What's Hot & What's Not

A post on TV got a long comment on the state of TV and the US. Just after that, I attended a talk by Benn Tannenbaum (I think video is supposed to be eventually posted). I've known him since he was a post-doc on CDF; he has made a gentle career correction and now works at the American Association for the Advancement of Science -- mostly on science and policy (he has done a lot of work putting together the Center for Science, Technology, and Security Policy).

In his slides he had a good view of how policy in Washington sometimes looks to a scientist. It was his "Hot or Not" slide:

Hot:

• Bankruptcy
• Social Security & Medicare
• Bioshield II
• BRAC
• Veterans
• Budget
• Terry Schiavo
• Steroids in baseball

WARM:

• Reliable Replacement Warheads
• RNEPs
• Cybersecurity
• Boarder Control
• Nuclear Testing
• Intelligence Reform
• Port Security
• Force Protection
• Iraq
• Iran
• North Korea
• Bolton Nomination
• Missile Defense
• Space Weapons
• Expanding CTR
• Biosecurity

Update: Added a link to CSTSP.

Comments

[Benn Tannenbaum]

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on my list. Would you change it, based on what you hear in that other Washington? And, if you were the person who set topics for debate, what would they be?

[Gordon Watts]

In general, I think basic research is missing from the list. But perhaps it is hidden under the Budget discussions.

If you are talking from the point of view of policy and funding initiatives (arms control, etc.) then your list is very close to mine: I'd have to really think a while before I came up with other things.

It isn't at all clear how you get Congress -- or the nation -- to focus on any of these debates. In fact, I'm not even sure you'd want the same sort of light that Teri's case is getting: by the time it makes it that big there is little more for discussion; it is mostly yelling.

[Benn Tannenbaum]

I think you've identified a huge problem: there's been no real public debate on government funding of research-- should it fund research at all, to what degree, what should be funded, and what should be done with the results? At present, we see declining budgets and the "cherrypicking" of somewhat obscure research to make political hay. I'm thinking in particular of certain staffers poking around in the NIH budget for research they find objectionable (studies on sexual behavior...)

[aalu paneer]

disclaimer: i am an indian and hindu

"It isn't at all clear how you get Congress -- or the nation -- to focus on any of these debates."

1. write a book on how indian and chinese sweatlabs are doing basic research under the nose of america current distracted in saving the world. unless america rolls up it sleves the its "life, liberty and livelihood" would be under attack. go to lou dobbs show.

2. Create a logo with "BASIC RESEARCH" using red, blue and white with random stars in it

3. Become a preacher and say "God" talks to you and says that the reason He gave the US of A "american ingenutiy" was to enable basic research in this great land from california to virgin islands. get a TV show.

4. have one of the "desperate housewives" fall for a particle physicts

5. have a nano-tech "geek" build a monster truck on TV while fitting in basic research plugins.

6. stop using the word science and start using research

7. ban white coats from labs (or the perception of that) and promote military fatigues

...

hope you get the drift. use the current "in"-s to promote rather than look for good ideas.

[Lynn]

"have one of the "desperate housewives" fall for a particle physicts"

That is by far the funniest thing I've heard all night!!! And I've been listening to Mitch Hedberg and Eddie Izzard (stand-up comics for those of you who aren't familiar) for the last three hours!

I'm seconding the motion. We need a particle physicist on Desperate Housewives. Either that, or one needs to solve crimes on CSI. I'm not one for much TV, but I might plug mine back in if we staged a physicists' reality show...

[Toby Burnett]

Back to Benn's talk, which I also attended. I was struck that a talk about the role of scientists in helping to formulate government policy made only a passing mention about the current frigid relations between the administration and our community. The situaion is made very clear by the statement by the Union of Concerned Scientists, see the report on Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policymaking,
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1320
Benn must be very aware of this, but did not want to discourge us!

[Benn Tannenbaum]

I did mention the UCS report-- but I feel that it makes it much harder for scientists to get much attention in DC. UCS has known politics: they're very left of center. Further, there's a belief in this town (i.e. DC) that all scientists are liberals. This paints science into a political corner, allowing it to be dismissed by those with different political views. While many scientists are liberal or Democrats, many others-- particularly as one moves towards more applied sciences-- are not.

UCS issued a report, and the President's science advisor Jack Marburger rebutted each and every point. Yes, UCS issued a re-rebuttal of Marburger's letter, but nothing changed. Did this really help things? I think not, as it allowed the Administration to say that they'd addressed the concerns of the scientists. What's more, many of the same individuals that signed the UCS letter went on to work with a group called "Scientists and Engineers for Change", a 527 that worked on behalf of the Kerry campaign. This allowed Republicans to point at the letter and say "see, this was all just political".

Instead, scientists and engineers need to work on creating their own space to work on these issues-- to point out what facts are irrefutable, what are mostly certain, and what in question. That's why I suggested that people get to know their local journalists and to demand better science in the media. That way, when someone talks about the "theory of evolution", you can talk about what "theory" really means in the context of science-- as opposed to the notion of theory that most people use and really is a hypothesis. That also means that when someone talks about missile defense that's, say 50% successful in shooting down a missile, you can talk about how that means it doesn't take 4 defensive missiles to shoot down 2 incoming missiles with 100% certainty, but rather many 10s of missiles.

[Tim Burnett]

It would be a tragic thing if our scientific experts got backed into a political corner to the extent that they were afraid to speak up when policy based on bad science is being promoted. I think scientists need to have faith in the intelligence of the American people - yes the level of scientific literacy is not what we might wish for, but I think that science is more objectively "true" than the opinions of politicians is still widely understood. I strongly disagree with Mr. Tannenbaum's apparent point of view that scientists should be quieter and more skillful in their politics. I think they should be louder, more clear, and more direct. I think they should not allow the debate to be framed by the Bush Administration. The Democrats lost the White House in this last election largely because they let the language and the framework of the conversation about politics be controlled by the Republicans. I would hate for the scientific community to fall into the same trap. If the science of this Administration is completely outrageous I think it is the democratic responsibility of all knowledgeable experts to speak up and speak loud, regardless of whether it backfires in the short term with the power brokers in Washington. Let's not cede the country to them!

[Benn Tannenbaum]

For the record, it's Dr. Tannenbaum.

Go back and read what I wrote. I didn't say that anyone should cede the debate. What I said was that scientists should frame the debate in a way that they control it! Don't let people who aren't scientists tell you what you can and cannot talk about-- and when they're wrong, let them know.

But tell me, Tim, why shouldn't scientists be more skillful in their politics? We've become a much more political country in the past few years, and it seems that you're advocating that people just scream and yell as it pleases them. That helps no one-- and if it's done in a politically tone deaf way (as happens far too often), the message and the messenger are simply dismissed. Who does that really help?

[Gordon Watts]

I find I agree and disagree with Tim.

First, as a scientist who wants to get the research done, I need to find ways to work with those that control the purse strings. In that sense, I want to temper my conversation and focus on what I want to get done. This means I might find myself ignoring issues that involve the use of bad science. For example, I remember sitting in a congress member's office a few years ago advocating basic science research and funding. We actually met with the congressman (which doesn't happen often). We spent half the time talking about increasing funding for basic research -- something he was very much in favor of -- and the other half him lecturing my partner and I on how wrong the science behind global warming was. My partner and I spent most of our time trying to get him to talk about basic research and not the global warming.

On the other hand, when talking to reporters or talking to people I feel the approach you suggest, Tim, is correct. We (scientists) shouldn't be tone deaf, as Benn points out but we should certianly speak out about bad science. I think the thing we have to change is how we communicate that. Tim -- you are right -- the American public in general is quite smart -- and one thing we've been bad at is coming up with arguments that are concise and easy to understasnd for someone who hasn't gone through years of training.

Take the magnetic bracelet for example. As a scientist I say "no way". But how do I explain that? How can I say there is proof? Some one else can always reply: you don't know how to measure the effect yet! And the key is convincing the public that the effect we can't measure is the effect that doesn't matter. There is always doubt; and it is very easy to take advantage of that for someone who wants to believe.

[Tim Burnett]

Points well taken. (And my appologies to Dr. Tannenbaum for using the wrong title.) When I say that scientists should not focus on being more skillful in their politics I think I meant they should not participate in politics in the same way the politicians do. So skillful politics from scientists should feel like a completely different animal from conventional politics. Perhaps what I am getting at is scientists need to invent their own effective politics which differentiates them as relatively impartial and more objective than the politics of politicians. And from there comes power to oppose bad policy with scientific understanding. That is what will be effective. In short, trying to fight them at their own game is doomed to failure. Because they are very good at their own game. I am thinking about finding ways to change and "subvert" the debate in a way that rises above that debate.

And Gordon makes the excellent point that when speaking to the public and to politicians scientists need to use different language. Perhaps what we need is for scientists to focus most on language - what is the effective language in speaking to politicians or to the media? What is strong and backed by our scientific understanding. It's easy in conventional speach for scientists to undermine the objectivity and relative certainty of science with whishy washy, if accurate, language about uncertainty. It's a question of which truth to emphasize: that we are very sure (but never certain) that such is the case.

Anyway I'm rambling clearly, and just as clearly I am an an outsider here, though as you probably guessed I have family on the inside. The point of my first post really was to say that something in Dr. Tannenbaum's approach and argument feels, from the outside, worrysome to me as an intelligent outsider wishing that government policy were based on good science. I shall consider that responsibility discharged and not debate the finer points. It's a tough time for everyone in the political world just now, no? Good luck to you both and thank you for your efforts.