ERROR 1
ERROR 1
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
Password and Confirm password must match.
If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)
ERROR 2
ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.
On July 1, Ralph J. Cicerone became the 21st president of the National Academy of Sciences and chairman of the National Research Council. These appointments cap an illustrious 34-year academic career that saw Cicerone rise from a research scientist at the University of Michigan to chancellor of the University of California, Irvine (UCI), the position he held before moving to Washington, D.C.
Cicerone, 62, is widely recognized as a leading atmospheric chemist and expert on global warming and stratospheric ozone depletion. He is equally well-known for his political savoir faire and fruitful efforts to help shape science policy at the national and international levels. His research on ozone-depleting chemicals helped lead to the 1989 Montreal protocol to phase them out and was recognized in the citation for the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry awarded to F. Sherwood Rowland, Mario J. Molina, and Paul J. Crutzen.
Underplayed in Cicerone's biography is his knowledge of and enthusiasm for baseball. He played varsity baseball at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he received a degree in electrical engineering. From MIT, he went to the University of Illinois, where he studied atmospheric plasmas and earned master's and doctoral degrees in electrical engineering and physics.
Cicerone served on the faculty of the University of Michigan until he moved to San Diego to become a research chemist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography in the late 1970s. While at Scripps, Cicerone received two tantalizing offers. One was to become director of the Atmospheric Chemistry Division at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo., which he accepted. The other was as a radio announcer for the San Diego Padres, which he seriously considered accepting.
That fork-in-the-road decision to forgo baseball for science proved to be providential after he left NCAR for UCI in 1989. Once ensconced at UCI, his rise to the chancellorship was fairly rapid. From professor of earth system science and founding chairman of that department as well as professor of chemistry, Cicerone became dean of physical sciences in 1994 and university chancellor four years later.
In 1990, Cicerone was elected to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and has since served on more than 40 committees. But what might have cinched the academy's presidency for him was the White House-requested study, "Climate Change Science: An Analysis on Some Key Questions," which he chaired-and delivered in one month-in 2001.
Cicerone's research has been recognized by the American Geophysical Union, the Franklin Institute, and the United Nations. In 2004, he received the World Cultural Council's Albert Einstein World Award of Science.
He is a member of the American Chemical Society and a fellow of several other prestigious scientific organizations.
Cicerone recently sat down with C&EN Senior Correspondent
C&EN: Throughout your distinguished academic career, even as an administrator, you have always been able to carry out productive research. Have you had to forgo research with your new responsibilities?
Cicerone: Yes. I didn't think it was going to be possible to continue to do any significant research in my California lab from Washington, D.C. I've had some East Coast institutions ask if I would like to set up labs on the East Coast. So far I've said no. I just don't think it's practical.
The honest answer is that I hope to make a bigger difference at NAS than I would by continuing to do my research work. When I go to meetings now, I realize how many other smart people there are in the room and all the great things they are doing. I realize I'm not making much of a difference as a researcher. But I miss it.
C&EN: What is your vision for NAS?
Cicerone: It's an interesting mix of the old and the new. The old being simply to continue what the academies-the National Research Council (NRC), NAS, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine-are doing and doing very well: namely, studying controversial subjects and delivering up-to-date best readings on those issues. Just maintaining that record and doing it above reproach is job number one.
Stepping out into some new ventures would be the second part of my vision. Here, the primary thing I have in mind is some kind of large, effective communications effort. We can all see symptoms of why this is needed: There just isn't as much enthusiasm about or comfort with science as there was a generation ago.
Frank Press told me, when he left the NAS presidency about 12 years ago, something to the effect that he had never lived in a time when there was more skepticism about or antagonism to science as he had seen in 1993. And I think it's gone downhill from there. So what can we do? We have to come up with a strategy. First, we have to decide with whom we should try to communicate. Should it be everybody in society from all walks of life? All age groups or just with under-18-year-olds? Or should it be just with the so-called decisionmakers and their staffs in government and business?
Then we have to decide the medium of communication. Should we bypass television because utilizing that medium would be very expensive? And not only would it be expensive, but the audience is fragmented, given that there are 100 channels or so, and people demand entertainment when they watch television.
The overall goal is to communicate some of the enthusiasm and richness of science to the general public. I've said several times that I really miss Carl Sagan: He enjoyed communicating so much, and he was accomplishing so much on behalf of science. We haven't plugged anybody in to fill the big shoes that he left.
C&EN: How do you plan to increase NAS membership, especially of women?
Cicerone: A key observation on women being elected to NAS has to do with the typical age at which a member is elected and how many years past a Ph.D. that is. Committees that have looked at the situation in the past few years have found that the class being elected in any one year is probably 30 years or so past the Ph.D., and if you look at the fraction of women earning Ph.D.s in fields that are elected to the academy, that number is increasing with time. So there is a lot of hope that we'll see more years like this past year when a record number of women were elected.
C&EN: The number of women is still fairly low.
Cicerone: Oh yeah, around 25%. But 10 or 15 years ago, it was much lower. So, as I say, it is an expressed hope that things will keep getting better, and there are some data suggesting that they will.
C&EN: Is it possible to bridge the gap to certain religious groups that hold beliefs that strongly oppose much of what is being done in science today?
Cicerone: I really think so. I understand that some of those positions are very strongly held. But, yes, it is possible because I don't see a great deal of necessary conflict. No scientists I know, especially the most active ones, wake up in the morning saying, "What can I do to antagonize a religious person today?" They just don't think like that.
C&EN: That addresses the scientists' point of view. What about the other side, the religious side?
Cicerone: I think we have to find out exactly why they feel so attacked by scientists and try to deal with it. This could be part of the communications effort.
I can't define it yet, but I believe the academies have to take on some kind of large-scale communications effort to deal, for example, with the question you just raised: "Why is it that some people feel this antagonism between science and religion when it just doesn't have to be?"
C&EN: As UCI chancellor, you controlled a very large budget that you had successfully helped to build. NAS has an endowment of more than $300 million. Do you plan to make fund-raising aimed at increasing the endowment one of your major undertakings?
Cicerone: Yes. I really think we have to. I'm not sure that fund-raising has to be aimed only at an endowment, but this organization-NAS and the other academies that work with it-really needs more private funding. We need the capability to act independently of sponsors of individual projects. Right now, we work mostly from project budget to project budget. There are just so many other things society needs that science, technology, and medicine could deliver, that we need a much more independent capability.
A great way to raise funds is when we can tell people how their money is going to be used, that we are not just raising money for the sake of raising money. I think we have a great story to tell about what we would do with the funding. Such funding could support internships for students and for young people interested in working in science policy and in science assessments, and for taking on controversial subjects that nobody else wants to pay for-and there are a lot of those subjects. For all these reasons, I plan to spend a lot of my time fund-raising.
C&EN: For those self-funded studies, are you thinking that NAS could play a role in filling the gap left by the demise of the congressional Office of Technology Assessment?
Cicerone: That's one role. After OTA was disbanded in 1995 or 1996, there was an increased demand put on NRC and the academies in general for such studies as OTA would have undertaken. The number of requests directly from Congress and from the White House to the academies has increased. In the old days, some of those requests would have been thrown straight at OTA.
But it's not the case that the academies should take on every study someone wants to be done. There's a matching that has to take place between our capabilities and the timescale called for. For example, we can't do every study as a fast-track study-one that a sponsor might want completed in a couple of months.
It's still somewhat of a political question whether OTA should or even can be reestablished. I would support its reestablishment because we would benefit from it. I know how many congressional offices really do need access to technical information and analysis, and it is more than the academies can deliver on. Of course, there may be other ways to fill the void, and it may not be that we need a new OTA.
C&EN: You've been on the job only since July 1, yet you've already testified twice before Congress. Do you plan to be a strong voice for science, especially in light of what appears to be increased politicization of science?
Cicerone: Well, I certainly hope so, although both of those particular testimonies to different Senate committees were requested-I didn't volunteer. So, I might say that I want be a strong voice for science, but that doesn't mean I'm going to be invited to speak.
C&EN: There doesn't have to be an invitation for you to speak out.
Cicerone: That's right, but it is also nice to be invited. I really feel very strongly that science and technology have so much to offer society: great things for young people to do, great benefits for society, employment for people, maintenance of the U.S.'s standard of living, and at the highest level, for the U.S. to continue to be seen as a leader in science and technology whose spin-offs benefit the rest of the people of the world. These are all roles for science and technology that I'm very comfortable with, very bullish about, and willing and eager to publicize.
C&EN: Do you plan to speak out for more funding for the physical sciences, which, over the years, has lagged behind funding for the biological sciences?
Cicerone: The large increases for the biological and biomedical sciences were really needed. Sustaining those high funding levels, and even continuing the increases, is needed, too. There are enormous opportunities for breakthroughs in the biological and biomedical sciences, and yet most people don't realize how much of the progress in those fields is based on physics, chemistry, and mathematics and the instruments that come out of these latter fields.
A number of prominent biomedical scientists will also be leading the fight for more funding of the physical sciences because they understand the contribution that the physical sciences make to the biomedical sciences. There are a lot of allies in advancing funding for the physical sciences, and I am very pleased to try to help out. I come from the physical sciences and I know what they can do, and I'm very happy to see biomedical scientists acknowledge this.
Biomedical scientists worked very hard to increase funding for the National Institutes of Health. They organized, they developed long-range plans, and they identified people in Congress with whom they could work. I don't think the physical scientists have yet tried anything like this. I hope we don't need such an organized approach, but we might.
C&EN: Do physical scientists have any congressional allies?
Cicerone: Yes. Rep. Sherwood L. Boehlert (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Science Committee; and Reps. Vernon J. Ehlers (R-Mich.), Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.), Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), and Rush D. Holt (D-N.J.). On the Senate side, there are also quite a few people who really get it, including New Mexico Sens. Pete V. Domenici (R) and Jeff Bingaman (D).
Most members of Congress are drawn to the practical side-to the benefits such funding can bring, for example, in energy or in providing new ideas and innovations that industries can then capitalize on. And on top of that, there are some who are just enthusiastic about science.
C&EN: How will you and the academies address the controversial issues of the day, such as stem cell research, intelligent design, and scientific openness versus national security?
Cicerone: Well, that's a plateful. They just represent the times we're in. The first thing we have to do is to get used to it. Not too long ago, scientists didn't have to work very hard to justify what they were doing. The public was very supportive, even acquiescent. Now, we simply have to continue to be responsible and be much more willing to communicate the benefits of what we are doing without overselling them. Fortunately, that won't be hard to do because we have good stories to tell.
On stem cell research, we need to do our research in transparent ways so people can see what we are doing, that we are following responsible guidelines of what is and is not acceptable, and that we are thinking ahead about the consequences. And we have to realize that the public deserves the right to make some of the choices of what's acceptable and what is not.
This is not the first time that the biomedical community has had to face issues of similar dimensions. A previous example is the self-imposed restraints the biomedical community placed on itself at the 1975 Asilomar Conference that anticipated aspects of recombinant DNA techniques. It's a bit more complicated today because our society has become even more diverse, and we have differing points of view coming from people of different nationalities and of different religions. I think the diversity of society leads to a richer variety of viewpoints that have to be taken into account.
C&EN: What about the issue of scientific openness and national security?
Cicerone: The tensions between security and openness are still with us, but I think people at the highest levels of government understand these tensions. I know that former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge met with university leaders frequently and told us what was on his mind. I came away from those meetings convinced that people at the highest levels in government who deal with such enormous responsibilities need some help. I also became convinced that they have to discharge their responsibilities without destroying what is valuable to protect in the first place.
So we scientists have to be very understanding. I think it starts by not assuming that the other party has the worst motives. We have to try to put ourselves in the shoes of those in government with national-security-related responsibilities. This is a role the academy can help with because, after all, somewhere in our charter document it states that we are to try to help the government, even though we are really not part of the government.
Easing the tensions between scientific openness and the perceived needs for security and secrecy is not getting any easier. But it is another instance where we can't let polarization take place. We have to try to understand what the needs of the other party are and to find common ground. I'm convinced that it exists.
For example, there is much recognition in the U.S. of the role that immigrants-whether they be students today or Jewish scientists at the end of World War II-play or have played in advancing U.S. science. Everybody understands how valuable these foreign points of view have been and how they have become part of the fabric of U.S. science. Yet we now have these imposed security guidelines that make it harder for students and established scientists to come to the U.S. We'll find ways to resolve this problem, and the academies are going to be in the thick of it.
C&EN: What role should the academies play in facilitating publication of research in highly controversial areas or in areas of national security concern?
Cicerone: We have to do our part in pointing out the value of the publication as opposed to any specific perceived risk of publishing, not only in our own journal-Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)-but in other scientific publications as well. Instead of walling everything off, we have to continue to point out the value of openness in society and how scientific information-scientific exchange-is beneficial to the U.S. as well as the rest of the world. We have a role in showing the benefits of openness, and yet we have to be very aware of any specific dangers that might arise from publication. It is easier said than done, but the academies can be part of the solution.
C&EN: If you agree that declining U.S. scientific literacy and interest in science are at the root of some of the controversy, what can you and NAS do to reverse the decline?
Cicerone: This is a tough one because, practically speaking, a society can invest in a small number of really large breakthroughs, and not everybody has to be involved in making those happen. Not everybody has to be literate in science and mathematics. But is that the kind of society we want?
Americans have always argued for the highest levels of literacy possible across the widest spectrum of people, so that everyone has some cognizance of what's going on and has some awareness of the potential scientific opportunities. Increased scientific literacy also supports our democracy by allowing people to speak intelligently and vote responsibly on controversial issues.
What I'm saying is there's a dichotomy here. What is absolutely essential to make scientific and technical advances may not require wide literacy, but too many other American values do argue for wide literacy. We have to be very careful not to compromise and say, "Well, we can continue to make great scientific advances by giving opportunities only to the most capable and most motivated." If we do, if we take such a narrow approach, we lose too much else in the bargain.
C&EN: More directly, if there were a greater understanding of science among today's diverse society, would there be, for example, less controversy about such issues as stem cell research?
Cicerone: I think so, because some of the fear is fear of the unknown. Having a wider awareness of what is actually possible, what limits scientists impose on themselves, and what research can legally be done removes a lot of the fear of the unknowns driving some of the controversies now. Yes, wider literacy could help.
C&EN: Is promoting scientific literacy part of the communications effort you envision?
Cicerone: Any effort to communicate about science has to address the controversial issues. Some issues will not be quite as cosmic, quite as philosophical as, for example, whether humans are necessary to explore space. Yet even within these latter debates there are real questions of the costs involved in human-based exploration programs versus programs that are instrument-based. There is a significant budget component to the discussion of space exploration, and the public will make better decisions if it understands what can be done and cannot be done.
Another example is understanding what's involved in preparing next year's vaccines against flu viruses. Last year we had an oscillatory situation where we didn't have enough vaccine, and then we had more than enough. How did this situation arise?
The fact is, we are leaving that entire situation up to only a few experts who are saddled with the huge responsibility of deciding the makeup of the vaccine and how much should be produced. There has to be a wider understanding of what we are capable of doing, and who has the decision-making responsibility and what bets they have to make to avoid having situations like last year's.
I'm pretty comfortable saying that wider literacy is a goal that we have to strive for as a society, and NAS has a prime role to play. The question is, How effective can NAS be? How effective can we be in concept, strategy, and implementation, which is going to be expensive? I think any communications effort will have to be long-range, a five-, 10-, or 15-year effort.
C&EN: Recently, PNAS published a paper on the possibility of a terrorist attack on the U.S. milk supply using botulinum toxin. Publication was delayed after the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) asked for its withdrawal on the basis that it was "a road map for terrorists." But some arms control experts have argued that the paper should have been rebutted, not censored, because it was based on implausible and alarmist assumptions. What steps will PNAS take in the future to ensure that security-based papers are well-founded?
Cicerone: I wasn't aware of the views of the arms control experts. Bruce Alberts, the previous NAS president, published a commentary along with the paper to explain the reasoning that led to its publication. The reasoning was basically that the net result was judged to be positive; namely, that the threats that were exposed and quantified implied an action that public health officials could take that would in turn minimize the risks. So, on balance, Alberts argued that the publication was justified.
PNAS already has in place another level of review that is in parallel with the normal scientific review. Whichever editor is handling a given paper always asks contributors if there are any potential security risks to publishing the paper. And if it is determined that there might be, additional reviewers are identified and asked to deal with such questions as, How big is the risk? Should the paper be modified in any way before it is accepted and before it is published? So PNAS already has established procedures to deal with security-related papers.
Then, as a second step, we wrote to HHS's new committee-the National Scientific Advisory Board on Biosecurity-not too long ago, asking it to give us some retrospective advice on the botulinum-in-milk paper. We didn't ask the committee if it agreed with the decision to publish the paper. We asked it to comment on what more, if anything, NAS might have done.
The HHS committee, you know, was created partly at the recommendation of an NRC report, an academy study led by Gerald Fink from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. So we take some of the credit and some of the blame for the committee being established.
C&EN: On the issue of publishing, about 80% of the growth in scientific publishing in recent years has come from non-U.S. papers. Do you view this as a problem? And if so, how do you suggest it be reversed?
Cicerone: I don't think it's a problem. I think it speaks to the fantastic growth in scientific capability around the world. Generally speaking, it's a positive development. It shows, however, that the kind of competition the U.S. has now, we have never had before, at least not since World War II. The warning here is one of competition for the U.S. But it is generally healthy that the rate and quality of publication from overseas scientists have increased so much.
Other similar indicators, such as the number of advanced degrees earned by non-U.S. scientists, tell us that we really have to watch out. Among other things, we have to understand that a lot of the U.S.'s high standard of living comes from knowledge-based industries in which innovation has to be the rule rather than something that occasionally happens because of luck. We have to treat innovation as something that is precious and valuable. And we have to remember that we increase our chances of innovating by maintaining a high flow of people with advanced degrees who are given the opportunities to use those degrees.
That is what is happening overseas. Also, overseas countries have the temporary advantage of low labor costs. Businesses that are capitalizing on innovation and foreign governments that are encouraging it are paying their people less, for the most part, than those same people would be paid in the U.S.
We have to overcome this disadvantage, probably through even more innovation, because we are not going to beat other countries by increasing manufacturing in the U.S. Even in some industrial development situations now, some companies are moving their manufacturing operations overseas. It's part of the modern world.
C&EN: There are some very interesting shifts in the demographics of the U.S. scientific enterprise: The total number of students studying science-especially the physical sciences-has declined, but of those earning degrees, the number of females has increased, while the number of males has declined. And until recently, the number of foreign students was climbing dramatically. How do you view these trends?
Cicerone: We have a study under way now that I hope will be released in the fall. It probably will not be the last word, but I think it will be among the early assessments of these trends. It will put all of these trends together and venture an estimate of what might happen next and what the U.S. might need to do to keep a healthy flow of people going into the physical, biological, engineering, and computer sciences. It will also elaborate on why that flow is necessary.
In addition to the trends you just summarized, there are a lot more that amplify what you were saying. These include the enormous incentives being given by foreign governments to industry and the growth in R&D overseas, not only by American companies locating some of their R&D overseas but also from the new R&D capability in foreign companies.
In my lifetime, I have never seen a challenge like this. Is this something to be feared? Only if we don't act. If we act, we can take advantage of this dynamic movement around the rest of the world. Americans are pretty good at that. But if we don't act, we are going to be left behind, absolutely.
I believe it's going to be difficult to stem that loss of manufacturing jobs, and unless we act, we are going to lose R&D jobs as well. We have to encourage innovation in the U.S. so that new, innovative ideas become the basis for entire new industries and entire new products, because we are not going to win with low labor costs, that's for sure.
C&EN: Do you think the current emphasis on national security concerns is threatening the vitality of the U.S. scientific enterprise?
Cicerone: Yes. We have to continue to modify policies that discourage foreign graduate students from coming to the U.S. This was probably not intended by the extra security measures put in place after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, but it has had that effect.
We have had enough reports from foreign students and leaders to the effect that discouragement over visas, for example, is to blame for the decrease in applications to graduate schools from foreign students. It is an issue, and it is something we are concerned about, absolutely. Then there is the length of visas-the time period for which visas are being granted is a concern. Still, we have to keep working with the government to help it find ways to streamline the visa process by addressing government's main concerns. Such an approach may alleviate broad-brush approaches that end up having unintended effects.
C&EN: Do you think the demographics you addressed earlier, the fact that U.S. scientists are publishing a smaller share of the scientific literature, and the increased concern about national security portend a decline in the U.S.'s leadership in science and technology?
Cicerone: Only if we don't act. For example, another source of foreign capability is digital information. You no longer have to be near the greatest library to obtain the information housed in that library. As long as we are aware of what all the capabilities are and continue to provide opportunities for people, we can maintain our lead.
That is not merely nationalistic fervor. Americans are used to a high standard of living, and they want to maintain that standard. On top of that, the U.S. has such capabilities to be a world leader in enabling people to help themselves that I think our science and technology leadership is very important to maintain for the good of the world as well.
C&EN: Should the U.S. fear the growing science and technology capacity of China and India? Or should the U.S. capitalize on that growth, perhaps through joint research projects?
Cicerone: I would prefer the latter for a lot of reasons. One of which is the historical strength of the U.S. to permit people from other lands to take advantage of opportunities in the U.S. Many of these people decide to stay in the U.S. Even if they go back to their homelands, they have been inoculated with the American way of life. They become allies in many ways while they maintain cooperation, for example, through student exchanges and fellowships and, also, by working with American companies overseas. So, it's really a much more open world today than it was during the Cold War-and we have to learn our way.
Additionally, I think starting out with fears is not a recipe for success, as is starting out with confidence. There has to be confidence that we can innovate and innovate better than anybody else. We have a great record that shows that we can!
It all flows back to the success of American graduate schools. You know, for the most part, high school education in the U.S. isn't at the same high level as high school education is in other countries. Even at the bachelor's degree level, at least in the sciences, degrees overseas are more advanced than those here.
Something happens in graduate school in American research universities that is not yet duplicated in the rest of the world. It is the ability to combine learning the fundamentals with doing research that leads to innovation.
C&EN: You said earlier that NAS can't do a study on every requested topic, but what about the length of reports? Will you encourage that they be shorter and more readable?
Cicerone: I like long reports when they are really needed to give a full exposition of context, of the assumptions made, of the questions addressed, and finally of the nuances of the answers. Where I do think we should improve is in the length of the summaries.
I don't know why so many of our NRC reports have very long summaries. Some of them are called executive summaries, which is a term that is often not valid. Most of the time, summaries should simply be called summaries, not executive summaries. When they are 20 pages long, they are certainly not summaries. I think we need punchier summaries. We also should develop other products, other ways of delivering the messages and analyses of the NRC reports.
Recently, some of the NRC staff have experimented with four-page summaries of entire reports. These are going over very well with a wider, broader audience, including the people who requested the study in the first place.
C&EN: What are your views on open access?
Cicerone: You mean making journals available free to everyone, all the time? I know that the American Chemical Society and some other publishers have been fighting this battle with people and organizations that are demanding that all papers be available all the time, for free immediately.
I value open access, but I also see some practical needs. I really like publishers from scientific societies. Commercial publishers have done some marvelous things. Yet, in my personal experience, I've liked what the scientific societies do because they control the choice of editors and, presumably, the choice of reviewers is more under the control of the scientific community than it would be under commercial publishing.
So I have a lot of sympathy with the scientific societies as they change their funding models to make the journals more affordable. I have a lot of practical concerns about how quickly we can move to making everything accessible electronically, anywhere, all the time, for free.
I don't know the right balance yet, but I'm not going to start off insisting on one model or another. I think we have to pay attention to some practical concerns. For example, some scientific societies depend on the revenue that journals generate to support other activities, many of which members want and need.
On the other hand, PNAS has done a great job of making itself available all over the world essentially for free. We would like other journals to get there, if we can.
C&EN: Despite the wide acclaim for your landmark 2001 climate-change report, it's made very little impact on Bush Administration policies, even though President George W. Bush requested it. What, if anything, do you plan to do as NAS president to impress on the Administration the need to act expeditiously?
Cicerone: When the academy speaks publicly, when I speak publicly, we try to trace our statements to reports that have been peer reviewed. So in speaking and arguing, we can point to our existing reports, which are largely about the physical and biological science of climate change.
The academy hasn't done too much in the way of climate policy options for the past decade or so. There was a big report in 1992 called something like "Policy Options for Climate Change." We should probably update it with another study on policy options of climate change, which, of course, gets you right back to energy policy.
I'm still of the mind that there are a lot of pieces of low-hanging fruit to be taken in the way of energy efficiency, which have a win-win character to them. Scientists always have to remember, though, that in terms of policy options, all we can do is analyze and describe options; we don't have the final choice.
So the academy and I will continue to argue our positions from a strong, objective basis, but we are not going to step too far into the political arena when it is just political.
For example, what is the most effective way to limit carbon dioxide emissions? Would it be a carbon tax? Or would it be a very pro-technology approach that would emphasize new gadgets for energy efficiency? Our job is to analyze the possibilities of the options, but not necessarily to choose among them. To choose is really the role of our political leaders. We should analyze, perhaps we could propose, but it is not our job to choose-and we have to keep reminding ourselves of that.
Join the conversation
Contact the reporter
Submit a Letter to the Editor for publication
Engage with us on Twitter