Scientific Integrity, Statistical Evidence, and Public Policy
Scientific Integrity, Statistical Evidence, and Public PolicyStatistics has a long and proud role in quantifying scientific certainty arising from measurements that do not provide absolute proof, such as demonstrating the health effects of smoking, in the face of attempts by cigarette companies to cast doubt.It is therefore incumbent on statisticians to fight trends in Washington during the Bush administration, where scientific evidence was in an unprecedented number of areas, and the whole process by which scientific input is collected was changed in favor of political bias, and to work toward restoring accurate scientific input during the Obama administration. Areas of AbuseAreas in which scientific input was disregarded or distorted include:
Scientific Input in CongressFurthermore, the whole process by which scientific input inform policy changed, in Congress and the Bush administration.Congress shut down the non-partisan and highly regarded U.S. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) in favor of courtroom-style hearings with adversarial witnesses chosen by the majority party to give the impression they choose. The OTA was disbanded by a Congress upset by the OTA's summary of the scientific evidence against Star Wars. For more on the OTA see the June 2005 Scientific American. The OTA has been replaced with kangaroo courts like the Bush-era congressional hearings on global warming, in which two climate research contrarians with industry ties were invited to challenge one researcher (University of Virginia's Michael Mann), whose work has contributed to the overwhelming global scientific consensus on the issue. Naturally, the hearing did not convey the overwhelming consensus, but rather the impression of uncertainty and disagreement, and a score of 2-1 against climate change; see The Republican War on Science. Politicization of Scientific Input in the Bush AdministrationThe Bush administration used political criteria in place of scientific merit in creating scientific bodies:Industry Control over Scientific InputThe administration used the "Data Quality Act" to let industry prevent scientific evidence from being used: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3733-2004Aug15.htmlTerminologyThe Bush administration and its allies in Congress and elsewhere orchestrated the systematic use of the term "Junk Science" for scientific information in environmental or public safety realms that might be used to support increased regulation, and the term "Sound Science" for contrarian work.Speak Out - make it 15,001!It is important for all scientists, and statisticians in particular, to speak out for the use of objective scientific information and statistical weighting of evidence in public policy, and to speak against those who attempt to give the impression "considerable controversy" on issues such as global warming or health effects of second-hand smoke in the face of statistical significance and scientific consensus.The Union of Concerned Scientists Scientific Integrity site includes a statement signed over 15,000 scientists, including 49 Nobel Laureates, 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science, almost 200 members of the National Academies. Scientists and Engineers for America, www.sefora.org, is a new group working to promote scientific integrity, and highights tight political races where there is a clear distinction between candidates who care about science and those that have an anti-science agenda. Further InformationFor additional information, see
|
