private interests. The main source of government funds is the National Science Foundation, which provides almost a quarter of the funding to academics for basic research. When it comes to applied medical research, the National Institutes for Health takes over that role.


• Industry: Industry provides much of the funding for applied scientific research, where the research is targeted at find practical (and profitable) uses of the basic scientific knowledge that has been gained.


• Military/NASA: Quite a bit of applied scientific funding has come out of military applications and space exploration. Technically this is government, but its specialized nature warrants its own category.


• Foundations: Private foundations are a good source of funds for both basic and applied science. Two examples are the Camille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation ("advance the science of chemistry, chemical engineering and related sciences as a means of improving human relations and circumstances") and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation ("combat disease, hunger and poverty in developing countries").


• Professional Organizations: Some scientific organizations provide funding to its members. These include the Sigma Xi Scientific Research Society's Grants-in-Aid of Research (GIAR) program, the Society for Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology, and others.


• Advocacy Groups: To some extent, environmental and health advocacy groups may provide funds for analysis of scientific research, though largely they obtain their own funding from the sources above.


• Self-Funding: The age of the "gentleman scientist" and the "science benefactors" are sadly long gone, but those scientists who have become financially independent are free to study science without hindrance.

Whether the source of funding influences the science is the subject for a future post.

Scientist Group Demands Formal Scientific Integrity Policy

Historically scientists have been looked on by the public as "those guys in white lab coats" or the elitist ones in their ivory towers. Many scientists like to keep their distance from public policy, preferring to do their science and assessments while letting politicians set policy. Others feel that scientists haven't played enough of a role in determining how their science is used. The climate change debate has found scientist and non-scientist using science to prove or disprove global warming.

Well, the activist group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) in the United States is urging EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to adopt formal policies on her stated commitments to scientific integrity, openness and the rule of law, after expressing concerns over the former New Jersey environment secretary's record in that state. They also are reacting to accusations of a lack of scientific integrity of the previous administration. The group sent Jackson a letter on January 26th asking her to “immediately translate these sentiments into concrete, enforceable agency policies. As President Obama has done in issuing a series of directives on openness and ethics, PEER strongly advocates that you declare specific policies that outlaw gag orders, forbid political rewrites of scientific findings and hold managers accountable for actions found to be illegal.”

In a January 23rd memo to EPA staff, Jackson expressed support for the so-called “fishbowl” policy initiated in 1983 by then-EPA Administrator Bill Ruckelshaus. The transparency policy, reaffirmed by every president but the Bush administration, says that the agency should operate “in a fishbowl.” The Bush EPA drew fire for failing to formally adopt the fishbowl memo and PEER says Jackson's stated support is insufficient. “This needs to be more explicit and enforceable, rather than 'Trust me.'" Adopting a formal policy on scientific integrity and openness would mean EPA employees who violate it “are subject to discipline and people who get in trouble for following the policy could use it as a defense.” Specifically, PEER wants Jackson to adopt policies forbidding alteration of scientific documents for non-technical reasons without public disclosure; banning adverse personnel actions or other discrimination in retaliation for voicing a reasonable scientific disagreement; revoking all existing gag orders; and to stating that agency officials responsible for decisions found to violate federal law will face discipline or removal from their jobs.