The wrong approach to science policy
I like to talk about policy in relation and reaction to science here at the Big Bad Blog — particularly here in the “Tech and World” category. For most people, at first blush, “policy” brings up thoughts of “government”. To me, the subject is more broad and policy discussions are more likely to touch corporate policies than government ones. But not today. Today I have found a wonderful example of how not to form science policy.
My example comes from the US Energy and Commerce Committee.
Joe Barton is a US Congressman, and the “Ranking Minority Member” of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Dr. Steven Chu is the US Secretary of Energy and a Nobel Prize winning Physicist.
Recently, there was an exchange between the two of them. An excerpt from the transcript found here:
Barton: Dr Chu, I don’t want to leave you out. You’re our scientist. I have one simple question for you in the last six seconds. How did all the oil and gas get to Alaska and under the Arctic Ocean?
Chu: (Laughs) This is a complicated story, but oil and gas is the result of hundreds of millions of years of geology and in that time also the plates have moved around. And so, it’s a combination of where the sources of the oil and gas…
Barton: Isn’t it obvious that at one time it was a lot warmer in Alaska and on the North Pole? It wasn’t a big pipeline that we’ve created from Texas and shipped it up there and put it under ground so we can now pump it up?
Chu: No, there are continental plates that have been drifting around throughout the geological ages.
Barton: So it just drifted up there.
Chu: Uh…That’s certainly what happened. It’s a result of things like that.
Chairman: The gentleman’s time has expired.
Following this, Mr. Barton had the following to say on Twitter: I seemed to have baffled the Energy Sec with basic question – Where does oil come from?
Given his position as the ranking minority member on the subject, Mr. Barton’s job should be to create a viable alternative to the Democrat’s energy policy. One that could arguably accomplish certain goals and stand in opposition to the Democrat policy in the eyes of voters, thereby winning back votes to the Republican party.
Mr. Barton should not reveal his own ignorance of science or his distain for scientific advisors in such a fashion.
To be sure, a strong policy on issues which are scientific or technological at their core does not require a full understanding of the underlying science. And in this instance, an understanding of how — in geological terms — oil came to reside beneath Alaska is neither here nor there. Suffice it to say that it IS there, and we have no means of replenishing it within our (or, most likely, our species’) lifetime.
But topical advisors — whether in a scientific capacity or otherwise — are needed and need to be respected. They have knowledge that policy makers do not; the experts have devoted their lives to the academic study of these topics, politicians and policy makers have not.
Any policy maker who makes the sort of remarks that Mr. Barton did is to be feared. They will make the wrong decisions, because they cannot weigh the benefits and costs of different policies properly — how can they, when they endeavour to publicly ridicule those who are more knowledgeable than themselves?
Nobody rational would expect the government’s policy makers to reflect their own views — there are too many opposing viewpoints for that to be part of any person’s reality, and the revolving door of policy makers in successive governments mean that this is never to be. But the policy makers should be making informed decisions, which involve listening to the experts and weighing their advice.
If that advice is ignored, so be it. So long as it was understood and considered in light of the other factors involved.
People like to consider Obama to be pro-science, based on his favourable approach to the funding of scientific research. To me, this approach is not pro-science, but pro-innovation. The test of whether or not an administration is “pro-science” is in the respect paid to the consensual opinion of the scientific community where it will impact a government’s position with respect to its poicies.
Such a moment has yet to arrive for Obama — we will see whether or not Obama is pro-science when the scientific community stands behind an unpopular policy.
Can science overcome populism in policy making? That would be interesting to see.
Related articles:
what a moron! *is very afraid*
Mr. Barton may (or may not) be a a moron, but this incident is certainly no evidence of it. He caught a Nobel prize winner in a rather embarrassing error. Continental drift is not (according to current scientific consensus) responsible for Alaska’s oil. In fact, Alaska’s petroleum source rock units date from the Cretaceous era, a time when Alaska was in its current position. At least in this case, Barton was right and Chu was wrong.
@griny
Chu may have been wrong, but it’s a huge stretch to say that Barton was right.
First, he never offers his opinion on the subject (at least in any of the above notes). Claiming Barton was ‘right’ is like claiming a child is right when they ask “What’s the moon made of?”, when the adult’s response is “cheese”. The adult being wrong does not make the child right.
Second, Mr. Barton’s approach is to put Dr. Chu into an untenable situation (explaining the source of oil in Alaska in six seconds, no preparation time) and then gloat about it afterwards. Dr. Chu is a scientific advisor, and this is not the correct way to go about using a scientific advisor. In this second sense, Mr. Barton is very much ‘wrong’, no matter his (unknown) opinion regarding the source of Alaskan oil.