WHEN the Advancement for Sound Science Coalition was formed in 1993, it seemed like a respectable organisation. Chaired by a former New Mexico governor and with respected scientists as members, its stated goal was to encourage policy makers to use good science when setting laws. But the group was a front. As was later revealed, it was set up by the tobacco giant Philip Morris as part of a public relations campaign to discredit studies linking second-hand tobacco smoke to disease.
Another seemingly common-sense campaign, formed under the banner of 鈥済ood epidemiological practices鈥�, sought to establish quality standards for epidemiological research. In reality, GEP was also designed to discredit the link between second-hand smoke and disease by playing up the scientific uncertainties. And a further tactic involved sponsoring, often through respectable-looking scientific associations, real, peer-reviewed science on other air pollutants, so as to take the focus off cigarette smoke.
In short, what the tobacco industry developed and honed through those years was a recipe for turning science into a tool for spreading uncertainty and delaying regulation. Some of the same tactics can be seen in the US government鈥檚 new research agenda on global climate change.
Advertisement
In early December, officials met 1200 climate scientists and others to discuss the government鈥檚 鈥済lobal warming research strategic plan鈥�, which aims to fund research into unanswered questions about climate change. The old favourites are all there: the relative contributions of different aerosols to global warming; detailed descriptions of all the carbon sources and carbon sinks in North America; the role of feedback loops in global warming. The plan also calls for an improved climate-monitoring system, and for more work on climate computer modelling.
This is not an unreasonable research agenda. It mirrors a report in 2001 from the National Academy of Sciences that detailed what is and is not known about climate change. Unlike the tobacco industry鈥檚 secretive attempts to influence the science of second-hand smoke, it is an open plan. And of course there is in principle nothing sinister about an elected government funding basic research. Rather, it鈥檚 the political rhetoric surrounding the plan, especially in light of the US withdrawal last year from the Kyoto Protocol, that raises questions about the political ends to which climate science is being put.
Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans, who chairs the administration鈥檚 Committee on Climate Change Science and Technology Integration, sums up the research strategy thus: 鈥淩ather than pitting economic growth against the environment, as the Kyoto Protocol would do鈥� it promises real progress by harnessing the power of sound science and cutting-edge technologies.鈥�
For years the tobacco industry denied the scientific consensus linking tobacco smoke with cancer, and later insisted second-hand smoke was harmless. The Bush administration, while officially accepting the opinions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has in practice preferred to play up the uncertainties. Even after the Environmental Protection Agency admitted in a report in June that human activity was contributing to global warming, Bush dismissed it as something 鈥減ut out by the bureaucrats鈥�.
The new strategy says that the 鈥渞ange of uncertainty鈥� over the causes and effects of global climate change needs to be reduced before decisions on mitigation can be made. It calls for answers to key questions, such as understanding the relative contribution to warming of human-produced greenhouse gases, within two to five years. This is disingenuous, for two reasons. First, such questions are unlikely to be answered in that time. Second, it implies that not enough is known about global warming to take action now. In fact, the consensus among the very scientists likely to be funded by Bush鈥檚 research strategy is that we do know enough. And of course, Europe, Canada and much of the rest of the world are already beginning the hard work needed to reduce the harm global warming is likely to do.
鈥淪ound science鈥� has a nice ring to it. It seems to stand for the rational against the irrational, for careful consideration against hasty conclusions. Unfortunately, the phrase is used these days mostly in the tobacco industry sense. The nature of science means you can always point to gaps in knowledge, or insist that this or that question has to be answered, before action is justified.
Ironically, this sort of political obfuscation can actually be good for science. For instance, the tobacco industry funded some useful research into 鈥渟ick building syndrome鈥�, in which poor ventilation, mould, chemical outgassing and other factors can make people sick. The Bush administration also promises to fund useful research. There鈥檚 no reason to blame scientists who cooperate with Bush鈥檚 research agenda for trying to answer questions that any reasonable person would like to know the answer to. The failing here is political. By using uncertainty as an excuse, the Bush administration is shirking its responsibility to act on what we know now.