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

Independent Climate Skeptics - Well, Maybe not so Independent After All (With Graphics)

Climate skeptics like to claim that there are many independent scientists who refute the consensus of climate change. They love to cite folks like S. Fred Singer, Robert Carter, Roy Spencer (ahem, Dr. Roy Spencer), Pat Michaels, and Willie Soon. Each of these people is asserted to be some independent minded scientist bucking the trend.

Except it isn't true.

There really are only a handful of climate skeptic scientists. Some, Lord Monckton for example, have no real science background at all (the closest Monckton gets to science training is he is a certified Day Skipper for his yacht). Others have a scientific background, though only a few have any actual expertise in climate science. Others, S. Fred Singer for example, are merely figureheads who act as spokesmen for the industry. In any case, qualified climate scientist dissenters must put their data into peer review for incorporation into the analysis, just like every other scientist. Their data must be persuasive. To date it has not. Which may be why they post more on blogs than in the peer-reviewed literature.

Ah, but the climate skeptics (denialists or realists depending on if you are a real scientist or not) point to the vast array of organizations that prove that climate change is not real and/or a natural phenomenon that has nothing to do with anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The skeptics aver that these are scientific organizations, usually in a desperate effort to counter Steve B, who has demonstrated unequivocally that no scientific organization has refuted the IPCC consensus statement on climate change.

Except that the skeptics organizations are not scientific organizations at all.

On the right side of the chart below are the organizations most often touted by the climate skeptics (click the chart to enlarge). Some are essentially just blogs, some are actual organizations, but none are scientific organizations. All are advocacy groups. The numbers in the boxes indicate the number of the 11 scientists who are associated with them (e.g., Icecap has 8 of the 11 scientists associated with it).



The boxes on the left side of the graphic represent some of the most often cited skeptic scientists. The numbers indicate how many of the 8 organizations to which each scientist is associated (e.g., Sally Baliunas is associated with 5 of the organizations).

The color-coded lines tie together each of these "independent" scientists to the organizations to which they are most often associated.

As can be clearly seen, there is quite a traffic jam of lines in the middle, which is why I used color-coding (otherwise it becomes impossible to tell one scientist and organization from another).

Which, of course, is the point. These organizations all hire the same handful of scientists that either agree with them or are willing to shill for them. The fact that the scientists are associated with so many organizations suggests that independence is really not particularly important.

But let's take a closer look at the organizations.

Several of the organizations - George C. Marshall Institute, Heartland Institute, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, Greening Earth Society - are free market lobbying organizations that have no expertise or mission regarding climate science. Except of course that these organizations promote free market and free enterprise business principles (which roughly translates to externalizing much of the societal costs to the taxpayers). Thus, since their own mission statements promote free markets, they obviously are only interested in trying to keep Congress and others from taking action that they feel will hurt their organizational goals. That in itself is part of their mission, but they try to sell it as if it were science. It isn't.

The other organizations sound more scientific, but then that is part of the playbook first used successfully by the tobacco industry to obfuscate the health effects of smoking. Folks like S. Fred Singer are no stranger to the playbook as they also were "experts" on tobacco before becoming experts on climate change. The bottom line is that these organizations are front groups for the other free market organizations and the industries most likely to be effected by any policy remedies designed to deal with climate change.

One last point. You'll see in the chart that 8 of the 11 skeptic scientists are associated with the Heartland Institute (whose mission is promoting free market strategies). A significant number of the skeptic scientists are also associated with other free market groups. This begs the obvious question:

Why would supposedly reputable, independent scientists be associated with free market lobbying organizations? What benefit would the Heartland Institute be to a scientist who is studying climate change? I mean, scientists belong to scientific organizations. Organizations where they can present their research, listen to others presenting their research, and engage in scientific debate about that research. After all, that is how science is done. Scientists publish their research in peer-reviewed literature and discuss their research in scientific conferences and other venues designed for the exchange of data and ideas. Heartland Institute meetings are all about economics and free market principles (and lobbying Congressmen).

So what reason is there that "independent scientists" would be associated with free market organizations whose entire objective is to defeat any possible regulatory remedy that they feel will negatively impact free enterprise?

NGO Reaction to the Decision to Suspend ChAMP Chemical Program

As previously noted, the Obama EPA suddenly suspended its ChAMP program last week. ChAMP was the Agency's mechanism for evaluating the data received during the voluntary HPV Challenge, in which industry agreed to provide available health and safety data on about 2200 high production volume chemicals (i.e., those produced or imported in excess of 1 million pounds per year in the US).

Yesterday I gave some of the reaction from industry. Most felt that ChAMP was a good program and didn't understand its sudden suspension. Some feel it was so the Obama administration could institute more "command-and-control" regulation over chemicals, rather than the more voluntary (and EPA-onused) ChAMP.

The non-governmental organization (NGO) reaction, on the other hand, has been generally in favor of the move. The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), whose 1997 report "Toxic Ignorance" was the catalyst that led to the HPV Challenge in the first place, has been very critical of the ChAMP program. According to EDF's Richard Dennison,"[i]t probably goes without saying that EDF welcomes EPA's decision to suspend the development and posting of risk-based prioritizations under its Chemical Assessment and Management Program (ChAMP)." Dennison has been writing a series of blog posts in recent months in which he notes some of the failings of ChAMP, arguing "that ChAMP's "rush to risk" has taken EPA badly off-track." He claims, however, that "we have also identified many useful things that EPA's existing chemicals program can and should be doing with the data it obtained through the HPV Challenge (whether called ChAMP or not)," and that EDF looked "forward to working with EPA to craft a new approach, grounded in a return to developing scientifically defensible hazard, not risk, characterizations and transparently identifying and addressing data gaps and data quality problems."

Another environmental advocacy group that has been following ChAMP, and in particular has been very supportive of the proposed Kid Safe Chemical Act, is the Environmental Working Group (EWG). EWG recently launched an interactive online site "featuring news and commentary, as well as a forum for a thought-provoking exchange of ideas on reforming the nation’s federal toxic chemicals policies." According to EWG, the site "will feature analysis and opinion by scientists, lawmakers, industry officials, community activists, policy specialists, journalists and others interested in environmental health issues." A major focus of the site "will be the emerging debate over reform of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)."

Another group interested in the ChAMP and TSCA reform is the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Commenting on the EDF blog, Gina Solomon of NRDC notes that "[t]his is a very important step toward meaningful chemical reform. It was clear that EPA needed to sweep the house clean before bringing in the new furniture, and the elimination of ChAMP does exactly that. Now we can get on with the job of really reforming U.S. chemical policy." She also congratulated EDF for its series of blog stories, saying "I really think this blog brought down ChAMP!"

Many in the NGO community feel that the administration's decision to suspend ChAMP is a clear signal that "ChAMP is grossly, indefensibly ineffective." EDF's Dennison says the decision is "implicit acknowledgement" that the ChAMP prioritization process needed an overhaul. According to the ChAMP web site, as of March 2009, EPA had "developed and posted risk-based prioritizations for 220 HPV chemicals and has posted hazard-based prioritizations for 83 chemicals." The goal of the program was to develop "screening-level hazard, exposure, and risk characterizations for an estimated 6,750 chemicals produced or imported in quantities of 25,000 pounds or greater a year" by 2012.

Clearly the administration felt that the program could not accomplish those goals and that a better way was needed. According to EPA, they expect to offer a new direction some time this summer.

Industry Reaction to Obama Decision to Suspend ChAMP Chemical Program

As noted a few days ago, the Obama EPA has decided to suspend its voluntary Chemical Assessment & Management Program (ChAMP). The news came as a bit of a shock to most policy watchers, both on the industry and NGO side (and apparently also within the Agency).

Industry reaction has been mixed, some attacking the decision as "less about science and more about the new administration's desire for a command-and-control approach to chemicals management policy." For example, the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA) attacked the move in a statement issued June 18th by accusing the EPA of remaining “silent about its full intentions, contradicting President Obama's commitment to transparency and support for scientific integrity.” NPRA's President, Charles Drevna further noted that “[i]t is extremely disheartening that the administration would abandon its priority-setting chemicals management process before it is even given the opportunity to work.” Drevna further "urge[d] the administration to reconsider its abandonment of both the scientifically sound ChAMP initiative and the United States’ commitments to Canada and Mexico under the Security & Prosperity Partnership of North America."

Similarly, the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA) issued a statement in which indicated that the suspension of ChAMP “is creating confusion over how or whether to continue activities already begun by industry in this effort.” In the SOCMA statement, Bill Allmond, vice president of government relations, urged "EPA to not delay the forward progress it has been making under ChAMP. We applaud the agency for wishing to strengthen its chemicals management program, but we’re concerned that, in order to do so, they’re stopping it altogether. We hope that EPA’s evaluation of ChAMP will be brief and maintain the program’s original intent.”

Meanwhile, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) also issued a statement, though perhaps with a less strident tone. ACC says “[W]e are confident that any changes to ChAMP do not signal a reversal of the U.S. government’s commitment, but rather to further strengthen the program.” ACC seems to believe that the initial reports are overreactive and that EPA will find a way to get chemical reviews moving again. ACC was the original industry lead in developing the voluntary High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge program, from which ChAMP evolved as a means to evaluate the collected data.

Consistent with ACC's view is the fact that EPA has requested an additional $3 million for the program in its fiscal year 2010 budget proposal. The budget request includes monies to hire additional employee resources in order to accelerate the development of the ChAMP prioritization documents. Now, according to an EPA spokesman, the EPA is looking at options “to determine how best to ramp up efforts to assess, prioritize and take risk management action on chemicals of concern. EPA plans to announce the specifics of this effort this summer and will seek public input into the discussion.”

So it seems that EPA already has some idea in mind about how it prefers to proceed. Expect more updates and potential options for moving forward as information continues to become available.

Obama Administration Shuts Down ChAMP Chemical Program?

EPA sources report that the Obama administration and EPA leadership are shutting down EPA's Chemical Assessment and Management Program (ChAMP). ChAMP was initiated as a mechanism to implement the Montebello Agreement, also called the Security & Prosperity Partnership between the three countries (Canada, Mexico and the US), signed in August 2007 by former President Bush.

Apparently EPA staff were told of this decision in an internal meeting within the last two weeks. It remains unclear what might replace it. However, it should be known that highly placed EPA executives believe the report misrepresents what is actually happening, which is merely to "renovate" the program rather than shut it down completely.

If the decision is to shut ChAMP down completely, it would come as a bit of a surprise to EPA watchers. Just a few months ago EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson had indicated that she wanted to accelerate the full assessments of high priority chemicals. For the time being it actually looks like the risk-based prioritization activities have ceased pending further review. Jackson also suggested that she had been leaning toward a ChAMP like program rather than the original Kid Safe Chemical Act concept previously introduced to Congress by Senator Lautenberg and Congressman Waxman. TSCA reform has been a hot topic of discussion in Congress and Lautenberg repeated only a few days ago that he plans to reintroduce the bill later this year, though the bill is expected to be substantially altered from the original to incorporate new ideas...and some thought, ChAMP-like provisions.

According to the Montebello Agreement, the United States agreed to complete risk characterizations by 2012 on more than 9,000 chemicals produced above 25,000 pounds per year. The regional agreement also provided for the sharing of scientific information and technical understanding, best practices and research on new approaches to chemical testing and assessment. The agreement established additional goals to be met by 2020, which include creating and updating chemical inventories in all three countries, as well as coordinating the management of chemicals in North America as outlined in other international agreements. ChAMP was on its way toward meeting those goals, and in fact was anticipated to be expanded to take on additional enhancements that would look at inorganic chemicals and reset the TSCA Inventory.

Obstensibly a voluntary program which put much of the onus for evaluation on EPA, ChAMP is the second large voluntary program that has been shut down by the current administration - the first being the Performance Track program. There is no question that the ChAMP program takes substantial EPA resources, and this announcement may simply be a sign that the administration is intending to revamp the program in a way that allows its stated goals to be pursued within a revised Kid Safe Act when it is reintroduced later this year.

I will continue to update as I get more information.

New Report Says Climate Changes Are Already Occurring

A new report says that climate change is already happening, and and its effects are on track to get much worse in the coming century. The report, "Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States," was released today (June 16th) by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), which "coordinates and integrates federal research on changes in the global environment and their implications for society." Begun as a presidential initiative in 1989 by George H.W. Bush, and then mandated by Congress in the Global Change Research Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-606), the USGCRP called for "a comprehensive and integrated United States research program which will assist the Nation and the world to understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced and natural processes of global change." Thirteen Departments and Agencies participate in the USGCRP.

Key findings from today's report include:

1. Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced.
Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. (p. 13)

2. Climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow.
Climate-related changes are already observed in the United States and its coastal waters. These include increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening growing seasons, lengthening ice-free seasons in the ocean and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alterations in river flows. These changes are projected to grow. (p. 27)

3. Widespread climate-related impacts are occurring now and are expected to increase.
Climate changes are already affecting water, energy, transportation, agriculture, ecosystems, and health. These impacts are different from region to region and will grow under projected climate change. (p. 41-106, 107-152)

4. Climate change will stress water resources.
Water is an issue in every region, but the nature of the potential impacts varies. Drought, related to reduced precipitation, increased evaporation, and increased water loss from plants, is an important issue in many regions, especially in the West. Floods and water quality problems are likely to be amplified by climate change in most regions. Declines in mountain snowpack are important in the West and Alaska where snowpack provides vital natural water storage. (p. 41, 129, 135, 139)

5. Crop and livestock production will be increasingly challenged.
Agriculture is considered one of the sectors most adaptable to changes in climate. However, increased heat, pests, water stress, diseases, and weather extremes will pose adaptation challenges for crop and livestock production. (p. 71)

6. Coastal areas are at increasing risk from sea-level rise and storm surge.
Sea-level rise and storm surge place many U.S. coastal areas at increasing risk of erosion and flooding, especially along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, Pacific Islands, and parts of Alaska. Energy and transportation infrastructure and other property in coastal areas are very likely to be adversely affected. (p. 111, 139, 145, 149)

7. Threats to human health will increase.
Health impacts of climate change are related to heat stress, waterborne diseases, poor air quality, extreme weather events, and diseases transmitted by insects and rodents. Robust public health infrastructure can reduce the potential for negative impacts. (p. 89)

8. Climate change will interact with many social and environmental stresses.
Climate change will combine with pollution, population growth, overuse of resources, urbanization, and other social, economic, and environmental stresses to create larger impacts than from any of these factors alone. (p. 99)

9. Thresholds will be crossed, leading to large changes in climate and ecosystems.
There are a variety of thresholds in the climate system and ecosystems. These thresholds determine, for example, the presence of sea ice and permafrost, and the survival of species, from fish to insect pests, with implications for society. With further climate change, the crossing of additional thresholds is expected. (p. 76, 82, 115, 137, 142)

10. Future climate change and its impacts depend on choices made today.
The amount and rate of future climate change depend primarily on current and future human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases and airborne particles. Responses involve reducing emissions to limit future warming, and adapting to the changes that are unavoidable. (p. 25, 29)

Book Review – Galileo’s Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom by Peter W. Huber (1991)

Galileo’s Revenge is actually an older book published in 1991, and the author has written several since that time. But it is definitely must reading for both scientists and lawyers. Peter Huber is believer in free markets and works at the conservative Manhattan Institute. He is considered an expert on liability lawsuits and clearly feels that courts have mismanaged tort law by allowing spurious claims to move forward, often resulting in huge monetary awards to plaintiffs on questionable science. I suggest the reader quickly move beyond this motivation and seriously consider the information that is put forth in the book.

The book provides several chapters of example cases illustrating the abuse of the courtroom by “experts” pushing specious, and often illogical, scientific explanations for serious injuries or harm. He includes the famous sudden acceleration cases in which the Audi 5000 was targeted as inexplicably bursting forward even though the driver “had their foot jammed on the brakes” (though nothing was shown to be wrong with car). Also liabilities associated with accusations that obstetrician mishandling of birth caused cerebral palsy (since proven false), chemically-caused disease (most of which was shown to be untrue), cancer caused by trauma (not true), the mosaic theory against Benedectin (shown to be specious), and ignoring lifelong smoking to “prove” asbestos caused cancer, etc. There are even cases won by plaintiffs because they had real fear of living close to tuberculosis patients even though there was no medical basis for such a fear. One could add other examples that have occurred since publication of the book.

But the real thrust of the book is how the courts have gotten away from a landmark 1923 ruling (Frye), which “allowed experts into the courtroom only if their testimony was founded on theories, methods, and procedures ‘generally accepted’ as valid among other scientists in the field.” This held sway until the 1970s when expert testimony came to be allowed “if scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact.” According to Huber, at this point mainstream scientific consensus was no longer a requirement, and any fringe theory could be advocated in the courtroom even if it was in conflict with established scientific belief. Together with liability insurance and the tendency to sue those with deep pockets, Huber believes this accounted for many of the huge awards being given to cases based on questionable, or even false, scientific and medical testimony. He spends some time in each chapter describing the unscrupulous “experts” that were hired to provide the needed testimony in such cases.

This book predates the 1993 Daubert ruling, which provided for standards of evidence to be used in court. Daubert superceded the Frye standard of generally accepted by the scientific community, and set a number of additional guidelines for the court to use to determine scientific reliability: testable technique or theory; known error rates of technique or theory; and methodology that has been peer reviewed. These are similar to some of the suggestions offered by Huber in his final chapters. He notes that “a scientific fact is the collective judgment of a specialized scientific community. Good science is defined not by credentials but by consensus.” He argues that there must be careful development of rules for the admissibility of legitimate evidence. There should be a scientific consensus on what the data tell us, not some theory acceptable only to the expert on the witness stand.

I highly recommend this book as a thought starter for all scientists and lawyers. From here readers should move on to more recent books on the topic. And consider Huber’s final words as he suggests that “the best test of certainty we have is good science – the science of publication, replication, and verification, the science of consensus and peer review; the science of Newton, Galileo, and Gauss, Einstein, Feynman, Pasteur, and Sabin; the science that has eradicated smallpox, polio, and tuberculosis; the science that has created antibiotics and vaccines. Or it is, at least, the best test of certainty so far devised by the mind of man.”

Senate Votes to Give FDA Power to Regulate Tobacco - Good Idea or Bad Idea?

Today the US Senate voted 79-17 to "give the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate the content, marketing and advertising of cigarettes and other tobacco products" according to a story in the Washington Post. The bill would give regulators "new power to limit nicotine in cigarettes, drastically curtail ads and ban candied tobacco products aimed at young people." The vote now sends the bill back to the House, which had previously passed a similar bill. Speaker Pelosi apparently believes the House can simply pass the Senate version and send it on to President Obama, who has supported the idea despite the fact that he is a smoker who has struggled to quit (or perhaps because he is a smoker who has struggled to quit).

Many may not realize it, but tobacco products have been exempt from the normal regulation administered by the Food & Drug Administration. This bill would change all that.

Supporters of the bill say it is long overdue, and that it will save hundreds of thousands of lives annually and reduce the "$100 billion in annual health care costs linked to tobacco," which is considered one of the "leading preventable causes of death in the United States" according to those quoted in the Washington Post story.

While no opponents of the bill - which got bipartisan support - were quoted in the Post article, there are many who believe that regulating tobacco is an unwelcome intrusion into personal choices. They point to the inability of Prohibition to reduce alcohol consumption, and its eventual repeal.

So, is it a good idea for tobacco use to come under the regulatory arm of the FDA? Will it save lives? Reduce health care costs? Place a burden on the tobacco industry? Fail to result in changes in smoking habits?

Coming Back to The Dake Page!

I have been unavailable much of the past month and thus have not been posting regularly to The Dake Page. But the page is still active and expect to see many more articles coming through shortly.

In the meantime, check out past articles by clicking on the keywords in the column to the right.

Scientific Debate of Climate Change on Social Networking Sites

Climate change, or global warming, is a popular topic of scientific debate on various social networking sites. Proponents on either side studiously present their factual evidence supporting their views and....

...sorry, I can't write that with a straight face. The truth is there is no real scientific debate on the issue of climate change on social networking sites. On the other hand, there is a lot of noise about the issue.

The fact is that after over three decades of research on the issue, thousands of peer-reviewed studies, and many compilations of the state of our knowledge on the topic, a clear scientific consensus has been reached that climate change is occurring and that human activities are playing a significant role in that occurrence. The debate now is on what policies best allow us to deal with the realities of the science.

But that doesn't stop the denialists from continuing to post their obfuscatory message, largely determined by ideology and then rabidly seeking any information they deem to support the conclusion needed to ratify that ideology. While there are probably many typologies of denialists, there are three distinct forms that seem the most vocal.

The cut-and-paster: This particular form of denialist largely relies on opinions copied verbatim out of blogs. They tend to suggest these blogs are "science" despite the fact that blogs are not peer-reviewed. To date, no one has even attempted to offer a convincing argument for why we should simply accept anything written on a blog as science. For why peer-review is irrelevant. For why having to withstand the scrutiny of the entire scientific community isn't important. For why a blogline known for supporting and being supported by purely ideological funders is science, but decades of scientific study and thousands of peer-reviewed publications is "ideological." These cut-and-pasters are relatively innocuous because they clearly don't understand science, but do tend to get annoying when they use every opportunity to insert their pastings into even totally unrelated threads.

The focused irrelevant: The second form of denialist is the kind that latches on to the "Al Gore invented global warming" canard or the "I saw some photographs and now I'm a climate expert" fantasy. Notwithstanding the fact that someone who normally posts non-science (e.g., humor) is an unlikely source for discovering something "that scientists who study climate change somehow missed," the naiveté of the presentation should speak for itself. First, the suggestion that scientists who use the data don't understand the quality of the data is simply silly, as the scientific process verily forces the discussion of every aspect of the related science. All uncertainties are then incorporated into the analysis. And second, focusing on one part of the data input and suggesting that it invalidates the remainder of the data used in the analysis demonstrates a significant lack of understanding of how science works in general and how climate science works specifically. It's like showing photos of a close up of a 2-inch square of plastic that makes up the bumper of a car (without showing the car itself), and saying that a smudge on that 2-inch square allows you to say that the car does not exist. The folks in this type of denialist simply show their lack of understanding by their incessant carping on the one red ball and ignoring all the blue balls as if they aren't there.

The poser: By far the least prevalent, but the most insidious, is the poser. Posers know full well that most people don't understand the science, and so go out of their way to "sound scientific." We are expected to simply ignore the fact that they suddenly have become "climate experts" after only writing fiction in the past (okay, technically they still are writing fiction). We should be taken in by the use of "official looking" but irrelevant (and laughably simplistic) calculations because, well, because they look official. They look scientific. We should assume that because there are some mathematical formulas in the post that anything and everything said must therefore somehow be accurate. The goal is to look technical, and thus by appearing to "talk over the heads" of most non-scientists, presume an air of authority. [What these posers are actually looking for is the smugness they can assume when someone effectively says "Ooh, he used math formulas I don't understand, so he must be smart, so he must be right."] The poser knows that he is posing, but does it anyway, caring little that he misrepresents the science, or that the "technical stuff" presented is largely wrong or irrelevant anyway. For the poser, the same 2-inch square of plastic is used to state definitively what kind of car it is, what year it was produced, how many miles it has traveled, how tall the driver is, and whether the driver had eggs or waffles for breakfast that morning. The problem is, because the calculations are wrong, the 2-inch square of plastic is not even from the bumper of a car, but from some random pile of plastic that is only barely related to the manufacture of a car. So the whole exercise is meaningless anyway.

Luckily, these folks mostly just talk to themselves. There is a tendency for them to gather together to mutually stroke each others egos and pat each other on the back for the supposed wittiness of their deceptions.

The point of this article, of course, is to say that science is not actually "debated" on social networking sites. Scientific debate must, and does, go on constantly in the peer-reviewed literature and at scientific conferences, among real scientists. While there are a good number of actual scientists on social networking sites, mostly they understand that scientific debate goes on elsewhere. In the past, many of these scientists have confronted the few lonely climate change denialist holdovers, pointing out the inconsistencies in their arguments, the lack of veracity of their sources, and the shear silliness of some of the calculations (I mean really, if you can post a calculation in a social networking site article then it clearly is not sufficient to describe the complexities of atmospheric, oceanic, continental, chemical, solar, and man-made influences to climate change). Unfortunately, denialists tend not to learn, and in fact conveniently forget, all of the information presented by real scientists, and thus simply repeat over and over the same points as if no discussion has taken place. Often, when faced with refutation of their posits, they turn abusive (or merely whine). And while scientists are used to arguing over details - after all, that's what we do - we do not suffer gladly those who show a lack of intellectual integrity. After a while scientists simply stop trying to explain to those who actively choose not to learn.

So for the most part scientists ignore the cut-and-pasters, focused irrelevants, and posers (with occasional forays just to get humor from their silliness) and rely on real peer-review with fellow real scientists doing real science in real scientific venues. Of course, we will still post articles related to science for informational purposes, but the actual scientific debate is done elsewhere.

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.

More Chemical Testing from EPA - The 3rd HPV List

Coming soon to a Federal Register near you, the USEPA is expected to publish its third list of high production volume (HPV) chemicals. Technically the "list" is a proposed test rule authorized under Section 4 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Affected industry and other stakeholders will have time to provide comment on the approximately 29 HPV chemicals on the list, after which the EPA will publish a final rule. For the previous two test rules industry was given approximately 24 months to complete the specific health and safety testing identified in the rule.

This test rule is part of the ongoing process stemming from the voluntary HPV Chemical Challenge Program, which was initiated in 1998. Under the program, companies were asked to compile available environmental health and safety data on a list of 2,800 chemicals that were manufactured in or imported into the U.S. in quantities of greater than one million pounds. But several hundred of these were not sponsored by industry and thus were considered "orphan" chemicals. Since then EPA has been slowly reviewing the available data and issuing - now mandatory - requirements for companies to test these chemicals.

The process has been quite lengthy. The first rules was proposed in 2000 and only finalized in 2006. Another proposed rule was published last year and has yet to be finalized. The fact that the process takes so long and handles only small numbers of the thousands of chemicals on the Inventory has been part of the impetus leading some activists to argue for reform of TSCA. In short, the feeling is that there has to be a better way to ensure that chemicals are proven safe being placed, or continuing to be placed, on the market.

Which gets the crux of the problem. While the voluntary HPV program and these testing rules focus on only the highest production volume chemicals - an important prioritization tool but limited in scope - there are approximately 63,000 chemicals that were grandfathered onto the TSCA Inventory without substantive review. Add to that the 30,000 new chemicals added since then in which very limited data were actually provided, thus requiring EPA to assess them largely based on modeling and comparison with chemicals of similar structure.

The ChAMP process is starting to look at medium production volume chemicals, that is, those greater than 25,000 pounds. There is also a desire at EPA to extend ChAMP to looking on inorganic chemicals and to "reset" the TSCA Inventory, though these "enhancements" are currently under review by the new administration. All of this leads into what both advocacy groups and industry agree is a need to revamp the TSCA law. Industry favors something more like ChAMP, while many advocacy groups prefer something more like the Kid Safe Chemical Act that has been introduced in Congress twice before (though was never acted upon even in committee).

Some of the many issues driving TSCA reform include the problem that increased testing (which is needed to prove safety) means increased used of animal models, which animal welfare advocates such as PETA find objectionable. Whether the onus should be put on EPA to review and prioritize chemicals for testing, e.g., via the test rules above, or on industry to do a full suite of base set testing to prove safety is also a subject of heavy debate. As is how much any new law should subsidize "green chemistry" and substitution mechanisms that would either encourage the development of inherently safer chemicals and/or force more hazardous chemicals off the market even though safer substitutes may not be available. Furthermore, should the new law mandate or encourage the development and use of new assessment methods such as in vivo being defined by the National Center for Computational Toxicology’s ToxCast Program. While these tests will eventually lead to less animal testing, they carry a greater degree of uncertainty as to what any observed results might actually mean, as I have noted in a previous post.

So, the end result of TSCA Reform is still too far away to accurately predict. But as I will continue to discuss on these posts, there are several areas of agreement that are beginning to emerge.

TSCA Reform Seems Inevitable - But Which TSCA Reform?

It's a done deal. Okay, not actually a "done deal." But it seems clear that some sort of TSCA reform is on its way. TSCA, of course, is the Toxic Substances Control Act, which has been the authority for chemical control in the US for over 30 years. Not much has changed since it was passed, and not many of the 63,000 chemicals grandfathered onto the TSCA Inventory have had comprehensive data reviews. New chemicals, on the other hand, all have gone through some review by the EPA, but even here there is no requirement to provide health and safety data so most of the analysis is done by computer modeling and comparison to similar chemicals.

As reported here previously, Senator Lautenberg and Representatives Waxman and Solis introduced the Kid Safe Chemical Act back in 2005 and again in 2008. On both occasions it never got out of committee. Senator Lautenberg is adamant that he will reintroduce it this year. But then what?

In a recent hearing both industry and advocacy groups provided their input in to what TSCA reform should look like. Industry, in particular Cal Dooley of the American Chemistry Council, acknowledged that some sort of TSCA reform is necessary. Environmental groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund agreed that a change is needed. But the agreement stops there.

There are two main options on the table, with lots of options in between. One option is to reintroduce the Kid Safe Act, which would be a radical departure from the current TSCA law, and a bit too close to the European REACH program for industry's tastes. Some environmental groups, e.g., the Environmental Working Group, are in favor of the Kid Safe Act approach. Industry favors something that tweaks the current authority incumbent in TSCA but perhaps not assertively used enough in the past by EPA. EPA itself seems to be leaning in favor of TSCA reform that looks much like its current ChAMP program. Industry generally agrees with that idea.

The difference of opinion is largely one of who has the onus. With the current TSCA and ChAMP, the EPA has the onus of determining that a chemical is not safe, something that has been hard to do given the lack of data available for most chemicals. With the Kid Safe Act and other REACH-like options, the burden shifts almost entirely to industry to prove their chemicals are safe enough to remain (if already existing) or be put (if new) on the market. There are advantages and disadvantages of each approach, which I will examine in coming posts.

USEPA Seeking Scientific Information on CO2-caused Ocean Acidification

Think global warming affects only the air temperature? Think again. The oceans matter also when it comes to climate change. Carbon dioxide (CO2) could lead to big changes in the ocean, and most of it would not be good. According to the Center For Biological Diversity (CBD) in a petition filed last year, new science shows that increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are acidifying ocean waters. The result is impairment in the ability of coral and other marine invertebrates to build and maintain exoskeletons (the hard parts on the outside that keep them together).

To evaluate the petition, EPA is seeking scientific and policy information on ocean acidification caused by CO2. They need this information to help them decide whether to revise their current pH water criterion, a move which could lay the groundwork for regulating greenhouse gases through the Clean Water Act. EPA published a notice of data availability in an April 15 Federal Register notice, and asked for commenters to provide existing information about ocean acidification as well as new scientific data and policy suggestions for addressing acidification. The goal is to use the information to decide whether to grant the CBD petition, which asked the agency to revise its national marine criterion for pH to protect marine life.

Because of the interconnectedness of the issue, EPA is soliciting information on technological advances in rapid, continuous, or remote monitoring of pH; long term data that demonstrate acidification; and methods to evaluate pH variability. They are also seeking estimates for survival rates for coral and non-coral organisms, as well as any methods for weighing the impact of acidification in comparison to other stressors, such as storm damage and overfishing. Finally, the EPA would like individual states to offer their experience on implementing the current pH standard and for experts to suggest scientifically defensible approaches to set and monitor pH criteria.

The ramifications of this decision are potentially expansive. EPA's decision on the pH criteria could set an ecological goal for future CO2 limits. The resultant criteria are non-binding, but they inform state water standards, and that could in turn require the setting of emission limits at the state level to achieve the standards. This action is a part of a myriad of actions the EPA is contemplating in an effort to address climate change through regulations. Other actions include the reconsideration of the previous administration's denial of California's request to regulate CO2 from vehicles, reevaluation of a Bush EPA memo barring regulation of CO2 in power plant permits, and the preparation of a climate change endangerment finding that could set the stage for regulations across many programs and agencies. As I have mentioned in the past, the Obama administration is taking climate change issues very seriously and has filled many of his key environmental and energy positions with personnel experienced and active in those areas.