Science advice and democracy

James Wilsdon and Robert Doubleday have edited a collection of essays on scientific advice in government. There are contributions from Pielke Jr, Beddington, Hulme and Alice Bell, among others.

The document is here.

Comments

[Richard Drake]

I was going to share this in the Thatcher and peace discussion thread but I think it may be more relevant here. This was Robert May's tribute to Margaret Thatcher in the Lords last week.

My Lords, among the many tributes that Lady Thatcher received in her lifetime, she especially valued her election as an honorary fellow of the Royal Society, and I think that she would be very cross if that were not mentioned on this occasion.

Lady Thatcher was, of course, a science graduate from Oxford, studying under, and doing research with, the Nobel laureate Dorothy Hodgkin. At the Royal Society event celebrating her election, with uncharacteristic self-deprecation, she observed that this validated her career choice, because she doubted whether she would have been elected a fellow of the Royal Society for her research in chemistry.

Over the past two centuries, the Royal Society has elected very few Prime Ministers as honorary fellows, but Lady Thatcher richly deserved this recognition for the way she promoted and enlarged the voice of science, and science advice, in government. It is easy to forget the huge importance in the immediate aftermath of World War II of having good science and the voice of science influencing the Cabinet. The presence in the Cabinet Office of a first-rate scientist-distinguished and effective-as Chief Scientific Adviser had declined. In the 1970s, the office of Chief Scientific Adviser had declined to an informal one-or-two-day-a-week meeting with the policy unit in the Cabinet Office.

Lady Thatcher turned that around. She appointed a distinguished scientist and industrialist from Pilkington glass, Sir Robin Nicholson, and reversed that trend. She also valued, and indeed established, ACOST, the Advisory Council on Science and Technology, and frequently chaired it, which no subsequent Prime Minister has done.

In summary, we all know what a remarkable woman Lady Thatcher was, but we need more commonly to include and recognise her interest in and commitment to science as one of her remarkabilities, if I may coin a word. It certainly should be so recognised.

No mention of global warming at all, which I thought was pretty striking. But is May right to say the role of scientific advisers had dwindled compared to the aftermath of World War II and Thatcher had revived it? After all Harold Wilson set up the post of chief scientific adviser in 1964. I'd be interested to hear from those who've been there or thereabouts in Whitehall for their view on this.

[Philip Neal]

"The Case for a Chief Social Scientist":

"Departmental scientific advisers are currently
rooted in the physical, life and medical sciences. Inevitably, this restricts
their ability to draw on the insights that the social science community can
offer because it is not their area of expertise.... Diagnosing the causes
of the riots which occurred in England in 2011 and framing appropriate
media and policy responses is a classic case where senior level input from
a chief social scientist could have helped politicians and police chiefs alike
to a broader view than that these were simply acts of violence perpetrated
by a criminal and feral underclass. Another example would be in respect of
current plans to discontinue the census in its current form."

I.e. post-normal science is to be entrenched in the permanent institutions
of government.

[MarkJ]

The contrast between the reasonable treatment and recognition of uncertainty and views outside the IPCC consensus by Mike Hulme and the full on activist regurgitation of Bob Watson are nicely displayed with one following the other. One an experienced academic, the other...?

[ConfusedPhoton]

"The single-minded drive for an exclusionary consensus was the true tragedy
of Climategate. Not that the emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)
revealed any fundamental faking of substantive data or fraudulent practice, "

I am sure many people will have a different view of the Climategate emails and whether they exposed fraudulent behaviour or not. Same "old boys" climate network here.

[Brent Hargreaves]

The paper is quite a mixed bag. I would pick out the following highlights:

Science advice in many domains is discussed - not just climate - and Einstein is quoted as saying that physics is much more straightforward than politics.

Roger Pielke and UEA's Mike Hulme address directly the topic of scientific advice to government. Hulme uses the IPCC to illustrate the wider issue but then stays stuck on the subject of climate. He argues powerfully that the IPCC's suppression of minority views (as revealed by Climategate) reduced its credibility.

Bob Watson's contribution (from the Tindall Centre) is a hoot! His answer to the question, "What is the role of science advice in a democracy" is to snarl that the science is settled you plebs. His first sentence begins, "Human activities are altering the Earth system...", and his last two go, "We already know enough to act. Failure to do so will impoverish current and future generations." With so much waffle about "cross-scale spacial and temporal dimensions of the social-environment interactions...." I do wonder if such a cluttered brain still has room for Newton's laws and, like, numbers. /sarc

[Brent Hargreaves]

Two more highlights: Retired GCSA John Beddington speaks in glowing terms of the benefits of multidisciplinary teams (in general) and then (surprise surprise) turns to the subject of climate: "We brought together 350 leading experts [on Migration and Global Environmental Change] to look 50 years into the future... the report revealed (sic) that we have so far underestimated... and that millions will (sic) be 'trapped' in vulnerable areas and unable to move..." Bedders presents this as a palpable success. Words fail me.

Geoff Mulgan from a charity called NESTA: In discussing the demand/supply of advice, "Take energy. I twice had to oversee reviews of energy policy... very different goals... ensuring affordable energy, energy security, and protecting the world from catastrophic climate change. Scientific method cannot tell us which of these goals is more important. This is a matter for judgment and wisdom." Who can dispute the last sentence?! Or is this the point: without any grasp of the duff climatology, policy wonks like Mulgan have chaired meetings which result in closure of badly-needed power stations. Judgment and wisdom? Ill-judged and un-wise!!!

By way of contrast I would recommend a book, "Most Secret War" by Dr. R.V.Jones who, with a tiny staff, gave Churchill brilliant and actionable advice on V-weapons, aircraft navigation technology, radar and countermeasures. Today's armies of rent-seeking advocates are not fit to wipe Jones's boots.

[Richard Drake]

Brent, thank you for mentioning RV Jones and the other scientific advisers to Churchill. Since listening to Robert May I've been thinking back to those days. Frederick Lindemann was of course another crucial component of the Churchill story. We need to learn really deeply from some of this history. Thank goodness we have it to learn from.

[Ruth Dixon]

I'd also recommend 'Slide Rule' by Nevil Shute - an autobiographical account of his work on the commercial R100 airship in competition with the Air Ministry's ill-fated R101.

This post gives a good summary of the story: http://humanachievements.blogspot.co.uk/2005/09/slide-rule-by-nevil-shute.html

[Evil Denier]

Apr 18, 2013 at 10:18 AM | MarkJ

One an experienced academic, the other...?

a PR flack?