Science Court: Scientists, Hazards, and Politics
The role of Cassandra can be as doomed in real life as in Greek trajedy. Scientists, especially Earth scientists, now frequently find themselves in the position of having to deliver some bad news that a lot of people don't want to hear.
The encounter of Hurricane Katrina with New Orleans is a classic case in point. The vulnerability of NO to more or less precisely the catastrophe that occurred was long predicted. Despite the warnings, oft repeated, the sins of commission and omission by the respective governments continued unabated until the water rolled in - and beyond.
This is hardly an isolated case. Another classic case was presented by the Mount Saint Helens volcanic eruption. In that case, the volcano had been giving plenty of signs of imminent eruption for weeks before the explosion, and the State and Federal governments evacuated several areas at risk. After a short period, homeowners in the evacuated areas, and especially the Weyerhouser timber company and its workers operating (or not operating) in the affected forests brought intense political pressure to lift the evacuation. Washington Governor Dixie Lee Ray caved in to the pressure, allowing home owners to go into retrieve personal items and the lumber companies to resume operations. Nature was relatively kind in this case, though. The volcano erupted on a Sunday, so the hundreds of timbermen who would otherwise have been killed were mostly off the job and out of the forest.
This last chapter of Kerry Sieh and Simon Levay's excellent The Earth in Turmoil: Earthquakes, Volcanoes, and Their Impact on Humankind is devoted to the economic and political dimensions of hazard mitigation. Any attempt to mitigate hazards will confront ignorance, stupidity, economic interests in the status quo, and the natural human tendency to value present savings over future benefits.
Some cases are genuinely difficult. At some time in the next hundred thousand years or so, one of the flanks of Mauna Loa in Hawaii will collapse, producing a tidal wave with runups of more than 1000 to 2000 feet, killing most of the people and destroying all the cities of the islands. One hundred thousand years is a long time though, so people will take their chances, but still it seems reasonable to try to sense any precursors there might be.
Another hard case is global warming. Here the time scale is more like 100 years, but the problem is what can be done and how much will it cost. Once again, powerful economic interests, namely the fossil fuel companies, very much don't want anything to happen that will decrease their near term profits. Consequently, they have invested a lot of money in sponsoring "scientists" and whole fake science institutes whose job is to try to discredit or at least cast doubt on any science endangering their client's profits. This technique was perfected by the tobacco companies, and seems to have been, at least in part, the brain child of neocon founding father Irving Kristol. The essential operating principle is also the basis of the whole Republican noise machine - don't try to confront or argue the facts, just put out enough noise to confuse everybody.
A long time ago, Edward Teller tried to popularize the idea of a science court, before which scientific controversies would be argued with strict rules of evidence, cross examination, and rules of procedure. In true scientific fashion, though, verdicts would only be in the minds of the listeners - the idea is to achieve clear presentation of the evidence, not a decision - that would have to be left to the political institutions.
This is still a good idea, and the web is probably a very good venue. Evidence could be presented in written format, questioners and cross examiners could have hours or days to prepare their material, and a permanent record, available to all, would be preserved.
Anybody else like this idea?
The encounter of Hurricane Katrina with New Orleans is a classic case in point. The vulnerability of NO to more or less precisely the catastrophe that occurred was long predicted. Despite the warnings, oft repeated, the sins of commission and omission by the respective governments continued unabated until the water rolled in - and beyond.
This is hardly an isolated case. Another classic case was presented by the Mount Saint Helens volcanic eruption. In that case, the volcano had been giving plenty of signs of imminent eruption for weeks before the explosion, and the State and Federal governments evacuated several areas at risk. After a short period, homeowners in the evacuated areas, and especially the Weyerhouser timber company and its workers operating (or not operating) in the affected forests brought intense political pressure to lift the evacuation. Washington Governor Dixie Lee Ray caved in to the pressure, allowing home owners to go into retrieve personal items and the lumber companies to resume operations. Nature was relatively kind in this case, though. The volcano erupted on a Sunday, so the hundreds of timbermen who would otherwise have been killed were mostly off the job and out of the forest.
This last chapter of Kerry Sieh and Simon Levay's excellent The Earth in Turmoil: Earthquakes, Volcanoes, and Their Impact on Humankind is devoted to the economic and political dimensions of hazard mitigation. Any attempt to mitigate hazards will confront ignorance, stupidity, economic interests in the status quo, and the natural human tendency to value present savings over future benefits.
Some cases are genuinely difficult. At some time in the next hundred thousand years or so, one of the flanks of Mauna Loa in Hawaii will collapse, producing a tidal wave with runups of more than 1000 to 2000 feet, killing most of the people and destroying all the cities of the islands. One hundred thousand years is a long time though, so people will take their chances, but still it seems reasonable to try to sense any precursors there might be.
Another hard case is global warming. Here the time scale is more like 100 years, but the problem is what can be done and how much will it cost. Once again, powerful economic interests, namely the fossil fuel companies, very much don't want anything to happen that will decrease their near term profits. Consequently, they have invested a lot of money in sponsoring "scientists" and whole fake science institutes whose job is to try to discredit or at least cast doubt on any science endangering their client's profits. This technique was perfected by the tobacco companies, and seems to have been, at least in part, the brain child of neocon founding father Irving Kristol. The essential operating principle is also the basis of the whole Republican noise machine - don't try to confront or argue the facts, just put out enough noise to confuse everybody.
A long time ago, Edward Teller tried to popularize the idea of a science court, before which scientific controversies would be argued with strict rules of evidence, cross examination, and rules of procedure. In true scientific fashion, though, verdicts would only be in the minds of the listeners - the idea is to achieve clear presentation of the evidence, not a decision - that would have to be left to the political institutions.
This is still a good idea, and the web is probably a very good venue. Evidence could be presented in written format, questioners and cross examiners could have hours or days to prepare their material, and a permanent record, available to all, would be preserved.
Anybody else like this idea?
Comments
Post a Comment