Debate over the Bush administrations use of scientific information in
policy-making recently came to the forefront with the release of the Union of
Concerned Scientists (UCS) report, Scientific Integrity in Policymaking:
An Investigation into the Bush Administrations Misuse of Science.
The report and accompanying statement, signed by 62 of the nations leading
scientists, echoes the theme that Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) has developed
in Congressional hearings over several years, culminating with the August 2003
release of Politics and Science in the Bush Administration. Both reports
allege that the Bush administration routinely mischaracterizes scientific findings
to bolster its political agenda.
While some of the allegations might have merit, public outcry has unfairly extended
beyond the examples cited in the reports. What some people fail to recognize
is that although science plays a role in many policy decisions, it is rarely
the only contributing factor. In many cases, policy-makers have the best science
at their disposal, but weigh other valid considerations into their final decisions.
In still other cases, perhaps the blame lies more with scientists themselves
than with policy-makers. The first step toward rectifying any purported misuse
of science in policy is to distinguish between these three situations.
Science suppressed
The Waxman and UCS reports point to several examples of scientific evidence
being suppressed in the decision-making process, effectively denying policy-makers
access to pertinent scientific information. Perhaps most notorious among geoscientists
is the White Houses editing of the Environmental Protection Agencys
(EPA) Draft Report on the Environment, described by EPA Administrator
Christine Todd Whitman as a comprehensive roadmap to ensure that all Americans
have cleaner air, purer water and better protected land. An internal EPA
memorandum circulated during the editing process noted that after the White
House edited the chapter on climate change, the section no longer accurately
represents scientific consensus on climate change. Eventually, the entire
chapter was dropped from the report.
Less publicized is EPAs refusal to release analyses of greenhouse-gas
legislation opposed by the administration. EPA has the important role of providing
technical support to Congress by analyzing proposed legislation upon request.
But when Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) requested a detailed analysis of his bill
to regulate emissions limits so that Congress could compare his approach to
that of the administrations Clear Skies initiative, EPA refused to release
its report. EPAs analysis, when later uncovered by The Washington Post,
projected that Carpers bill would reduce emissions to levels lower than
those projected under the Clear Skies Act and would save 17,800 more lives.
This appears to be a clear case of withholding science from legislators who
need it as a basis for decision-making.
Science considered
In many other cases, decision-makers are well-appraised of the science, but
base their decisions on other factors. For example, the January 2004 decision
by NASA Administrator Sean OKeefe to cancel future servicing missions
to the Hubble Space Telescope reportedly was based on astronaut safety concerns.
Famous for its ability to photograph distant galaxies and astronomical phenomena,
the Hubble is considered by the American Astronomical Society to be the
most productive telescope of all time. Next years planned servicing
mission would extend the telescopes useful life by about five years. But
policies even those affecting scientific endeavors must account
for other considerations, including political, economic and social values.
Although OKeefe did not cite budgetary concerns and President Bushs
new space initiative (announced days before the Hubble decision) as motives
for the cancellation, it would have been reasonable for NASA to consider them
as well. As White House Science Advisor John Marburger affirmed in his rebuttal
to the UCS report: Even when the science is clear and often it
is not it is but one input into the policy process.
Science disengaged
The third situation is when scientists themselves perpetuate confusion that
misguides policy. For example, hydrologists have long known that the rate of
groundwater recharge has no bearing on water-table declines due to groundwater
pumping. Rather, it is the change in groundwater recharge and discharge
induced by pumping that determines the extent of water-table declines. Under
natural conditions, recharge and discharge roughly balance each other, resulting
in a stable water table over time. Groundwater pumping increases the discharge
rate. Only by correspondingly increasing recharge or decreasing natural discharge
can the water table restabilize. Yet, many water managers worldwide, ill-informed
by hydrologists (or in compliance with flawed regulations), routinely base their
annual withdrawal plans on total annual recharge, leading to undesirable water-table
declines.
Scientists imprecise use of language can similarly mislead policy-makers.
A recent, highly publicized U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) report, Estimated
Use of Water in the United States in 2000, carefully uses the word withdrawals
rather than consumption to describe water use. Unfortunately, the
press release from USGS used the words interchangeably, stating that despite
the increasing need for water, we have been able to maintain our consumption
at fairly stable levels for the past 15 years. Numerous publications (including
Geotimes online, March 19, 2004) regretfully repeated
the mistake in their own reports on the findings.
The distinction between withdrawal and consumption is critical because not all
water withdrawn from the hydrologic system is necessarily consumed. For example,
irrigated crops only evapotranspire, or consume, what they need; the rest may
return to rivers and aquifers as irrigation return flow. And the amount of water
that crops need to evapotranspire remains the same, regardless of the amount
applied. The fact that the irrigated area of the United States is increasing
means that consumption almost certainly is increasing as well. Increased consumption
explains why water tables continue to decline, despite the stable withdrawals
reported by USGS. The confusion between withdrawal and consumption lures policy-makers
into promoting expensive irrigation efficiency improvements such as drip and
sprinkler systems, even in places where the water saved would otherwise
replenish the hydrologic system. In many places, the saved water
has been used to expand the irrigated area, thus increasing water consumption
and exacerbating water shortages.
Recent publicity of the use of science in policy offers an opportune platform
from which to reflect not only on the issues raised by politicians and UCS,
but also on scientists own role in widening the gap between science and
policy. As geoscientists, we can welcome the public examination, but must also
realize that the critique cuts two ways.
Geotimes Home | AGI Home | Information Services | Geoscience Education | Public Policy | Programs | Publications | Careers |