Environmental Assessments - De Facto Government from Scientists?
It seems to be environmental assessment season around the world, with two major new reports during the last two weeks - the OECD Environmental Assessment and the National Academies Transportation Research Board report.
We all know that thousands of reports are written every year, many are for policymakers and are accepted as the views of experts on the various areas they discuss. These reports end up in the hands of our Governments who in their infinite wisdom use them to craft policy decisions and legislation for our governance. This leads me to the question “Does science in reality hold more power over Government policymaking than the average person realizes?”
Policy based on Science is Opinion
As a society we have become conditioned to think that scientists are the oracle of truth when it comes to issues of health, energy and the environment among other things. This is not strictly true - scientists in reality provide theories that attempt to explain empirical data and do not make any mention of personal opinion beyond their supporting statements for the validity of their theory.
Scientists are not in the business of making policy papers, and the people who are writing these papers are inversely not actually practicing science - they tend to be analysts who take scientific research and form opinions as to the best way to address the possible outcomes in regards to the theories put forth by the scientists.
So one can say that policy papers are simply the personally held opinions of the authors as the best way to make changes to the governance system in response to new scientific theory. Don’t get me wrong, many of these papers take the opinions of many experts into account, but an expert does not implicitly imply a scientist, it could be a environmentalist, a sociologist or one of many other disciplines. These expert positions and recommendations are subsequently selected and filtered to promote only the pre-determined opinions of the authors of these papers.
As an example, and to put it into the context of the global warming debate; mitigation strategies for emissions are not put forth by the scientific community as science. These strategies are based on environmental opinions and the experts cited are usually working for the lobbying interests of environmental organizations. There are some well respected scientists, not mentioning any names (we all know who they are), who have strongly held policy convictions which we frequently see communicated through books, blogs, opt-ed articles, interviews and lectures but not through scientific research papers.
How Science is used to make Policy
With all that said, we need to look at how science is acting to influence Government. Again, to stay on topic we will look at the global warming issue. We have some basic atmospheric science that states the theory of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect (AGE) as an explanation of the empirical evidence of rising global temperatures. We also have the relationship between Co2 - a Greenhouse Gas - and the empirical evidence that the concentration in the atmosphere is rising. Putting this together we get the theory that the rise in Co2 levels is causing the increase in the AGE, thereby warming the planet.
Next, Co2 is a by-product of almost every process based on the combustion of any naturally occurring carbon source. Since we came out of our cave and discovered fire and the power of heat we have been harnessing it to develop our society. So add that to our two theories and we get the new theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Now, my point is first this is a theory, it is not a scientific law such as gravity - there is nothing in the actual science that says we have to use any specific technology to mitigate the effects of Co2 emissions. There is also no mention of what reducing Co2 levels will actually equate to in terms of actual temperature change.
This is where the policy papers and assessments come in - they take the science, and use it to form an educated opinion as to its possible implications and any necessary actions. Next, they look at technological solutions, expert opinions, previous regulations that have had some success, and an evaluation of basic economic aspects. Yet this is not scientific research, these are just the best options that the authors feel are available.
This means that personal preferences and biases become the basis of scientific policy considerations and policy position papers, which are the actual documents that make it to your government’s committees.
How Scientists Influence Government
When assessments reach policymakers the Government holds hearings to discuss possible policy actions. It is here that scientists can really influence government. A scientist can now voice not only the science but his opinions as to the actions needed to be taken with equal weight. If a scientist is passionate and compelling they can significantly influence the actions taken by government. This can be very powerful when echoed by non-scientific experts. So in fact, science can create an opportunity for certain opinions and views on policy to be presented with the same weight as a scientific theory, without the need to be filtered by the conventions of scientific research. A small group of scientists can actually act as a vehicle for their own opinions on policy decisions made by Governments, first by creating the need for policy changes, then by advancing their personal opinions on what should be done.
This has never been more evident than with the IPCC process - where authors combed through science to find the supporting evidence that they needed to advance their mandate, based on their opinions, then wrapped it up as a consensus. This body makes no statement explaining that they are not actually involved in scientific research, they let the misconception lend weight to their prestige. In fact the IPCC is a political body, just like any lobbyist or think tank group working on any Governmental policy, and in my opinion should be treated in the same way as any other special interest group.
What do you the readers think that the role of scientists in crafting policy decisions should be, especially in regards to the opinions regarding their own research, and why should global warming and environmental assessment reports be treated any differently than any other special interest group’s presentations?
Two things spring to mind, security and money.
The drive to reduce our CO2 emissions is more important from an energy security perspective - we have known for quite a while that China can and will buy oil at any price to drive its development. From a policy perspective, this causes us a big headache.
Which links into the money. Examples where science has influenced policy include smoking and obesity. Government interference in these issues relates to reducing health expenditure.
Your question is a tough one. Of course scientists should be involved in crafting policy decisions. But perhaps they should also be trained in economics, politics and policy making beforehand, instead of just being used by people who are.
The majority of scientists seem to have little clue about international affairs beyond what they read in the newspapers. And vice-versa for the policy makers vis-Ã -vis science.