|
| More Michael Crichton and State of Fear | | Date Created: May 22, 2005, 03:44 PM |
 Lots of people have weighed in on Michael Crichton's State of Fear as you might expect. Some, including those who should know better, have bashed him for his "lack of credentials". This is a type of ad hominem attack. Some criticized the fact that it wasn't just a novel or that the novel part of it was poor. And of course there were those who just said he's wrong and the environmentalists and global warming scientists are right. Not much logic or argument, he's just wrong.
One thoughtful review from a type of environmental group (earth sciences) is here. They got it. Appallingly, the Skeptical Inquirer (not available online) didn't get it.
The latest issue of The American Enterprise (6/05), which as always has a number of great articles, has included a transcript of a talk Crichton gave to the AEI-Brookings Joint Center. It's entitled Take the Fiction Out of Science Policy and I'm excerpting it here.
"I have spent the last several years exploring environmental issues, particularly global warming. I've been deeply disturbed by what I found, largely because the evidence for so many environmental issues is shockingly flawed and unsubstantiated. But more troubling to me is the degree to which the political process seems to have captured and often corrupted the integrity of the scientific research that's used to formulate policy.
Today, I'm going to focus on a few major problems that will confront science policy in the 21st century: How do we obtain good and unbiased information? When do we choose to prevent environmental changes, and when to we adapt? How do we promote desirable technology?
First, how do policymakers obtain unbiased information? This has been a problem, especially with scientific decisions that are hard to assess for people not trained in science. The staff that feed policymakers often give deliberately biased information in an effort to make a partisan case.
This politicization does a double disservice. It pre-empts the policymaker's traffic cop role. And it violates the integrity of the firewall that should always stand between those gathering information and those setting policy based on it.
...I know of only three strategies that are useful in the effort to verify the rigorousness of data. Two of these strategies are already well known. And the third will, in my view, soon become reality.
I call the first strategy the FDR tactic: Let the participants air their views and slug it out... [Not a great example in my opinion. At least in relation to the decisions that got made by FDR] A second method of securing reliable data is what we might call the 'FDA Strategy'. The core of the FDA approach is the double-blind study to demonstrate drug efficacy... If there were this kind of double-blind assessment of climate models, there would be no discussion about global warming today. The data is nowhere near good enough. We're talking about spending trillions of dollars to solve a problem, yet nobody is willing to subject the information purporting to outline the problem to the kind of intense scrutiny that we require for a single drug. I find that inexplicable.
The third method for vetting data is on the horizon. In the future, we're going to have a product liability for information... When people can be sued for peddling false information, spurious claims will be discouraged.
[I agree with the first part. That's what the blogosphere is doing to the mainstream media. I don't agree with the lawsuits. False information is as hard to pin down as the truth, particularly when you can argue over what the definition of "is" is. Get the attorneys involved and truth vs. falsity becomes just another way to make money and wield power.]
When do we act to prevent or reverse environmental conditions, and when do we simply adapt to them? That is a very contentious issue, especially in environmentalist circles, where the popular view is that anything that even might lead to problems must not be allowed.
[This is the precautionary priciple writ large when Big Government gets involved. More on the politicized science of the precautionary principle later...]
Obviously there are some instances in which prevention really is the best strategy... But inevitably, things still go wrong. And when they do, sometimes it is smartest simply to adapt...the strategy of preventing any changes generally favors elites and wealthy people, while adaptation is usually kinder to average and poor people.
[It certainly does in the global warming debate and politics.]
How do we promote desirable technologyies? My answer is, we don't. This is a tough lesson. [Here's the libertarian speaking. Top down promotion of research and using tax money to solve problems doesn't work]. We've had two major crash programs in this country involving technology, and they were hugely successful. [Manhattan Project and the Kennedy man-on-the-moon-by-the-end-of-the-decade project] ... But so far as I know, every other government program to promote technologies has failed...
...I find it increasingly odd that we now live in a world in which almost no one can think about the environment except in political terms. The most common thing that I've been asked when I've spoken on this subject, is: Aren't you just pushing George Bush's agenda? I say, well, no, actually I'm not. I happen to think he's right on some questions. But I'm just following the data.
Data is not Democratic or Republican; it's data. I would really like to get the political psychodrama out of decision making, at least in the environmental arena. I'm sure that's naive, but it's my hope." |
|
|
|
|
|
