by Judith Curry

Our geosciences community too often gives the impression that we care primarily about more funding for our research. Such overt self-interest poses risks to our community and to society. – Bill Hooke

A provocative essay has been published in EOS: Reaffirming the Social Contract Between Science and Society. The author of the essay is William Hooke. From his biosketch:

Bill Hooke is Associate Executive Director of the American Meteorological Society, based in Washington, DC. Dr Hooke is the author of the AMS blog, Living on the Real World as well as the AMS book of the same name, Living on the Real World. His policy research interests include: natural disaster reduction; historical precedents as they illuminate present-day policy; and the nature and implications of changing national requirements for weather and climate science and services. From 1973 to 2000, he held various administrative positions in NOAA, including Chief of the Atmospheric Studies Branch of NOAA’s Wave Propagation Laboratory, Director of NOAA’s Environmental Sciences Group, Deputy Chief Scientist and Acting Chief Scientist of NOAA, Director of the United States Weather Research Program Office, and Chair of the interagency Subcommittee for Natural Disaster Reduction of the National Science and Technology Council Committee on Environment and Natural Resources.

I have known Bill Hooke for decades. I am a big fan of his, and have often (although not recently) linked to articles at his blog. He is one of the most thoughtful and wise voices in the atmospheric sciences community.

Here are some excerpts from his EOS essay:

The world’s 7 billion people currently struggle to solve a high-stakes, threefold problem: satisfy a growing appetite for food, energy, water, and other resources; protect the environment; and build resilience to natural extremes. In the face of this defining challenge, our geosciences community, although well-meaning and with much to offer, too often gives the impression that we care primarily about more funding for our research. Such overt self-interest is not merely unseemly. It poses risks to our community and to society writ large.

[Several centuries ago], natural philosophers usually enjoyed independent means. By today’s standards, we might imagine that self-funded scientists should not have to defend to anyone their interests or preferences for doing science.

Today, by contrast, our (substantially more expensive) scientific research is funded largely by governments and therefore, indirectly, by taxpayer dollars. Much of the support comes from people far more strained financially than we are. This raises questions: Why should they pay us? Isn’t it because they hope that our labors will improve their lot in life? Don’t we owe them something? What would a fair return on society’s investment look like?

And, finally, what has been our response?

Modern Understanding Between Scientists and Society

With considerable oversimplification, the current social contract between scientists and society dates back to Vannevar Bush and the conclusion of World War II. To address the emerging Soviet threat that would eventually lead to the Cold War, U.S. leaders demanded a broad, robust, concerted, and sustained program of research and development. They set up the National Science Foundation (NSF) in 1950; investments in atomic energy and in space technology followed.

Working through Congress, the public has been both generous and constant with its funding, and scientists in turn have delivered a cornucopia of benefits in agriculture, energy, human health, information technology, transportation, and much more—including Earth observations, science, and services. These advances have fueled economic growth, national security, and quality of life, as well as a place for the United States as the “indispensable nation” in world affairs.

Recent Stresses to the Social Contract

Stresses over the past decade or so have frayed the fabric of the social contract between scientists and society. The complexity and costs of science have been growing. Urgent societal challenges (in education, environmental protection, foreign relations, maintenance of aging critical infrastructure, national security, public health, and more) demand quick fixes even as they compete with the funding for science. Society has asked scientists for more help, even as research budgets have remained relatively constant. Relations have been strained on both sides.

How have we faced these new stresses? Unfortunately, many scientists have responded by resorting to advocacy. Worse, we’ve too often dumbed down our lobbying until it’s little more than simplistic, orchestrated, self-serving pleas for increased research funding, accompanied at times by the merest smidgen of supporting argument.

At the same time, as we’ve observed and studied emerging natural resource shortages, environmental degradation, and vulnerability to hazards, we’ve allowed ourselves to turn into scolds. Worse, we’ve chosen sides politically, largely abandoning any pretense at nonpartisanship.

In Earth sciences, our proposed social contract sounds dangerously close to this: “We’re in the business of documenting human failure. But lately, the speed, complexity, and magnitude of that failure has picked up—with respect to management of natural resources, environmental stewardship, and hazard risk. If our documentation is to keep pace, we need more funding.” To a beset, struggling general public this can easily look unhelpful, even arrogant.

JC reflections

I was stunned by the following statements in Hooke’s essay:

How have we faced these new stresses? Unfortunately, many scientists have responded by resorting to advocacy. Worse, we’ve too often dumbed down our lobbying until it’s little more than simplistic, orchestrated, self-serving pleas for increased research funding, accompanied at times by the merest smidgen of supporting argument.

At the same time, as we’ve observed and studied emerging natural resource shortages, environmental degradation, and vulnerability to hazards, we’ve allowed ourselves to turn into scolds. Worse, we’ve chosen sides politically, largely abandoning any pretense at nonpartisanship.

I have made similar statements, frequently if not as eloquently. How refreshing to see them published in EOS! For making similar statements, I have been accused of ‘smearing’ climate scientists. It’s not the scientists that I have been criticizing, but rather the ‘system’.

Successfully ‘chasing research $$’ has become synonymous with academic leadership success. And towards what end, exactly? Government research funding is increasingly targeted at societally and/or politically relevant topics (see my previous post Pasteur’s Quadrant). In the area of climate science, I have argued that this funding is not motivating fundamental research that is needed to improve understanding and modeling of climate dynamics. Rather, this funding is largely motivating what I have referred to as ‘climate taxonomy’ (see the Pasteur’s Quadrant article).

Independent scientists (of independent, or no, means) are increasingly asking important questions that aren’t ‘relevant’ to government research funding priorities. This raises the issue of non-governmental funding of climate science research (from industry, NGOs, private individuals), which has been discussed at length here in recent weeks (e.g. Conflicts of interest in climate science).

In the 1990’s while I was at the University of Colorado, I was running fast on the treadmill of trying to get more and more research funding, so I could pay students and research scientists to do research, which I no longer had time to do personally, since I was too busy writing research proposals, managing my research group, and traveling endlessly to develop programs at the international and national levels that could justify more funding. ‘Success’ was defined by research funding $$, number of publications, and leadership in national/international programs.

At Georgia Tech, there were more internal resources available, so that I didn’t need to chase federal research dollars so hard (plus I was busy doing administration). I deliberately scaled back the size of my research group, and my research increasingly became independent of government research funding. My company Climate Forecast Applications Network has provided the impetus and funding for some of my research. And much of my research is now done by myself, or in collaboration with others, without requiring any substantial funding.

Ironically, because there is now a faint ‘whiff’ of Big Oil funding, my objectivity is being questioned by Congressman Grijalva [link]. In fact my objectivity has climbed several notches the past 10 years, as I have weaned myself from government funding and have been following my own interests and preferences for doing science, rather than working on what I can get approved by a government funding agency. Further, I have been developing an awareness of the problems of groupthink and the biases that can occur through institutional ‘leadership’, and I am working to fight against these. Also ironically, my recent research (combined with my outreach engagement) is more societally relevant than my previous government funded research. My own (rather unusual) experiences are anecdotal, but they do provide food for thought.

While Bill Hooke rightfully raises concerns about the behaviors and motives of scientists, I think the other side of the social contract is at least equally problematical. Obama’s administration is ‘using’ climate science to support his political agenda, and is actively discouraging disagreement through consensus enforcement Call Out The Climate Deniers. So the social contract for climate science seems to be: support the consensus and promote alarmism, and you will receive plenty of research funding.

I don’t know what the optimal social contract between climate science and society should be, but something is really wrong with the current system that is breeding advocates, partisans and alarmists, and is damaging to the science. And the taxpayer foots the bill.

Kudos to Bill Hooke for opening this discussion in the AGU EOS.