A Question of Leadership

People who deal in certainties have a great disregard for the practice of science and its culture of "provisional truth." Creationists love to debate evolutionists because responsible scientists qualify their statements and make tentative claims while creationists make bald-faced assertions of "facts" (their "facts" suitably twisted or removed from context, as we have seen time and again). As the evidence of global warming has grown and become more unmistakable, mainstream climatologists have always been vulnerable to the question "But are you sure?" If you say you're 99% certain, they seize on the complementary 1% and cry "How can we base national policy on an uncertainty?"

Is this just a cynical ploy? For some, probably. But I suspect that Bush and many of his minions really disdain scientific consensus as too mushy and speculative to take seriously. They think that all you have to do is wait till the scientists change their minds again. And even if the scientists are right, they're just alarmists whose warnings can be ignore till our great-great-grandchildren have to address the problem, maybe. If ever. [sigh]

NASA watch just reported that NASA PAO is hiring another political appointee for the "National Public Affairs" slot vacated by Mr Deutsch

The fish rots from the head down.

I think the conservative belief that government can do no real good (Reagan's "government is the problem") also plays a part. In the recent NASA stories, we've heard of political PR appointees who believe the agency's job is "to make the President look good," and therefore see nothing wrong with suppressing information that will make him look bad. If you fundamentally believe that all taxes are theft and nothing government does actually benefits the people, that can easily lead to an inability to see that government research is paid for by the people and belongs to them, not to the President.

This may be completely unrelated, but I was wondering if you've heard of the "Brights" thing that Dawkins et al are doing and what your opinion was on it.

A former Dean (or perhaps President) of Warwick University once said that he hated scientists on his committees because .."you never know where they stand on anything. Give them more data and they may change their minds." I am no doubt paraphrasing but I understand that he got the joke but a lot of politicians wouldn't even know it was a joke. The sceintific world view is at odds with the "certainty" of people that never have to prove anything or pay any attention to disturbing data. Truthiness is enough for those folks.

I've always been of this opinion: If hired flacks are necessary to make someone look good, (s)he probably isn't.

This is absolutely correct. The attitude is clear at the top. The underlings sense that, are emboldened, and know what to do.

The problem is not just disregard for science. The problem is disregard for any disconfirming information, regardless of origin.

Fox News exists because there are enough conservatives that only want to get information that confirms their existing beliefs.

There is a Republican war on science because science does more damage to Republican beliefs--global warming, evolution, etc.... The war is on disconfirming information GENERALLY. Chris does the world a great service by looking at how this affects SCIENCE, but the problem extends well beyond the natural sciences.

The refusal to address disconfirming evidence was evident in the build-up to the Iraq war. It is evident in conservatives holding onto their economic orthodoxies, despite all evidence to the contrary (raising the minimum wage rasies unemployment and cutting taxes increases government revenue because of economic growth).

In my mind, the problem goes well beyond science and is very very very troubling.

I just finished blogging on yet another post on a Kauffman Foundation report about how the US is falling behind in science as US companies are opening new R&D units offshore, principally to China and India. The companies' top reasons for moving their R&D operations are not because foreign labor is cheaper, but because of intellectual property restrictions with US universities and restrictions on immigration by the US government, not to mention the overall erosion of scientific education in the US.

Solutions have to come from the top. Aside from encouraging the current administration to change its ways, we should be looking to the next election and see which candidates are going to take a stand for improving science education and investment in the US.

In Rick Kupchella's Climate Change Forum, Rick wrote:

"where's the leadership?" is a question i was asked repeatedly during the course of putting this story together.

Rick is a news anchor for Kare11 in the Twin Cities. His Climate Change Forum was for the public was on Feb 9, 2006, at: http://www.kare11.com/cs/forums/

The discussion went like this:

rk - I have a question for you guys here... Does anybody know why it is that there's not: more development of alternative fuel sources than there is already? and/or why we haven't seen more development of carbon sequestration programs in this country. i know they're "out there" - in the works... but none of it seems very well advanced.

pat n - There's been a drag on the development and use of alternative fuels because there is no leadership in the U.S. to encourage action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Without leadership in government, people will not act. The government refuses to acknowledge the facts about global warming and regional climate and hydrologic change in the Upper Midwest, even punishing their own employees for not following a "policy" of being noncommittal about climate change and global warming.

rk - there's certainly been a lot made of this issue in recent weeks... the new york times had another piece just yesterday.
reality is - it's not limited to particular political parties/administrations. clinton was the one who proposed a 'carbon tax' a decade or so back... and the democrats were very much involved in the death of that idea. "where's the leadership?" is a question i was asked repeatedly during the course of putting this story together.

Now, please look at this:

Testimony of James R. Mahoney, Ph.D. Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere ... , 20 July 2005. ... "I am very pleased to have this opportunity to describe the progress of the Administration?s climate science program as well as the NOAA Climate Program and its contribution to CCSP. " ...
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/testimony20jul2005-mahoney.htm

Is it really fair of us to ask: "where's the leadership?"

What do you have to say about the leadership in the U.S. on climate change ... after reading the Testimony of James R. Mahoney, Ph.D.?

In the current climate, it would certainly appear that anyone who disagrees with the offical "Bush" doctrine is unceremoniously shown to the door.

So, it is really no surprise that the vast majority of career people (scientists and others) choose to keep their mouth shut. Some have dedicated their lives to their jobs and they know how quicky the political winds can shift. So why SHOULD they be the ones to put THEIR career on the line for some problem that may "disappear" tomorrow?

What is perhaps MOST surprising in the extreme climate that currently exists is that there are still people -- like Rick Piltz, James Hansen and a few others -- who speak trutgh to power.

Luckily, there is a positive feedback here. We have seen this over the past two weeks at NASA -- after James Hansen finally said "enough is enough" and went to the NY Times. (By the way, do you really suppose Hansen would have resorted to this if he had felt that NASA management was listening to and adressing his concerns?)

I know that this may not be a likely scenario (probably about as likely as term limits for members of Congress), but I would say that the best way to address the "audacity of political appointees" is to simply ELIMINATE them (figuratively speaking, of course) -- at the very least from the scientific agencies within our government.

Even if one does not eliminate political appointees entirely, there is no reason that one can not still require that they meet certain minimum qualifications.

This is just common sense.

But sadly, it goes ignored all too often. Just to give one example, America has had more than one EPA head with absolutely NO background in environmental science.

The head of an agency like EPA should CERTAINLY have a degree in environmental science (at a minimum) and the head of FDA should be an MD (at a minimum).

Mark,
I think the Brights thing is just silly:
http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/brights/

Does anyone know of any studies of the relative rise in political appointees in the government over time? I bet the number is increasing, and I bet it would be a very revealing subject to study.

In agree that "nobody likes a smart ass".

There is reason to believe that the inverse may also be true.

So, if they want people to like them (and perhaps even listen to them ) perhaps the "Brights" should call themselves the "Nitwits".

"Between 1980 and 1992, the ranks of political appointees grew by 17 percent, over three times as fast as the total number of Executive Branch employees." http://www.senate.gov/~feingold/issues_appointees.html

Thanks, that Feingold thing is interesting, but someone must have #s more recent than 1980-1992.

Here's a paper by David E. Lewis (Princeton University)
http://www.wws.princeton.edu/research/papers/09_05_dl.pdf
that includes the statement that "programs administered by political appointees still get systematically lower grades than those run by careerists"

The paper also gives the number of presidential appointees at about 3200 for 2004 by the way, based on data from www.fedscope.opm.gov.

One interesting observation/conclusion by the author is the following:

"Two of the primary advantages of political appointees are their higher levels of education and their previous experience working in the political branches. Neither of these characteristics improved performance on PART" ("a management grading scheme used by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) to evaluate the management quality of federal programs numerically."

I do not believe that this means that the level of scientific knowledege of managers of scientifc agencies is irrelevant, however.

On the contrary. In the particular case of management of scientific organizations (NASA, USGS, EPA, etc), I would suspect that the level of SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE (gained through a combination of experience and education) is most likley important to the effective management of the organization.

David Lewis wrote a book on agency design, focusing in particular on appointee leadership vs. civil servant leadership. "Presidents and the Politics of Agency Design: Political Insulation in the United States Government Bureaucracy, 19461997." The book has received very good reviews, though I haven't read it myself.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0804745900/sr=8-1/qid=1140299591/ref=s…

Laurence, thanks for pointing out Rick Piltz to me. I missed or didn't know of Rick Piltz and his willingness to be honest and speak up. I did a Google on his name and read a couple articles, including one by Chris. I hope that Rick is satisfied that he did the right thing for himself and those who may be close to him (family?). You pointed out Jim Hansen "and a few others". Who are the "others" that you know of (only if you don't think they'd mind it if you said their names here). I think you could find out some stuff about me if you did a Google search on my name and Hydrologist and or NWS. Not that it matters anymore, but my words our my own.

Bush has misrepresented science? You may as well accuse Fred Flintstone of incorrectly describing Einstein's , Special Theory. How can anyone doubt that your curent President is a follower whose only personal input is a desire to appear important in a military way. He is like "Dickie" mountbatten, just find a really outrageously gaudy uniform and the only problem you will have is restraining him from wearing it.
What is much more important is , just who is currently in charge of the USA? Historically it has functioned on consensus easily determined by the conversation at a half dozen or so men's clubs in the major cities, readily checked by looking at a copy of a standard text, from the Wall Street Journal on the bottom to Foreign Affairs near the top , though there is an alarming tendency to rate "top" with bank publications. When the Chase Manhattan put up a new headquaters building 40 years ago, they bragged that they had vaults in a sub basement that would preserve documents from an atomic blast.
Civilian control still seems to be solid, but there is no sign of departure from the global empire grabbing oil policy that has led to Iraq and the present price for oil. And there is no sign of any departure from the decade's economic policies despite the astonishing deficit with Asia. In fact there is even a seriously presented claim to make THAT go away by pretending that it does not exist (we will invent economic dark matter and that will balance the deficit). In the total absence of any vision from the Republicans, and the total abandonment of any policy at all from the Democrats, you have no politics. Even the flag of free trade, continually waved a few years back, has been largely abandoned as the population and business look at the China price and move vaguely towards protection. Meanwhile one country after another is conceiving the idea that the USA is a paper tiger. The rich of one failed state after another, all of whom end up as clients of your childish yet murderous CIA, all excape to the USA as the political ground opens up beneath them. Where will your rich go.
Given this scene how on earth can a real environmental policy get formed, never mind getting it
off the ground. The USA looks to be sinking amid a quarrelsome and utterly self concerned population dumbed down to consumer status. You seem to be on automatic, and the plane is flying steadily down into a swamp. The thing is, just how do we get off.

"... the head of FDA should be an MD (at a minimum)...."

That's an important "minimum". Possession of an MD alone is no guarantee that the person is qualified to conduct or evaluate research. Medical students have to take many basic science courses both before and during medical school, and have to do well in undergraduate science courses before being considered for med-school admission. But, not all medical students or physicians have research experience. A person with an advanced degree in pharmacology, nutrition, or microbiology might be a better bet.