Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Dork Sahagian
Lehigh University
Science was first developed to address societal needs.
ArchimedesNewton
Galileo
Aristotle
Da VinciCurie
Einstein
Hawking
Science developed to serve an evolving society
ArchimedesNewton
Galileo
Aristotle
Da VinciCurie
Einstein
Hawking
Plag
Science developed to serve an evolving society
20th Century Scientists Served Industrialization
An open world, ready for exploitation!
21st Century Scientists Face Greater ChallengesA closed world, unable to provide materials or absorb wastes.
FIRE
How has Science Served Society?
FIRE
How has Science Served Society?
FIRE THE PLOW
How has Science Served Society?
FIRE THE PLOW ELECTRICITY
How has Science Served Society?
How has Science Served Society?
FIRE THE PLOW ELECTRICITYMEDICINE
The Millennial Scientific Transition
“INDUSTRIALISTS”
Exploiting resources forEconomic development
“PHYSICIANS”
Repairing the damage done by 20th century industrialization
20th century 21st century
13 13
(Really) OldToday Time
Stable
Unstable
“History is a race between education and catastrophe.” – H. G. Wells
60K Years of Climate Variability
Number of Natural Disasters
Recurrent Flooding in Norfolk, Virginia
The Center for Sea Level Rise
Homebase for Intergovernmental Pilot Project
Great idea. All about ADAPTATION.
Any news on Mitigation?....
Hmmm…..
Ecosystem provides goods and services at a fixed rate.
We live off the “interest” represented by that rate.(Think “trust funds kids”)
20th century industrialization enabled us to eat into principal
21st century science must find greater yield from less principal
Fossil Fuels and Stolen Cell Phones
What is cheaper?
In 2000, IGBP/GAIM posed 23 questions to challenge Earth system scientists of the 21st century…
David Hilbert
19th century mathematician who challenged 20th century scientists with 23 very difficult math problems. Most have now been answered.
Analytical Questions-Basic science issues. (What do we need to know?)
Operational Questions-How should we proceed? (What do we need to do to start getting answers to the analytical questions? What theoretical, observational, and analytical advances are needed?)
Normative Questions-What do we want? (What drives what we do about anything, given what we may know or learn about the Earth System?)
Strategic Questions-How do we get what we want?(Policy? Behavior? Planning?)
23 Hilbertian Questions23 Hilbertian QuestionsAnalytical Questions:1. What are the vital organs of the ecosphere in view of operation and evolution?
2. What are the major dynamic patterns, teleconnections and feedback loops in the planetary machinery?
3. What are the critical elements (thresholds, bottlenecks, switches) in the Earth System?
4. What are the characteristic regimes and time-scales of natural planetary variability?
5. What are the anthropogenic disturbance regimes and teleperturbations that matter at the Earth-System level?
6. Which are the vital ecosphere organs and critical planetary elements that can be transformed by human action?
7. Which are the most vulnerable regions?
8. How are abrupt and extreme events processed through nature-society interactions?
Operational Questions:9. What are the principles for constructing "macroscopes", i.e., representations of the Earth System that aggregate away the details while retaining all systems-order items?
10. What levels of complexity and resolution have to be achieved in Earth System modelling?
11. Is it possible to describe the Earth System as a composition of weakly coupled organs and regions, and to reconstruct the planetary machinery from these parts?
12. What might be the most effective global strategy for generating, processing and integrating relevant Earth System data sets?
13. What are the best techniques for analyzing and possibly predicting irregular events?
14. What are the most appropriate methodologies for integrating natural-science and social-science knowledge?
Normative Questions:15. What are the general criteria and principles for distinguishing non-sustainable and sustainable futures?
16. What is the carrying capacity of the Earth?
17. What are the accessible but intolerable domains in the co-evolution space of nature and humanity?
18. What kind of nature do modern societies want?
19. What are the equity principles that should govern global environmental management?
Strategic Questions:20. What is the optimal mix of adaptation and mitigation measures to respond to global change?
21. What is the optimal decomposition of the planetary surface into nature reserves and managed areas?
22. What are the options and caveats for technological fixes like geoengineering and genetic modification?
23. What is the structure of an effective and efficient system of global environment & development institutions?
See them on on IGBP/GAIM website
Goal: Eradicate Poverty. (Who could object to that?)
Agenda: Halt and reverse Climate Change. (Great idea!)
Problem: DIRECT CONFLICT!
Science cannot solve societal problems. Only PEOPLE can solve societal problems.
Recent disconnect between science and policy...
What kind of natural, social, and economic environments do we want for ourselves and our great-grandchildren?
What equity principles should be used for resource allocation?
Who should assume the risk (and cost) for known hazards?
Who should control policy decisions? What role should science (and scientists) play?
Our basic question begs a few other questions...
It sometimes comes as surprise to us that policy is developed with less than full attention paid to basic scientific principles...
Why don’t policy-makers and the general public place moreemphasis on scientific results?
Why do scientists have such difficulty talking to politicians?Who should the public trust in decision-making?
???
• “Smarts” - Integrating science into policy while maintaining expertise-based scientific legitimacy
• “Mine” - Lack of shared understanding of what science can offer and what policy needs for implementation and justification
• “Babble” - Language barriers- Scientists and policy-makers are driven by different incentives, are subject to different standards of evaluation, and operate on different time scales.
• “Risk” - Different perceptions of risks and vulnerabilities.
The issue involves some
Some concepts that bear on these tensions...
Just the facts, Ma’am.
-Joe Friday, 1951
Scientists know there is a fundamental truth that all seek.
“In science, the issue is not a witness’s credibility but his specific competence- his ability to establish scientific truth...”
“Policy analysis usually starts with plausible premises, with contestable and shifting viewpoints, not with indisputable principles or hard facts.”
-Majone, 1989
“I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore....whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.” [Newton, 1642-1727]
“Babble”
Scientists cope with uncertainty very differently than policy-makers- Quantitative vs. Qualitative- When we include error bars in measurement, it is quantitative- Policy views uncertainty differently- right or wrong or unsure
Scientific debate is sometimes confused with adversarial discourse- “Scientists can’t even agree, so how can they help develop policy?”
“Babble”“Mine”
“Things are, for each person, the way he perceives them.” [Plato, ~427-347 B.C.]
...and yet, scientists must be objective to be credible.
...cannot be perceived to be biased to support one set of values more than another.
“Smarts”“Risk”
Don’t you think we should put an air purifier in Junior’s room?
Public responds to risks it perceives or remembers and demands immediate solutions, even when other risks are far more threatening.
“Risk”
Lnguag Barries
• Scientists may assume that populace has rational values.
• Policy-makers may not believe that voters understand science.
• Priorities of people may be very different from what scientists value.
“Babble”“Mine”
LANGUAGE BARRIERS…
Scientists use some words in a very different way than the general public. This has led to problems and miscommunications, retarding public understanding of critical scientific results.
All science is based on specific and sometimes unstated assumptions
2+2=?
By presenting ALL risks and their consequences on timescales different than political processes, scientists lose credibility with policy-makers and the public.
“Mine” “Risk”
• Pass off data to policy-maker’s science advisor- Keeps scientist’s hands clean and “objective”
• Emphasize need to educate populace to think scientifically- “turn them all into scientists”
Traditional approach
Our traditional approach has been to:
• Policy-makers can find scientific data to support any position.- Interpretations are commonly politicized- Used to support values held by policy-makers
• We cannot transform the voting public into scientists.
By more effectively informing the policy process, we can
• help government fulfill its obligation to enhance quality of life and protect all citizens from environmental risk
• help develop more effective policy that accomplishes rational objectives while satisfying subjective values
• Equity in exposure to environmental risk
• Sustaining ecological conditions for future people to access the same (or better) quality goods and services as we do.
• Cultural connections to existing resources
• Religious commitments
• Protecting vulnerable populations
• Promoting economic growth to improve quality of life
Important Social Values to be enabled by Science
Yet we have dramatically failed on numerous occasions!
Example:
Some argued that New Orleans should NOT be reconstructed in its former location below sea level in a subsiding environment, in the face of sea level rise, and in the path of hurricanes.
We may think we know WHY people should not live in New Orleans for very rational reasons...
We also must know why people WANT to live there!
Dominant policy considerations are not purely rational.
Decisions are based on VALUES, not quantitative risk.
How do we balance rational scientific insights against subjective values?
Inform policy to develop in ways that reduce risk exposure in New Orleans...
OR
Convince populace that due to risks, they do not WANT to live there anymore...
OR
Suggest alternative solutions that satisfy basic values while minimizing risk.
For New Orleans, science could:
Scientific results MUST be translated for subjective application- Connect science to values of primary concern to policy-makers
WHO will translate rational results to subjective values?
- Scientist?- Politician?
Policy community has traditionally done the translation because we scientists have worried about losing objectivity.
Important issues get lost in translation
Science and scientists’ credibility is questioned. WHY?
Example: “Climategate” fiasco.
Question: What if scientists had the mindset of those who would hack into university emails to take words out of context for personal financial gain?
Science and scientists’ credibility is questioned. WHY?
Example: “Climategate” fiasco.
Question: What if scientists had the mindset of those who would hack into university emails to take words out of context for personal financial gain?
How can we maintain an informed public in spite of paid misinformation?
So why do some within society bite the hand that feeds them?
Are all “fed” the same?
Does science benefit some more than others?
• Direction (e.g. Normative questions)
• Mandate (Organized priorities)
• Resources (Funding!)
(and perhaps a bit of respect?)
• Interference
• Micromanagement
• Subcommittees
• Organize and articulate societal goals
• Strengthen the scientific community
• Promote short and long-term research
• Couch scientific results in societal terms
• The role of science has changed in the 21st century
• Must “live off the interest” provided by the global ecosystem
• Societal goals must be clarified; science must address them
• Scientists must speak the language of society (not vice-versa)
• Science is a critical part of society, not an adversary
Sustainability“Meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”
World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Commission), 1987
Can we cheat by declaring that future “needs” will be much less energy and resource intensive than our present needs?
