How industry hijacked 'sound science'

[pmbryant]

From an op-ed in the New Orleans Times-Picayne: Jan 29 2003

How industry hijacked 'sound science'

Thursday January 29, 2004
Oliver Houck

(snip)

Time was, science took the lead in America's environmental policy. Rachael Carson, Barry Commoner and other researchers sounded the alarm, and others went on to point out exactly what needed fixing and how.

Then industry got wise. Science turned out to have one big problem: definitive proof. Any standard it set was disputable by other scientists; any theory of causation it posited raised a host of other theories. Maybe we didn't need to phase all the lead out of gas, just some of it. Maybe it wasn't shell dredging that tore up Lake Pontchartrain, but the wind.

These challenges are the hallmark of science. They keep it honest and produce constant discoveries. However, to decision-makers who require irrefutable proof, the uncertainty is fatal. In something as controversial as an ozone standard, if you can't fix a numerical level and defend it against all others, the standard is doomed.

Those who opposed environmental policy learned to exploit this weakness. The old water and air pollution control acts stalled over scientific controversies, followed by laws governing toxins, pesticides and hazardous waste. Put to the rigors of absolute proof, they could not hold. For this reason, America's mainline environmental programs took a different turn and resorted to other means to achieve their goals.

We now see a return to science, not for the purpose of environmental protection but rather to defeat it. Consider the advice of Frank Luntz, a presidential and congressional strategist, on the growing problem of climate change: "Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community," he advised members of Congress and the administration. Thus, "you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty the primary issue in the debate."

(snip)

What do you think when you hear the terms "sound science" and "junk science"?

What do most other people think when they hear those terms?

So how do we combat this and discredit this movement to distort the scientific process and misrepresent scientific opinion? Do we need our own bumpersticker-buzzwords, to compete with the ones that the GOP corporatists have hijacked?

--Peter

[Don_G]

1. In A Similar Situation

I'm trying to get a Costco in my city.

The "powers that be" can't guartentee anything unless they have 16 acres of fallow ground available in an area of 465 square miles with the tax-benefits that Wal-Mart and others demands.

Maybe Target and Wal-Mart demands concessions, but I've to Chicago and Costco demands the same thing under both the unions opinion and whatever whatever they have to offer as an "employer."

Before you accept an opinon as fact, may I say that I was I was employed as a
Telephone Installer/Repairman during the Regan/Bush years and I haven't been happy with the politics since they've told me "It shoudn't' more than more than three times more than your momthly bill.

[HereSince1628]

2. Scientists/statisticians are like lawyers...they work for both sides

You might also remember that figures don't lie but advocates figure

Even in the best of worlds, policy isn't based on "facts" so much as it is a compromise between what should be done with what can be done.

Both "should" and "can" are subject to political will.

[cprise]

3. Here is your answer

This guy is a professor?? His head is in an environmental fog and I see big trouble if well-meaning scientists and policymakers keep thinking like this.


1) Under NO conditions does science operate under any 'knowledge' of absolute certainty. You want scientific determinism? Go back to the Soviet Union. He and others need to be blunt with neocons on this point; we lambasted the Soviets for "absolute certainty" quackery, and our current politicians deserve no less for trying to re-package it and sell it to us.

Scientific analysis deals with probabilities to determine risks.


2) Environmentalism is based on the precautionary principle. If you do not understand it or cannot assert it, then you are NO environmentalist of professor of environmental studies. When there is a risk to the environment from a particular physical activity, that risk must be weighed against our interests and the continued health of the environment; if the risk is too great, then we must scale back or ban the activity as a precaution.

It is therefore the burden of industrialists to prove that their innovations are safe (not too risky) for the environment, against skepticism from academia and government.

What we have now is a backwards regulatory environment. Multinational corporate interests trump all others, including environmental health. No new environmentalist or regulatory activity can take place until industrialists/Wall St. determines it is absolutely no risk to their bottom lines.

[pmbryant]

5. A little confused

This guy is a professor?? His head is in an environmental fog and I see big trouble if well-meaning scientists and policymakers keep thinking like this.

The fellow who wrote the op-ed I cited is apparently a law professor. What are your problems with his thinking exactly? I don't understand what your complaints are right now, since from the rest of your post I think you are in agreement with both me and him.

--Peter

[Beetwasher]

4. Insanely Important Issue!

Thanks for the link.

This is a play to really change our society at it's fundamental underpinnings...