By Hans von Storch
In the last thread, a discussion evolved about the roles of science and technology in policy advising. One position, which was brought forward, was to leave after problem definition the advisory capacity to technology, in particular research & development done by industry.
The examples discussed were mainly from energy supply, and were dealing with global markets, such as photovoltaics. A reasonable arrangement, which was put forward, was to ask science to define the problem, let policymaking decide if it was really problem and which attributes a “solution” would need to have. After this it would be mainly a matter of technology and competition on the market.
While I consider
this a reasonable model, I was wondering how this would look like in a concrete
case, we at our institute (for Coastal Research, a scientific, non-technology
institute) are regularly involved in, namely the challenge of changing storm
surge statistics (e.g., Storm Surges: Phenomena, Forecasting and Scenarios of Change and Nordseesturmfluten im Klimawandel – GKSS Wissenschaftler fassen aktuellen Forschungsstand zusammen).
The problem was “invented” by science, based on theoretical (modelling) concepts and ongoing monitoring efforts (which describe since the beginning of recording a smooth increase of sea level along the German North Sea coast). We are regularly asked by governmental agencies (such as Forschungsstelle Küste, Norderney) and companies (such as Hamburg Port Authority) about scenarios of water level and storm activity “in front of the dikes”. These authorities, responsible for maintaining a safe level of coastal defense, use such information (not only by us, but from others as well) to infer “Bemessungshöhen” (standardized high level water levels, for instance occurring once in 10,000 years). Then, these expectations are fed back to the ministries, which use them in laws which are submitted to the regional parliaments (this all may be in details more complicated). The authorities for coastal defense then decide how the required level of safety is maintained. Some measures are conventional (heightening dikes), others are innovative and prepared by technical universities (e.g., increased acceptable levels of overflow).
The problem was “invented” by science, based on theoretical (modelling) concepts and ongoing monitoring efforts (which describe since the beginning of recording a smooth increase of sea level along the German North Sea coast). We are regularly asked by governmental agencies (such as Forschungsstelle Küste, Norderney) and companies (such as Hamburg Port Authority) about scenarios of water level and storm activity “in front of the dikes”. These authorities, responsible for maintaining a safe level of coastal defense, use such information (not only by us, but from others as well) to infer “Bemessungshöhen” (standardized high level water levels, for instance occurring once in 10,000 years). Then, these expectations are fed back to the ministries, which use them in laws which are submitted to the regional parliaments (this all may be in details more complicated). The authorities for coastal defense then decide how the required level of safety is maintained. Some measures are conventional (heightening dikes), others are innovative and prepared by technical universities (e.g., increased acceptable levels of overflow).
In this
example, industry and markets do not show up. No technology roadmap, and public
funding of all new measures, through the general budget or through specific public
dues.
However, industry
showed up in other cases, for instance in The Netherlands. There a commission,
the Delta Kommissie, was set up, which should prepare worst case scenarios of
future local sea level and local storm surge change. The task was done by a
scientific international committee of the Kommissie – I was a member – and we
agreed on something of the order of 1,20 m until the end of the 21st
century as upper level (see http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/delta.cc.pdf)
and more than three times this value in 2200.
What happened next was that this suggestion for a high-end scenario went into a mixed lobby/policy context, and the high-end underwent a metamorphosis to a most probable development. In the end a proposal showed up, that a foundation should be set up, which would allow an annual investment of 1 billion Euros and more for improving coastal defense – without future interference of parliament. Here, it seems, industry was acting, namely by exaggerating the risk and thereby ensuring a profitable business of the next 50 years.
Members of the scientific committee noticed what was going on, and were able to mobilize the Dutch quality press, which brought the whole spectacle quickly to a halt.
What happened next was that this suggestion for a high-end scenario went into a mixed lobby/policy context, and the high-end underwent a metamorphosis to a most probable development. In the end a proposal showed up, that a foundation should be set up, which would allow an annual investment of 1 billion Euros and more for improving coastal defense – without future interference of parliament. Here, it seems, industry was acting, namely by exaggerating the risk and thereby ensuring a profitable business of the next 50 years.
Members of the scientific committee noticed what was going on, and were able to mobilize the Dutch quality press, which brought the whole spectacle quickly to a halt.
My conclusion
from this little story is that policy should be done by policymakers in sight
of the public. These policymakers are informed about perspectives and context
by science, and about options by industry and technology – but we all
should be aware that all this is driven by vested interests, including our own.
Which is nothing bad, but normal, but we should not allow participants to claim that they
would be beyond such interests.
Posts
3 comments:
The pragmatic dutch way is to review the coastal defences every 5 years based on observed statistics.
let me comment this entry from the viewpoint of a concerned citizen, not tied to any vested interest.
I do not know the author and simply refer to what he has stated in this entry.
I refer to him as 'WK' in the following comments.
---
OK.
1)
...
A reasonable arrangement, which was put forward, was to ask science to define the problem, let policymaking decide if it was really problem and which attributes a "solution" would need to have. After this it would be mainly a matter of technology and competition on the market.
While I consider this a reasonable model,
...
This sounds like a reasonable way to proceed, under the assumption that in this three-step-process the relevant parties are sufficiently independent, which more often than not is NOT the case.
If so, one has to take a careful look at the proponents, whether some interconnections eg between science/policymaking and industry-interests exist.
To apriori assume, that there is none, would be quite naive.
So the first task would be to install a referee, who identifies possible conflicts of interest.
Currently this is done by -hopefully- independent groups like greenpeace or attac or BUND. If one of those watchdogs rings the alarmbell, the issue should be resolved, before proceeding further, and put the party in question in quarantine.
Upon closer look this is a potential infinite regress, which has to be pragmatically resolved, to avoid blockade.
2)
...
The problem was "invented" by science, based on theoretical (modelling) concepts and ongoing monitoring efforts
...
This is an interesting wording, which in itself has some truth in it.
Eg 'temperature' was a useful invention in early science, and nowadays is considered a physical quantity, and not one of statistical mechanics.
In the given context this sounds dubious, AS IF science is partly involved in the 'business' of inventing concepts. This is not true. The sort of invention the scientific community talks about, is useful abstractions, not 'inventions'.
3)
...
"Bemessungshöhen" (standardized high level water levels, for instance occurring once in 10,000 years).
...
This is an operational term used by engineers, and is akin to 'invention' in the above mentioned scientific domain.
4)
...
What happened next was that this SUGGESTION FOR A HIGH-END SCENARIO went into a mixed lobby/policy context, and the high-end underwent a METAMORPHOSIS to a MOST PROBABLE development.
...
Here, it seems, industry was acting, namely by EXAGGERATING THE RISK and thereby ensuring a profitable business of the next 50 years.
...
(emphasis mine)
Well, we obviously have an issue of risk assessment, and here I differ substantially from the author.
Let me elaborate:
1st:
Risk is more often than not is an assessment of RARE events, like Talebs black swan in the extreme.
It is very difficult to harden a society against black swans, because it is in their nature that they are a priori unknown. To harden against such events, is not impossible but is a matter of eg diversification, where the affected societal subsystems respond differently, based upon their defining structure.
SO THIS IS A CLEAR QUEST FOR HETEROGENEITY, and not something, where any conceptual precautions fail in the first place.
part 2:
4a) the precautionary principle
The PP states that we should avoid risk, if we can anticipate it.
How much, is open to debate. If I climb a mountain, and have an average risk 50% of having a lethal aaccident, I will avoid it. If it is 1% this is maybe an issue for a freeclimber, who PERSONALLY takes this risk.
But for a society this is different: it eg would mean that a policymaker projects his risk-perception onto society as a whole, and basically means a different take than PERSONAL risk.
Societal risk should be below the imaginable. why this is so, I leave to your logic to elaborate.
It is not difficult.
4b) self-interest of industry
This is more often than not a bad thing. Eg The solar lobby against the oil-lobby.
Consider the different amounts of money involved:
Oil: 1000
Solar: 1-10
If money talks, as nowadays is becoming commonsense knowledge -except the pathologically naive ignoramuses, who always pay the bill- who will be heard?
You guess.
The naivite -to repeat myself using this term-, with which some of the participants sit at the poker-table, and loose with a decent argumentative winning hand, because they are bluffed out of the game by the unscrupulous, is sometimes mindboggling.
5)
...
My conclusion from this little story is that policy should be done by policymakers in sight of the public.
...
This is a pledge for open debate, with all cards disclosed.
This is no poker-game, but something existential.
To suppose that policymakers are decent players is not exactly in my range of options.
On a selfishness-scale: 1) profit-makers 2) politicians 3) scientists
And who exactly pockets whom? I have yet to find a scientist who pockets a hedge-fund manager.
The hacking order re money is clearly defined.
On an argumentative scale it ist he reverse.
Right?
...
we all should be aware that all this is driven by vested interests, including our own.
Which is nothing bad, but normal, but we should not allow participants to claim that they would be beyond such interests.
...
This is strange.
What exactly are my personal 'vested interests'?
As said, I am speaking as a concerned citizen.
My only 'vested' interest is to preserve a decent life for my children
As circumscribed in wikipedia:
"... As defined by William Crano, vested interest refers to the amount that an attitude object is deemed HEDONICALLY relevant by the attitude holder..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vested_interest
So let us be careful wrt wordings.
If anybody terms caring of my children's/grandchildren's future as 'vested interest' ,it would be quite a stretch of the term, right?
regards,
Groo
Post a Comment (pop-up window,non-moderated)