Science Debates Needed for Presidential Candidates

Science is critical to every facet of our lives, and scientific innovation has been a part of American government since George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson. Despite being hamstrung by the Republican Congress, President Obama has been a big supporter of science research to the point of hosting annual White House Science Fairs. But what do the current candidates to take over the job of President say about science?

Science Debate is needed.

We do have a basic idea of where the candidates stand. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton explicitly said, and I quote, "I believe in science," in her acceptance speech at the convention. She went on to say she believes "climate change is real and that we can save our planet while creating millions of good-paying clean energy jobs."


Republican nominee Donald Trump, in contrast, called climate change a "hoax," and claimed it "was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

Jill Stein, ironically the "Green Party" nominee and a former medical doctor, nonetheless has espoused anti-science positions on vaccinations, homeopathy, and GMOs. Critics have accused her of pandering to the anti-science left wing as much as Trump has pandered to the anti-science right wing.

Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson scores relatively well on basic science literacy in one survey but comes out as anti-vaccination and anti-GMO on another survey. That said, the basic rule of libertarians is to spend as little money and engage in as little government activity as possible, which suggests he would be in favor of cutting science budgets in the executive branch.

Even with these basic overviews, however, we don't know how much priority the candidates would put on science once elected. Issues such as climate change are critical to continue the progress made by President Obama. Other issues such as fracking require more complex assessments and decision making, so here again the ability of the new president to deal with science-based issues is critical. On top of this, of course, are the funding requirements of science agencies like NASA, NOAA, EPA, FDA, NSF, and others. These agencies conduct basic research as well as fund external researchers in addition to their more overt roles.

ScienceDebate.Org is a non-profit organization organized by Shawn Otto, author of the book The War on Science as well as a previous book called Fool Me Twice. Dozens of science organizations have combined efforts to produce 20 Questions related to science to ask the presidential candidate. Questions related to their views on basic science, the anticipated level of priority for their administration, levels of funding, views on education, innovation, public health, water, energy, food, vaccination, and many more. Even immigration has a science component, and one question asks "Would you support any changes in immigration policy regarding scientists and engineers who receive their graduate degree at an American university? Conversely, what is your opinion of recent controversy over employment and the H1-B Visa program?"

Ideally there would be a separate Science Debate in which these questions can be asked directly of the candidates. Barring that, the public should encourage standard debate moderators for the three presidential and one vice presidential debates to ask these questions. Even written responses to the questions would provide the public with input on where the candidates stand on science-based issues. And the public does want that input.

So all of us should be reaching out to the candidates, to debate moderators, and to others in our communities to have these all-important questions addressed by the candidates.

For more info on Science Debate, go to their website.

Senate Introduces Bill to Merge and/or Abolish EPA and Department of Energy

Republican Senator Richard Burr (North Carolina) introduced a bill last week that would "consolidate the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency into a single, new agency called the Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE)."  Senator Burr and fifteen other Republican co-sponsors argue that "the bill would provide cost savings by combining duplicative functions while improving the administration of energy and environmental policies by ensuring a coordinated approach."

Others suggest that this is merely an attempt to further gut the EPA.  Republicans in the House and Senate alike have been trying since gaining the majority in the House last fall to block any efforts of the EPA to engage in the regulation in which current laws mandate they engage.  Most notably has been the attempt to halt EPA efforts to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. 

One vocal critic of the bill is Joseph Romm, who writes the blog Climate Progress. Romm was "Acting Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, in charge of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy during 1997 and as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary from August 1995 through June 1998, and Special Assistant for Policy and Planning from 1993 to July 1995."  So while Senator Burr suggests he seeks to reduce duplicative functions, Romm states:

So I can state with a great deal of confidence that DOE and EPA are utterly different agencies that have no meaningful duplicative functions.  [emphasis in original]

The list of the bill's co-sponsors is a tip-off to the real purpose of the bill.  All have been what Romm calls "global warming deniers" vying for the very conservative voting blocks in their home states.

The fate of the bill is uncertain.  Should the bill gain traction in the Senate, which is barely majority Democratic, it would likely be passed as is in the Republican-controlled House, thus leaving it up to President Obama to sign or veto.  Given the general trend toward fiscal austerity, it is highly likely that such a merger would result in severe underfunding, and ineffectiveness, for both agencies.  Which is apparently the goal given multiple past attempts to restrict each from taking any action on some of the most important long-term issues now facing the US and the world.  It's groundhog day all over again.

US and China Announce Clean Energy Cooperation to Combat Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Today in Beijing, US President Barack Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao announced a package of measures "to strengthen cooperation between the United States and China on clean energy."

According to President Obama,

I want to reaffirm the fact that the American people are interested in stronger relations with the people of China, and that the more that we can encourage people-to-people exchanges that are consistent with the discussions that we're having at the government level, the more that China and the United States will be able to work cooperatively on a whole range of issues -- both economic issues, security issues, and global issues that are in the interest not just of our two nations but the entire world.

The two Presidents announced a series of major areas of cooperation:

The U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center will facilitate joint research and development of clean energy technologies by teams of scientists and engineers from the United States and China, as well as serve as a clearinghouse to help researchers in each country.

The U.S.-China Electric Vehicles Initiative will include joint standards development, demonstration projects in more than a dozen cities, technical roadmapping and public education projects, all aimed at eventual deployment of electric vehicles to reduce oil dependence.

The U.S. China Energy Efficiency Action Plan will allow the two countries to work together to improve the energy efficiency of buildings, industrial facilities, and consumer appliances, culminating with an annual U.S.-China Energy Efficiency Forum, rotating between the two countries.

The U.S. China Renewable Energy Partnership will facilitate development of roadmaps for wide-spread renewable energy deployment. A new Advanced Grid Working Group made up of American and Chinese developers and strategists will help plan for grid modernization in both countries, and a new U.S.-China Renewable Energy Forum will be held annually, rotating between the two countries.

A 21st Century Coal Initiative, for which the two Presidents pledged to promote cooperation on cleaner uses of coal, will include large-scale carbon capture and storage (CCS) demonstration projects.

A Shale Gas Initiative, will allow the U.S. and China to use experience gained in the United States to assess China’s shale gas potential, promote environmentally-sustainable development of shale gas resources, conduct joint technical studies to accelerate development of shale gas resources in China, and promote shale gas investment in China through the U.S.-China Oil and Gas Industry Forum, study tours, and workshops.

The U.S. China Energy Cooperation Program will leverage private sector resources for project development work in China across a broad array of clean energy projects, to the benefit of both nations.

More available on the White House blog.

Senate Climate Change Bill Expected September 30th

It appears that Senators John Kerry and Barbara Boxer Sources will finally introduce climate change legislation on Wednesday, September 30th. Boxer is planning hearings in her Environment & Public Works Committee during the week of Oct. 5 with a markup the following week.

According to a New York Times article, the two Senators "hope will be the vehicle for broader Senate negotiations and an eventual conference with the House," acknowledging that this is "just a 'starting point' in a bid to win over moderate and conservative Democrats, as well as Republicans."

This is the beginning of what will eventually be a climate change bill coming from the Senate, which then will go to conference with the bill passed earlier this year by the House and on to President Obama for signature. The timing of the final law being in place remains pretty uncertain at this point, but while possible, it's likely it won't be ready before the global climate change meeting in Copenhagen in December. But progress is being made.

Book Review – Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum

I’ll start by highly recommending this book. Especially to scientists or those interested in science. As suggested by the title – Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future - the book acknowledges the limits of the public’s understanding of science and how science works. But I felt the book was most powerful because it focuses on the role of scientists in disseminating scientific information. More on that later.

The first two chapters give a very nice background on the role science has played, from its high funding and close relationships with policy-makers soon after World War II, to its period of low funding and disconnect from policy-makers, to the more recent “war on science” (the topic of Mooney’s previous book).

Much of the main part of the book looks at the intersection of science and other institutions. Individual chapters look at science as it relates to politics, to religion, to its portrayal in Hollywood, and to journalism, all within the subcontext of C.P. Snow’s “two cultures” theme. In short, different ways of thinking, and different needs, affect the interaction of the two institutions in the dyad. For example, whereas the needs of the media are episodic, science is more incremental. So every incremental finding coming from scientific studies can be picked up by the media and presented as if it is a revelation. Except it might suggest the opposite of yesterday’s revelation. No matter that the two studies merely looked at different parts of the picture and support the full knowledge base, the media assume each piece stands on its own. This can be, and usually is, highly confusing to the public. Similar conflicts in the messaging occur between science and religion, scientist depiction in film (usually as a stereotypical caricature), and politics.

One chapter discusses the role of blogs. As newspapers and broadcast media have been eliminating science coverage, at least 1000 science blogs have sprung up. While blogs can help disseminate information broadly, the authors say “[t]he problem with the internet is obvious to anyone who has ever used it; There’s tons of information available, but much of it is crap.” Misinformation thrives, and those who want to manipulate the debate can publish whatever they want, and unfortunately, usually do. Much of it is biased, inaccurate, or outright fabrication. Which is why blogs may be useful for rapidly getting the word out, they cannot be relied upon for an accurate assessment of the science itself.

The authors refer repeatedly in the book to Carl Sagan, an astronomer who was also a stellar communicator, but whose popularity was often seen by other scientists as an indignity (i.e., to traditional scientists who preferred to do their science and leave the communication to others). But in the end the authors of Unscientific America, one a journalist and the other a scientist (who together write a blog called The Intersection), assert that disseminating the science to the lay public, to the media, and to policy-makers is an “integral part of the job description of scientists themselves.” Essentially, they say that it should be part of every scientist’s responsibility to communicate the science accurately, and to make sure that the science is not misrepresented by those who would misuse it.

The book is eminently readable (I read it in it’s entirety on a cross-Atlantic flight) and surprisingly insightful. I highly recommend the book; it is definitely worth the read.

Other book reviews

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.

Revisiting the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976

I have noted previously that there is a big push in this Congress to take a long hard look at the current chemical control regulations in the United States. Well, on Thursday, February 26, 2009 the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection held a hearing on "Revisiting the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.” The hearing was designed to address the perception of critical gaps in the statute and explore how those gaps might hinder effective chemical safety policy in the United States.

The following witnesses, spanning a range of government, advocacy, and industry groups, all testified:

John Stephenson, Director, Natural Resources and the Environment, Government Accountability Office

J. Clarence Davies, Senior Fellow, Resources for the Future (Former EPA Assistant Administrator for Policy in the George H.W. Bush Administration)

Maureen Swanson, Healthy Children Project Coordinator, Learning Disabilities Association of America

Cecil Corbin-Mark, Deputy Director/Director for Policy Initiatives, WE ACT For Environmental Justice (West Harlem Environmental Action)

Michael Wright, Director of Health and Safety, United Steelworkers

Richard Denison, Senior Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund

Kathy Gerwig, Vice President, Workplace Safety and Environmental Stewardship Officer, Kaiser Permanente

Cal Dooley, President and CEO, American Chemistry Council

V.M. DeLisi, President, Fanwood Chemical, Inc., Chairman, International Affairs Committee, Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association

Charles T. Drevna, President, National Petrochemical & Refiners Association

A link to the written testimony and video of the Subcommittee can be found on the Committee web site.

Jasanoff's "Essential Parallel Between Science and Democracy"

I came across a very interesting article in Seed Magazine call "The Essential Parallel Between Science and Democracy" by Sheila Jasanoff. Jasanoff is Professor of Science and Technology Studies at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, and a very well respected researcher on the role of science and technology in the law, politics, and public policy of modern democracies.

Making note of US President Obama's nod to science, Jasanoff queries: "So the question for thoughtful Americans, interested in the future of science and technology and reflecting on President Barack Obama's historic inaugural address, is not, What is science's rightful place?, but rather, What do the president and his administration see as science's rightful place? And, as critical consumers of both science and democracy, is it a vision that we, the people, can comfortably embrace?"

Jasanoff notes that Obama routinely indicates in his speeches that "science and technology will feature in his administration as both instruments and objects of public policy." And many prominent scientists and engineers have been named to key posts, including Nobel Laureate Steven Chu as Secretary of Energy. But she also observes that we must also understand the link between science and democracy. "The very virtues that make democracy work are also those that make science work: a commitment to reason and transparency, an openness to critical scrutiny, a skepticism toward claims that too neatly support reigning values, a willingness to listen to countervailing opinions, a readiness to admit uncertainty and ignorance, and a respect for evidence gathered according to the sanctioned best practices of the moment," says Jasanoff.

This short blog can't do the article justice and I highly recommend people read the entire article here.

And while you're there, check out Seed's The Right Place Project to see how you can contribute to linking science and democracy.

On Leadership - Leading Scientists Speak Out

The Washington Post has a series called "On Leadership." Recently they included a video of three top scientists who have been named by US News & World Report as three of America's Best Leaders.

The video is here:

These three, Anthony Fauci, David Baltimore and Maria Zuber, give some incredible insight into both the thinking of scientists and how scientists intersect with policy development and politics. Have a look at their insights.

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.

Stimulating Science - Science Funding in the $787 Billion Economic Stimulus Bill

Science actually came out with a significant increase in new funding as part of the $787 billion economic stimulus bill passed by Congress this week and expected to be signed by President Obama early next week. Key provisions related to science include:

National Institutes of Health (NIH): NIH will get an additional $10 billion spread over two years, ironically, in large part due to lobbying by Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who as one of only three Republican Senators to vote for the bill had a bit of influence. Specter is a cancer survivor.

Department of Energy Office of Science: The Energy Department will get $1.6 billion for its office of science, which funds research in areas such as biofuels, nuclear physics, fusion energy, high-energy physics, and also climate change, which is expected to become a priority issue for the new administration as well as Secretary Chu.

National Science Foundation (NSF): NSF is the largest government funder of basic research in science and engineering, and will get an additonal $3 billion to provide in grants. ResearchAmerica, an advocacy group, has said the money could create up to 70,000 jobs, many in laboratories at college campuses.

NASA: The space agency received just over $2 billion, with $400 million to be used for its Earth science climate research missions, as well as to increase its supercomputing abilities.

High-speed and inner-city rail: The final version of the bill included $8 billion for improvements in railway capacity and existing infrastructure, key facets of a sustainable future. Another $6.9 billion is alloacated to improve and maintain public transit. On top of that, Amtrak received $1.3 billion for its operations, though there is a stipulation that no more than 60 percent can go to the Northeast Corridor (essentially Washington DC to Boston).

Russia, The Arctic, and the New Oil Rush - Global Warming Opens Up New Cold War

It seems thar's oil in that there ice. And also gas. And Russia wants it.

News reports indicate that Russia is working hard to stake a claim in the Arctic seabed. One of its most famous polar scientists, Artur Chilingarov, noted in a recent news conference "the Arctic has a special geopolitical importance for Russia." It also, apparently, may contain as much as 25 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and gas. So Russia is planning to build a new Arctic research ship to add to its existing icebreaker fleet and allow it to better exploit these energy resources. Already, in 2007, they conducted an expedition in which Russian mini-submarines "planted the Russian flag" (actually, a capsule containing the Russian flag) on the Arctic seabed. In time, according to Chilingarov, the goal for the Arctic is "expanding the Russian presence there, intensifying research and rebuilding a network of polar stations."

But the real controversy is Russia's plan to send about 50 polar scientists to Spitsbergen, an island to which Norway claims exclusive rights. It seems Russia, the United States, Canada and other northern countries are all in a race to assert jurisdiction over the Arctic, whose oil, gas and minerals until recently have been considered too difficult to recover. However, there is growing evidence that global warming is shrinking polar ice, opening up new shipping lanes and thus new resource development possibilities.

In 2001, Russia submitted a claim to the United Nations that an underwater mountain range crossing the polar region is part of Russia's continental shelf. The UN rejected that claim for lack of evidence. But Russia seems intent on establishing both a scientific and military presence in the Arctic as the major powers all seek to lay claim to its newly lucrative energy reserves.

"We aren't going to wage a new Cold War in the Arctic," Chilingarov said, though he also added that "Russia will look to protect its interests."

Darwin and Lincoln - Science and Politics

Today marks the 200th birthdays of two incredibly influential men in history. Charles Darwin, the man who used science to give a more rational answer to the origin of life than `divine creation', the celebration has taken on a new meaning. The concept of evolution has become ingrained in our understanding of the world. And yet, to this day there are many who seek to interject the idea of creationism, or the versions into which it has evolved, "creation science" or "intelligent design" into science class (and yes, the pun is intended).

Interestingly, the idea of "evolution" has crept into virtually every aspect of modern life. There are the obvious connections, like genetics, in which we essentially speed up evolution (or perhaps create our own version of evolution) through genetic engineering in pharmaceuticals, crops, and other applications. But evolution is understood as we talk about first and second (and third) generation innovations, where first generations are often unwieldy and later generations are more user friendly. Think iPhones, iPods, computers, and everything from communication to transportation. Essentially, Darwin changed forever the way scientists, ecologists, sociologists and political thinkers view the world.

Abraham Lincoln, who also would have turned 200 today, was another thinker who made his mark on the US and the world. As the first of his new political party to become President, Lincoln presided over both the splitting, and the reunification, of the United States. The additional powers that he brought to the federal level set the stage for many of the national regulations that we have today. By keeping the United States united, he positioned us to grow into a leader of the free world, and perhaps the entire world. Of course, what we do with that power and leadership is another matter.

Lincoln's influence stretches forward through many President's hence, and takes on special significance in the current administration. Besides being elected from Lincoln's adopted home state, President Obama clearly was influenced by Lincoln's history and Lincoln's struggles. Obama admitted to reading Doris Kearns Goodwin's book, Team of Rivals, about Lincoln's ability to pull together his archest rivals for the presidency, all to lead the country through its most troubling period. Even the Lincoln bible was used in the swearing in ceremony for the new president.

Born on the same day in very different parts of the world, Darwin and Lincoln never met, and perhaps never even knew about each other. Darwin spent five years traveling the world on The Beagle and eventually defined how we think about life. Lincoln spent four years staying pretty much in Washington DC and eventually came to define how we think of leadership.

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.

Scientists and Policy Making - The Honest Broker?

Scientists have a love/hate relationship with policy makers. We want to "do our science" but not necessarily get all into the whole political rangling thing. On the other hand, it displeases us (I'm being nice) to have our science abused by politicians or advocacy groups, who twist it to fit their predisposed ideological view. But it displeases us even moreso (still being nice) to have fellow scientists who forget their ethics. Luckily, they are the rare exception.

But as Roger A. Pielke, Jr. demonstrates in his book "The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics," sometimes the lines get blurred. Over the next few weeks I'll periodically come back to different parts of Pielke's book. To begin with, he defines four idealized roles of science in policy and politics (the roles are Pielke's; any misinterpretation of them are my own):

The Pure Scientist: Provides data and lets the policy maker (or decider?) make their own decisions. The pure scientist really doesn't have an interest in the decision-making process. ["Let me do my science. Get out of my lab now, please."]

The Science Arbiter: Serves as a resource to the decision-maker, and stands ready to answer factual questions that the decision-maker feels is relevant. The science arbiter does not tell the decision-maker what he or she ought to prefer. [Yes, the acid put in that paper cup will eat right through it. Next question.]

The Issue Advocate: The issue advocate seeks to limit choices, and will likely tell the decision-maker what choice he or she ought to prefer, based on the science. [Sir, you really ought to advocate for the cap-and-trade system.]

The Honest Broker of Policy Alternatives: The Honest Broker, as you might imagine, tries to broaden the choices. He or she will provide a range of options to the decision-maker, generally including advantages and disadvantages. Then it is up to the decision-maker to, well, decide. [Okay, everything is on the table. Any questions? Okay, debate.]

The problem comes from what Pielke calls "stealth issue advocacy." More on that at a later date.

Lautenberg Vows Chemical Control Reform Despite Efforts to Block It

Reform of Chemical Control laws has been a hot topic worldwide for the last few years. Europe passed a new law called REACH that requires registration, evaluation, and authorization of all chemicals - both new ones and all the ones already existing on the European inventory. Canada is in the middle of a prioritization review of all the chemicals on its inventory of existing substances. And the US has been using the existing Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and voluntary programs to evaluate at least the highest volume chemicals produced in the US.

In addition, last year Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Represenatives Hilda Solis (D-CA)and Henry Waxman (D-CA) introduced the Kid Safe Chemical Act (KSCA), which quickly died in committee. But even with a Democratic President and Congress, there has been some question of whether the KSCA or some other form of TSCA chemical control law reform will get any priority in this Congress either. The economic crisis and other urgent issues will take up all their time, many say.

Senator Lautenberg, however, wants to assure stakeholders that he still expects to introduce legislation in the coming weeks. “The senator intends to push for and hold hearings on the need for TSCA reform, as well as reintroduce the Kid Safe Chemicals Act (KSCA). He also intends to move KSCA through [the Senate environment committee] and the Congress this session,” Lautenberg’s office said in a Jan. 30 statement. While other issues may take center stage in the press, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) late last month added EPA’s chemical assessment program to its list of government programs at high risk of waste, fraud and abuse. The GAO’s listing prompted calls from environmentalists for Congress to pass TSCA reform legislation. But efforts by Lautenberg and environmentalists to quickly move the bill may not be enough, as the chemical industry is lobbying key congressional Democrats not to introduce the bill. The complaints are two-fold: first, that there is also the likelihood of climate change legislation being introduced, which would give industry too much to handle at once; and second, that the KSCA as currently written would not be an effective mechanism by which to reform TSCA. Many argue that TSCA is fine as is, but that EPA just has not used their current authority effectively.

So questions remain about whether chemical control in the US will be reformed or not this session of Congress. Some congressional staffers suggest that the bill is “a non-starter” and that it is “not doable.” They say that industry has made its point and that the proponents of the Lautenberg bill “clearly understand that it’s not a viable option.” So we may get some hearings and statements being made this year, but no substantive movement on the congressional agenda until 2010. Or maybe we will all be surprised.

Economic Stimulus Includes Whistleblowing Protections for Scientists

All eyes in the United States have been on the $813 billion economic stimulus package passed last week by the US House of Representatives. One line item that many may have missed is an amendment that provides for strong protection from retaliation for scientists who "blow the whistle when they report distortions, changes or delays in their research."

The amendment essentially attaches a whistleblower protection bill that was passed by both the House and Senate in 2007, but stalled after the Bush administration issued a veto threat. The amendment would add to the definition of abuse of authority "any action that compromises the validity or accuracy of federally funded research or analysis; the dissemination of false or misleading scientific, medical or technical information; any section that restricts or prevents an employee or any person performing federally-funded research or analysis from publishing in peer-reviewed journals or other scientific publications or making oral presentations at professional society meetings or other meetings of their peers..."

Clearly this is an attempt to protect scientists from what had been perceived as a science-unfriendly environment in the past administration. While so far there is no comment, it seems likely that the current administration would support the measure, given that President Obama and EPA Administrator Jackson have both stressed the important role of science and scientists as we move forward.

However, this was only an amendment in the House version of the stimulus bill. The Senate has yet to vote on a stimulus bill and it may or may not include the whistleblowing provisions. Furthermore, once the Senate passes a bill the two versions will have to go to conference to negotiate a final bill that would then be sent on to the President for signature or veto.

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.

Major Initiatives to Get EPA Grants

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a certain amount of money in its budget dedicated to providing grants and fellowships for research. With the new Administration taking over, the National Center for Environmental Research (NCER), within the Office of Research and Development at EPA, says that it intends to focus its research funding on issues relating to global climate change, as well as sustainability and the economics of ecosystems. The office is also seeking advice from an agency advisory group on emerging research so it can continue to set its priorities.

That advisory group - the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) - will meet February 2-3 in Washington, DC to discuss what it sees as priorities for funding. The BOSC is also expected to provide advice on how to restructure the office's academic fellowship programs to offer more opportunities to undergraduates.

Besides climate change and sustainability, the NCER expects computational toxicology to be an "exciting area" of research. EPA is about to end the application period for $6.4 million in grants for computational models that address risks to the growing fetus.

US Energy Policy Has World Impacts

Today President Obama signed two important energy-related Executive Orders (EOs) as he declared a national goal of ending dependence on foreign oil and promised new U.S. leadership in the fight against global warming. With new Secretary of Transportation LaHood and new EPA Administrator Jackson looking on, he ordered a series of steps aimed at making American cars more fuel efficient and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

These and forthcoming EOs and other Administration actions will no doubt have an impact on the way energy is used in the US. Obama has promised that "It will be the policy of my administration to reverse our dependence on foreign oil while building a new energy economy that will create millions of jobs."

But his actions will have impacts in many other parts of the world. For example, the oil industry in Alberta, Canada is wondering whether the shift in focus will mean less oil imports from Canada to the US. Currently, Canada is the single largest foreign supplier of energy to the U.S.--providing 17% of U.S. oil imports and 18% of U.S. natural gas demand. The change in US policy is making some companies think that they should emphasize that they are "energy" companies and not just oil/gas companies.

The US change in focus will also impact the balance of power in the world, an issue that hasn't been fully examined in the public media yet. The intention, of course, is to reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle East, Venezuela, and other political hot spots around the world. All one has to do to see the impact of this is to look at the increased political power gained by Iran, Russia and others when oil prices soared, then the rapid decrease when prices dropped again. True, other factors including the Iraq war and the global economic crisis also affect this trend, but there is no question that reduced demand from the US will change the political dynamics of many regions. But countering that is the rise in energy demand from China and India, who will likely soak up any reduction in US demand. That is why the US energy policy must take into consideration international interconnections, and why the US must become a global leader in ushering in a new era of sustainable energy policy worldwide.