Science Policies Can't Just Rest on Facts

Hurricane Sandy, shown here a day before landfall on Oct. 28, 2012, was one of the largest storms ever to hit the East Coast. Scientists pointed to the damage caused by the hurricane as one example of the problems climate change could exacerbate. NASA Earth Observatory image by Robert Simmon with data courtesy of the NASA/NOAA Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite Project Science team.

Science and technology policies are based on some facts, but facts only account for a small proportion of the considerations that shape these policies. Reputation, money, politics and cultural perceptions all play major roles in determining which facts are pursued by scientists, as well as how those facts, once uncovered, are used by other groups.

Among scientists, reputations act as heuristic signals for colleagues. Reputations are built primarily through publications, awards, funding and other mechanisms that proceed from outside the laboratory.

Individual scientists may not always value these heuristic mechanisms as much as others. Percy W. Bridgman, for instance, ignored an interview request from the Associated Press about the announcement that he had won the Nobel Prize - so he could continue his experiments.[1]

But avoiding participation in the policy sphere is nearly impossible for most scientists. This was true even a century ago, when scientists and engineers in the electrical sciences, aeronautical sciences, and agricultural sciences wrestled with the effects of patents and industrial funding that threatened idealized notions of “pure science.” World wars I and II ramped up state support, thus giving many of the scientists what they had thought was independence.[2]

State patronage also comes with strings, however. David Edgerton points out that even during the heyday of science’s growth in the U.S. at the end of World War II, the vast majority of government sponsorship was for applied research with military goals.[3]

Edgerton says that if one “follows the money,” one quickly discovers that most science for most of history actually occurred in applied contexts, and almost always outstripped basic research in terms of funding, even if popular conceptions of science have not recognized this.[4]

Even where goals remained purely scientific, government-sponsored science faces political concerns that shape agendas. This became apparent to members of the meteorological community as they attempted to build a cooperative global infrastructure for exchanging weather data in the early twentieth century. The first incarnation of this effort, the International Meteorological Organization (IMO), was purely voluntary. To keep up with technological changes and to keep control of the standard-setting process, the IMO petitioned to become part of the U.N. Its establishment as an intergovernmental organization allowed it ultimately to expand its scope to become a truly globalized entity. But it also brought political and definitional challenges. It was forced, for instance, to create “observer” statuses for large states like China that were not at the time members of the U.N., instead of allowing them full inclusion in the coordination process.[5]

Politics and money can have profound influences on the arrangement of policies governing the practice of science. Despite these forces, scientists have been largely successful at uncovering facts within those research programs that have been funded, even when those facts have disagreed with the interests of industry or government. The question remains: how are these facts incorporated into new policies, if at all?

Global warming is perhaps the most striking recent example of the failure of facts effectively to inform political debate and policymaking in the U.S. Since the issue first exploded into public consciousness in the late 1980’s, industry-backed denial campaigns have sought to undermine public confidence in the science itself. Front groups for oil, gas and other fossil fuel companies have employed a small number of contrarian scientists to attack peer review and prestigious science organizations that recognize global warming, such as the National Academy of Sciences.[6]

Politicizing the issue has polarized the public. Gallup surveys showed that 49 percent of self-identified Republicans in 2001 believed the effects of global warming had already begun. By 2010, that had dropped to 29 percent. In the same period, the percentage of Democrats who believed global warming had begun rose from 60 percent to 70 percent.[7]

Public relations campaigns have also had a direct influence over perceptions of science among policymakers. Former Texas Republican Representative Tom Delay in 1995 dismissed the International Panel on Climate Change’s report without having read it, saying, “But it’s been my experience that . . . the conclusion is usually written before the study is even done.” Former California Republican Representative John Doolittle relied on a single think-tank-sponsored scientist, S. Fred Singer, to justify his denial of the peer-reviewed science supporting climate change.[8]

Public officials generally have neither the time nor expertise properly to weigh scientific issues – or on the credibility of a given institution’s work. They rely a great deal on lobbyists and think tanks to provide them with a bottom line. They also have cultural and political biases that influence their actions.

The Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum is a prime example of the role that cultural concerns play when they intersect with scientific facts. Curators at the museum are constrained in what exhibits they can display by dominant historical narratives. Roger D. Launius offers 10 exhibits that he believes could be compelling, but would not be approved because of cultural sensitivities. Some of the considerations he cites as deal-breakers include images of crashes, death, and evoking Cold War fears.[9]

Science and technology policies must use facts in order to be effective. However, no policy can sustain itself without taking into account influences such as money, politics, and culture. The difference between the effective and the poor lays not in whether policies are free of these influences, but in how they are ultimately reconciled with the facts.

---

[1] Gerald Holton, “Candor and Integrity in Science,” Syntheses 145 (2005), 277-294, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20118593, 11-13-13;

[2] Christine MacLeod, “Reluctant Entrepreneurs: Patents and State Patronage in New Technosciences, circa 1870-1930,” Isis 103 (2012), 328-339, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/666359, 11-13-13;

[3]           David Edgerton, “Time, Money, and History,” Isis 103 (2012), 316-327, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/666358, 11-13-13;

[4]           Ibid.;

[5]           Paul N. Edwards, “Meteorology as Infrastructural Globalism,” Osiris 21 (2006), 229-250, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/507143, 11-26-13;

[6]           Riley E. Dunlap and Aaron M. McCright, “The Climate Change Denial Campaign,” SSN Scholars Strategy Network, January 2013, http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/sites/default/files/ssn_key_findings_dunlap_and_mccright_on_climate_change_denial.pdf, 11-26-13;

[7]           Aaron M. McCright and Riley E. Dunlap, “The Polarization of U.S. Public Opinion on Climate Change,” Scholars Strategy Network, January 2013, http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/sites/default/files/ssn_key_findings_mccright_and_dunlap_on_political_polarization_on_climate_change.pdf,11-26-13;

[8] Myanna Lahsen, “Technocracy, Democracy, and U.S. Climate Politics: The need for Demarcations,” Science, Technology, & Human Values 30 (2005), 137-169,http://www.jstor.org/stable/1558016, 11-26-13;

[9] Roger D. Launius, “American Memory, Culture Wars, and the Challenge of Presenting Science and Technology in a National Museum,” The Public Historian, 29, 1 (Winter 2007), 13-30, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/tph.2007.29.1.13, 11-22-13.

Light Pollution Dims View Of Comet, Shrinks Our Horizons

 

 STEREO's Heliospheric Imager shows Comet ISON, Mercury, Comet Encke and Earth over a five-day period from Nov. 20 to Nov. 25, 2013. The sun sits right of the field of view of the camera. Credit: NASA/STEREO

This is a reprint of my article that originally appeared in the Hartford Courant.

Comet ISON is barreling toward the center of our solar system, where on Thanksgiving it will slingshot around the sun and head back past Earth.

It's already putting on one of the best shows we've had in a while. Astronomers announced Nov. 14 that the comet had shot up on the brightness scale, becoming barely visible to the naked eye. It may become much brighter.

But you probably won't see it from New Haven, Hartford or Bridgeport. Even if it exceeds current expectations, you'll have to go far afield to catch an unaided glimpse of one of the most dazzling recent astronomical events.

The reason? Light pollution. Lights from Connecticut's dense population, coupled with the state's position wedged between major metropolitan areas, drown out the natural splendor of our skies.

Streetlights, after-hours business signs, outdoor house lights: All these sources of illumination bounce off surfaces on the ground and particles in the air. The light can travel outside of city centers for miles, dimming the sky in rural areas.

Looking at images of Connecticut at night from NASA's Earth Observatory shows the extent of the problem. Everything from Fairfield County up the I-91 corridor into Massachusetts is a big blotch of yellow light. Less prominent blotches cover most of the outlying areas. It's as if someone spilled fluorescent paint all over the map.

Connecticut is actually one of the more light-conscious states, according to Leo Smith, northeastern regional director for the International Dark Sky Association. Over the years, he and his organization have persuaded Connecticut's General Assembly to pass laws requiring municipalities and utilities to adopt shielded lighting that prevents most illumination from escaping upward. As recently as 2009, they worked with Connecticut Light and Power to provide lower rates to towns that shut lights off after midnight.

"When you look at other states in the area, especially in New England, you can't really match Connecticut," Smith said in a phone interview.

There are a few patches of darkness in Connecticut, particularly in the hilly northwest corner of the state. Viewing conditions at the site of the Mattatuck Astronomical Society Observatory in Litchfield, for instance, are relatively clear, except facing south toward the glow of cities located far beyond the horizon.

Smith acknowledged that the state still has a long way to go. Private businesses and homes, which produce plenty of their own light, are largely unaffected by the state laws. And given Connecticut's emphasis on local control, many of the efforts to reduce light pollution must be addressed at the municipal level.

That was what writer and astronomer Bob Crelin did in his hometown of Branford. In a 2002 Sky & Telescope Magazine article, he described his successful campaign to get the town to adopt local zoning ordinances that mandated outdoor lighting standards for everyone.

"I saw no justification for all that light being cast into the sky and couldn't accept it as an inevitable side effect of progress," he wrote.

During his campaign, Crelin found out that a lot of light pollution is "unnecessary and preventable, much of it merely careless waste from outdoor lighting that's poorly designed, overly bright or improperly aimed."

Light pollution is not just a bane for astronomers. We're increasingly living without something the ancients took for granted — a sense of our place in the universe. Crelin noted in a phone conversation that people growing up in light-polluted areas live in a smaller world.

"And when you lose your depth of vision," he said, "you lose your depth of imagination."

Smith's and Crelin's efforts prove that the scourge of light pollution is not inevitable. Every one of us must be mindful of the lighting on our streets, at our businesses and outside our homes. There are simple, practical solutions we can take to restore our skies. If we do, we'll be able to enjoy not only once-in-a-lifetime astronomical events like ISON, but the brilliant displays that play out above us every night.

Students deserve representation on New Haven Board of Education

Photo courtesy of Ruby Sinreich. Used under a Creative Commons CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 license.

This article was written in collaboration with Margo Meteyer, Dave Puglisi, Yufan Xie, Nikki Sansone and Melissa Scott. It originally appeared in the New Haven Register.

High school students are constantly striving to have their voices heard. Many cities and towns in Connecticut have already helped by giving them a position on their local school boards. One of the few remaining areas to jump on the bandwagon, however, is the New Haven School District.

This is a year of change for New Haven; every 10 years the city’s charter is revised. The Citywide Youth Coalition is promoting a revision that would put two non-voting student representatives on the Board of Education. Students would be able to express their opinions on the decisions that affect them in the classroom. Having students on the board will provide a level of direct interaction that can’t be achieved without the passing of this revision on Nov. 5.

The coalition circulated a petition asking people to support the revision. Coalition members believe mandating student representatives will improve the quality of the board’s decisions, expand civic engagement of young people, and engage the entire student body as partners in education.

There’s reason to believe they’re right. Hamden Board of Education Chairman John Keegan said the students on his town’s board contribute a perspective other members can’t provide.

“The board has changed its approach for the better on certain issues thanks to the contribution of student members,” Keegan said.

Adult board members are not the ones sitting in the classroom every day. A partnership would enable the board to get a more accurate student view on issues in education.

Too often students’ voices are silenced by authority figures. Keegan said that in his town, having student representation “has opened up an opportunity for the young people of this town to gain insight plus a valuable experience...and to have made a real impact on the school district.” Hamden’s changes have given students more ability to steer the direction their education is going.

Students will benefit if New Haven follows in Hamden’s footsteps. Citywide Youth Coalition Executive Director Rachel Heerema explained that strong student representatives can work to make sure the voices of all students are heard. “They can be a conduit for the students from all schools to the board and the board to the students,” she said. “It has proved to be successful in other towns since the 60-70s.” Hamden is just one example of this success.

It would be better if even more students could sit on the board. Hamden has only one high school; New Haven has nine. Two students is a good start, but not enough to represent nine high schools. After all, how is a student from Wilbur Cross going to know what’s going on at Hill Regional?

Heerema has considered this problem. “All the research indicates that if you want to provide an adequate number for disadvantaged groups you need at least one third of the board to be students, but this was not politically attainable,” she said.

Other large school systems in Connecticut have handled this issue differently. Bridgeport’s charter allows for a student representative from each school to sit in on board meetings. If New Haven were to do it this way, there would be nine student representatives on the board.

Two students, not enough? Nine students, too many? Boston and Hartford have the perfect solution.

In each of these cities, students have their own district-wide councils composed of members elected by their individual schools. Two of these members serve as Board of Education representatives. The representatives then report back to their student councils, which make decisions and come up with ideas as a group. That way, students from all schools have some say in the process, and all the students work together.

In the future, this is the model New Haven should take. If New Haven’s charter revision does pass and students become part of the board, it may pave the way for a more elaborate, inclusive system like Boston’s or Hartford’s.

For now, New Haven needs to take action and get two students on the Board of Education. If passed, this revision will empower disadvantaged groups and keep school boards more accountable to the students – the people they’re supposed to be there to serve.