Conundrum: Credible Science in Policy

Dr. George Atkinson’s career (Ph.D. Indiana University, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, Biochemistry, Optical Sciences, University of Arizona) spans (i) teaching, research (185 published papers, more than 50 U.S. and foreign patents and applications), administration duties, and honorary appointments and awards in domestic (e.g., Outstanding University Teacher, University of Arizona; Distinguished Alumni, Indiana University; Honorary Doctorate, Eckerd College) and international (e.g., Germany - Senior Fulbright and Senior Alexander Humboldt; United Kingdom - Royal Institution and Oxford University; Japan – Tokyo University) institutions, founding private innovation company (e.g., semiconductor laser systems), (iii) public service (e.g., Science and Technology Adviser to U.S. Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, elected President of Sigma Xi, 10 years of service U.S. Army War College Board of Visitors), and (iv) founding and directing Institute on Science for Global Policy  (ISGP) to improve the incorporation of credible scientific understanding in governmental, private sector, and societal policies.  

The failures of governmental, private sector, and public advocacy communities to develop and implement policies to effectively address even the immediate impacts of infectious diseases have reached critical proportions.  Such failures foreshadow (i) the societal inability to provide long-term, comprehensive approaches to the systemic consequences of emerging and persistent infectious diseases, climate changes, and deterioration in food and agricultural systems and (ii) expose weaknesses in institutional structures themselves and practical limitations in governmental functions undermined by parochial priorities.  These failures are traceable to an absence and/or disrespect for credible scientific and technological information in decision-making processes.  The rapidly waning public confidence in evidence-based information exacerbates these failures.  Adapting the ISGP debate/caucus format for larger, public audiences promotes incorporation of credible scientific understanding in governmental, private sector, and public advocacy polices while strengthening public support for evidence-based decisions by giving voice to their views and priorities in debates and caucuses.

Credible scientific understanding is not being effectively used in governmental and private sector policies, much to the detriment of societal stability worldwide.  The deteriorating ability of many societies to effectively address the increasingly negative impacts on the human health and well-being, economic prosperity, and national security originating from a  plethora of natural and man-made sources has seriously undermined the stability of basic political and civil institutions worldwide.  Continuation of these current failures foreshadows rapidly deepening crises involving infectious diseases, changing climates, declining agricultural sustainability, and deteriorating food systems.  Such neglect can often be traced to a disregard (and even hostility) from policymakers and stakeholders for the evidence-based information from well-credentialled scientific and technological sources.  Public trust in scientifically credible information and the rational critiquing of competing decisions has simultaneously been dramatically eroded.  This rapid deterioration of effective, evidenced-based decisions demands new approaches to strengthen the effectiveness of societal institutions and garner public support for scientifically rational policies that can be implemented under real-world conditions.  New national and international partnerships are needed to ensure that diverse viewpoints and priorities are challenged and critically evaluated against scientifically credible information if effective policies are to be formulated and implemented under real-world conditions.

Existing ISGP programs seek to expand their reach to larger audiences to improve the incorporation of credible scientific understanding into governmental, private sector, and societal policy decisions, worldwide.  The debate/caucus format pioneered by the ISGP is structured on two common sense principles: (i) potentially valuable approaches to address difficult societal challenges are critiqued and validated by subject matter experts and stakeholders in intense, respectful debates and (ii) caucuses to identify areas of consensus and actionable next steps garnering broad support for implementation under real-world conditions.  After extensive interviews, the ISGP invites about 100 representatives from governmental, private sector, public advocacy communities having diverse, competing viewpoints and priorities to conduct debates and caucuses under the Chatham House Rule (no attribution).  Participants make, or significantly influence, the formulation and/or implementation of policy decisions on major issues (e.g., infectious diseases, climate impacts, sustainable agriculture and food systems, and national security).  ELEVATE support for the “Conundrum: Credible Science in Policy” program would facilitate ISGP engagement with media, financial institutions, and philanthropic foundations to develop and support a reach into large national and international audiences on specific topics.  Small ISGP conferences are convened to familiarize potential partners by experiencing the value of ISGP format.

It would be difficult to find a part of the global population not affected by successful  outcomes from the proposed ISGP program.  Improvement in the accurate communication of credible scientific information into public and private sector decisions as well as bolstering public confidence in evidence-based policies has become an urgent public priority since disease, climate, agricultural sustainability, and food safety concerns permeate all aspects of societies worldwide.  The consequences of poor, parochially motivated policy decisions extend beyond human health and well-being to economic prosperity and national/global security.  The proposed ISGP programs will make significant contributions to addressing these challenges both through accurately informing policymakers of evidence-based options and risks and by promoting the public support required to effectively implement sound polices.  It is evident that most of humanity that would benefit in multiple ways by reversing the negative, potentially catastrophic trends now in place.   

The expansion to larger audiences of program based on the principles underlying the ISGP debate/caucus format relies on incorporating expertise and experience from subject matter experts practiced in engaging the public through a variety of platforms (internet, television, podcasts, social media, etc.).  ELEVATE support would provide opportunities for the ISGP to create partnerships with media (Public Broadcasting, Netflix, Facebook, television production, documentarians, etc.) and financial and philanthropic groups sharing these goals.  Joint efforts, preserving the successful elements of the ISGP debate/caucus format, would involve platforms designed to reach large public audiences with different backgrounds, cultural priorities, personal interests, and goals. 

As a not-for-profit organization having no opinions nor lobbying on any issue, the ISGP emerged partially from my experiences in academics and private sector, but mostly from almost eight years as a senior science and technology adviser in the U.S. Federal government (i.e., U.S. Secretaries of State, Powell and Rice, Defense and Intelligence).  I concluded that scientists (including myself) were ill prepared to effectively convey the importance of credible scientific understanding to senior policy makers, many of whom were not well disposed to render decisions greatly influenced by scientific conclusions.  The ISGP was created to experiment in developing and implementing significantly more effective methods for ensuring societal decisions were made with an appropriate recognition for credible scientific understanding as validated by rational criticism and peer analysis.  While not a panacea, the resultant ISGP debate/caucus format provides effective pathways for significantly strengthening the incorporation of credible scientific understanding into major societal polices.  It is evident that adapting the ISGP debate/caucus format for applications in larger, public communities, using direct and/or at-distance methods, can contribute significantly to embedding rational scientific understanding in governmental, private sector, and public advocacy policies (i.e., preserving academically principled goals while identifying practical, real-world decisions for current conditions).  

There are few challenges more profound for societal stability, as well as national and global security, than the waning public confidence in rational thinking as the basis for policy decisions and their real-world implementations.  The health, economic well-being, and physical security of billions of humans increasingly depend on successfully addressing these issues.  Continuing the irrational processes used by some governments for the formulation and implementation of societal polices can only increase the serious, negative consequences emanating from the natural changes occurring worldwide and exacerbate their impact on human health and behavior, economic prosperity, and societal, institutional stability.  As a trained scientist with long experience in academia, the private sector, and at senior levels of the U.S. Federal government, the failure to use the evidence-based understanding emerging from extensive research and the conclusions obtained through the scientific method of constructive criticism, critical validation, and peer review is a serious mistake.  Correcting these unfounded, overarching decisions that endanger human health, economic stability, and national and global security is an urgent priority that requires direct immediate action.   

Personally, I experienced the obstacles of incorporating scientifically credible evidence into public and private sector policies, especially as Science and Technology Adviser to U.S. Secretary of State Powell and Rice.  While senior leadership was personally responsive to evidence-based advice, the overall governmental system often remained unresponsive and resistant.   Recognition that a degree of uncertainty is an essential part of credible scientific evidence is challenging to convey even though scientific study focuses on limiting infinite error, and not necessarily providing infinite wisdom.  While not a panacea, the ISGP debate/caucus format ISGP provides environments where nonexperts responsible for making decisions can engage in candid, intensely argued critiquing and critical evaluation without attribution (uniformed questions are encouraged!).  These ISGP environments can resolve significantly different viewpoints and priorities and lead to identifying broadly supported areas of consensus and actionable next steps for real-world decisions.  ISGP programs translate intellectually desirable positions into effective, real-world decisions reflecting current conditions.

The ISGP has also organized programs and convened conferences without the Chatham House Rule (partnerships with colleges and universities within their respective academic curriculum and public entities) to promote candid, occasionally confrontational critiques and evaluations by the public, press, and academic communities on locally critical issues.  The excellent reputation enjoyed by the ISGP often comes from these programs,  ELEVATE support would facilitate the adaptation of the ISGP format for public at the national and global levels through partnerships with media experts experienced in engaging large audiences. 

As Science and Technology Adviser to the U.S. Secretary of State, I developed a program for incorporating experienced (tenured) U.S. faculty from across scientific disciplines into the U.S. Department of State.  Each Jefferson Science Fellow (JSF) awardee spent one year in residence within a bureau and a five-year consultancy within the U.S. government after returning to their academic duties.  With funding from philanthropic foundations (Carnegie Corporation and MacArthur Foundation), the JSF program launched in 2003 over considerable skepticism and resistance from within the Federal government.  The JSF program has benefitted from the services of more than 160 JSF awardees.

Launching the ISGP in 2008, occurred while scientifically credible information was not uniformly respected or incorporated into governmental or private sector policy decisions.  Institutional   opposition to the creation of the ISGP reflected a reluctance to seriously consider credible science as important to politically expedient decisions.  Creating a new organization designed to develop effective methodologies and formats to expand the role of credible scientific advice in polices was generally dismissed as unneeded and impractical.  Nonetheless, with the support of a distinguished Board of Directors (see below), the ISGP began its decade long operation to successfully reverse aspects of these adverse attitudes. 

The adverse opinions concerning the nuclear fusion (ITER) program, largely from an incorrect conflation of the basic physics with nuclear fission, created major significant challenges to obtaining global funding required.  Envisioned as a global program involving participation by the entire international physics community focused on clean energy options, my leadership of the U.S. Department of State effort in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy consumed more than three years of international travel and complicated negotiations.  The global recognition of the validity of the physics underlying nuclear fusion and its safety was eventually achieved and the ITER program launched in France with funding and participation by more than half the world’s population. 

The appearance of avian influenza (H5N1) in 2003-04 impacted not only human health issues, but as a potential pandemic, required interpretation with respect to national security as well as economic and trade consequences, all issues of direct important to the U.S. Department of State.  Receptivity to the needed to quickly combat H5N1 was not universal, but significant progress in elevating these concerns in policy decisions was made through the interagency process.

Directly influencing individuals who have direct responsibilities for making and/or significantly influencing the formulation and/or implementation of major policy decisions is the critical pathway to creating significant policy changes.  Providing opportunities for these individuals to conduct critical debates and participate in candid caucuses with their peers who often hold diverse, competitive views and priorities have been successfully used by the ISGP to obtain rational analysis needed to reach effective, real-world decisions.  This process has been a defining hallmark of ISGP programs and the wide respect for its program held both nationally and internationally. 

U.S. Department of State, Food and Drug Administration, American Seed Trade Association, Euroseeds, U.S. Department of Agriculture, more than 35 multinational and small innovation companies

ISGP programs are funded through direct contracts and grants that focus on specific topics and goals.  Philanthropic funding has also been provided in support of the general goals of the ISGP.

ISGP programs have generated numerous champions based on their experience at ISGP events.  Invitation-only ISGP events are consistently oversubscribed by individuals who cover all their expenses.

Private and philanthropic organization to collaborate on developing new programs for engaging large, public audiences (national and international) in the media, social communication, television broadcasting, financial markets committed to addressing major natural and manmade challenges undermining social stability.