AAAS Policy Forum

Presidential science advisor Jack Marburger gave the opening keynote at AAAS's annual policy forum in Washington. After talking about the pressure on the budget and the good job the Bush administration is doing in preserving research funding, he made an appeal to the science community to take responsibility for setting in priorities across disciplines. Although this might seem sensible at first, there is really no science budget in which to set priorities. Responsibility for science funding is spread across numerous congressional committees, and there is no way to make rational trade-offs among disciplines. The only practical course for scientists in each discipline is to make the case for more funding for their own specialties.

Marburger noted that earmarking has become so extensive that achieving a deliberate distribution of funds is sometimes impossible. Most scientists would agree, but Marburger is talking to the wrong audience. With the Republicans contolling the White House and both houses in Congress, it would make more sense to talk to Republican leaders about the problem.

Last week I wrote about respecting the doubters of climate change science. Harvard's John Holdren chaired an excellent session that reflected the mainstream of scientific opinion on climate chanage. The need for action could not be more compelling. Holdren pointed out that our understanding of the climate has been improving steadily and that the most worrisome finding is the awareness that rapid change is a real possibility. This is becoming most evident in the rapid melting of large ice masses.

Holdren emphasized the key role of technology in developing long-term solutions. Joseph Romm pointed out that we need to begin by implementing the tech that we already have. The sooner we start, the easier it will be to reduce carbon emissions. Romm said that if we wait 10 years before acting it will be virtually impossible to avoid a disastrous level of sea level rise.

In the evening, former Princeton president Harold Shapiro gave a very thoughtful talk about the need to understand science in a larger cultural and policy context. He argued that science must be understood as part of the larger cultural achievements of humanity and that we too often fail to see its connection to other cultural activities and trends. Similarly, he complained that we too often view science policy through the narrow lens of federal research funding. Many more aspects of policy are important to the effective development and use of science and technology.