The Post-Normal Times

An interesting indicator of just how important blogging has become as a means of communication is that the prestigious scientific journal Nature has just published a fictional blog that projects the consequences of an outbreak of the Avian flu pandemic, and is providing free online access to a series of non-fictional articles on the topic. Revere, who has been blogging regularly on the subject, calls the fictional weblog, “highly realistic, absolutely convincing and for those reasons, very frightening.” This “blog” also includes “comments” from noted authorities. The conclusion to “Were we ready?” “Ready, my ass!”
Future scenarios is on the list of topics about which the Post-Normal Times will have more to say as time permits. In the meantime, just passing along a few links. My only comment for now is, are we ready to start being more proactive about developing the capacity to respond to complex and unprecedented problems?

An article in the current issue of Scientific American by David Michaels (not free but can be purchased online roughly at the newstand price), and commented on also by Revere at Effect Measure, makes a good case that the manufacture of doubt in scientific studies, which supports the “vilification of threatening research as “junk science,” and the corresponding sanctification of industry-commissioned research as “sound science” has become nothing less than standard operating procedure in parts of corporate America.” It also illustrates the kinds of statistical games that get played to make rates of a disease – such as lung cancer associated with Beryllium exposure, appear insignificant compared to background levels of lung cancer. In other words, creating noise to obfuscate a signal.
Ultimately, it comes down to how much and what kind of information is enough to support a decision, whether the information is of sufficient quality for the purpose, and who gets to decide. Under the Data Quality Act, passed without any hearings or debate as a “midnight rider” to the 2001 appropriations bill, the ultimate arbiter would be the White House Office of Management and Budget. According to Michaels, this act, together with proposed guidelines for “Peer Review and Information Quality” simply institutionalizes this new operating procedure, as it allows industry groups and anyone else to challenge the underliyng data that supports decisions and thereby delay regulatory action by requiring further study… (more)

Continue Reading »

A question that often comes up is whether there is such a thing as policy based on science or, in some cases, even on intelligence. Particularly when there is an elephant in the room (or at the table), who has already made up his mind what he is going to do, as was spelled out in The Downing Street Memo. So, in Post-Normal Times, we need to focus also on creating the context for good policy, perhaps as is depicted in Billmon’ s vision of 2010.

Over at Prometheus, Naomi Oreskes and Roger Pielke are being far too polite when they refer to arguments (of the so-called Climate Skeptics) about uncertainty and whether there is consensus about the science of climate change, as a proxy for political debates and as a distraction from real issues, such as how to best respond. As is explained in a previous post, given what we know, the above argument is simply a case of fraud and abuse, because it uses irrelevant technical-sounding debate that would never make it through peer review, as a stooge for a disagreement about values that are not widely shared. Polite scientific discourse only works when everybody accepts and follows the same rules of the game. Although not a perfect process, the rules of peer review are fine when there is an agreed upon definition of the problem. When there are value conflicts we enter the realm of science and policy, for which the rules are less well defined. Whether and how to best respond is a legitimate area of uncertainty and disagreement. We are in uncharted territory.
So, to get on with the real issues, first we need to respond to the denialists, not as a question of climate science but as one of fraud, or at best, delusion – that it doesn’t matter because human intellect and ingenuity are infallible. Note that I referred to “so-called” Skeptics because it is the role of scientists to be skeptical about anything until presented with evidence, which is a good thing. Then, when they actually reach a consensus it means we need to at least pay attention and take it seriously. It was once also the role of journalists, but I digress. One response would simply be to refer the so-called Climate Skeptics to a circle of Real Skeptics, who have just crossed into the Malebolge with the 8th edition of the Skeptics Circle, hosted by Pharyngula – a territory inhabited by strange devils who are standing by, ready to torment them. They ask, where are the environmentalists this time around, from whom they only have one accepted submission? Too late to submit this post but I do have a question regarding another issue of uncertainty.
There are 10 Bolge (aka, trenches) in the Malebolge, a place found in the 8th circle of Hell – as told by Dante – who actually made it there and back alive. In which of the Bolge should Climate-Skeptics be found?