USGCRP
Home 
National Assessment
Acclimations
Fall
2000
At the Interface Between Science and Public Policy: Lessons Learned from
Assessments |
| Search |
| USGCRP
Home
National Assessment
Acclimations
Fall
2000
At the Interface Between Science and Public Policy: Lessons Learned from
Assessments |
| Search |
|
|
|
 |
 By
Ari Patrinos, Associate Director for Biological and Environmental
Research, Office of Science, U.S. Department of EnergyI have fiddled with assessments for over twenty years and I still have a lot of trouble defining the term. There is no question that "assessment" means different things to different people and perhaps the quest for an exact definition is quixotic. In the environmental business we've used the term for activities ranging all the way from scholarly state-of-the-science reviews to very applied (and often highly speculative) impact analyses. It's fine as far as I'm concerned as long as we are quite explicit in defining the boundaries and parameters of the specific assessment enterprise. I came to Washington in 1984 because I wanted to translate my research on acid rain into something more useful to related policy debate. Those were the heady days of the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP) that was mandated by Congress to help update the Clean Air Act by 1990. In my view, this "assessment" was viewed as a bit of basic research, quite a few observations (including routine observations and episodic campaigns), a lot of numerical modeling, and finally the synthesis of all the results into rather voluminous products that would inform emission control strategies. It's become fashionable to criticize NAPAP for failing to play a significant role in the reauthorization of the Clean Air Act. Many papers have been written on the subject and I certainly don't have the space for even a summary of the major conclusions. Memories are, perhaps, also too fresh for a dispassionate examination of the criticisms and for an assessment (that "word" again!) of NAPAP's successes and failures. I happen to believe that NAPAP did, in fact, influence the policy process although not in the way that we had originally expected. In short, we had expected more of a serial translation from basic science through modeling constructs to "what if" scenarios. Instead, we had more of a chaotic diffusion of scientific information to the policy world which, in the final analysis, pretty much got it right. The interface between science and public policy and the important role that assessments play in this interface are important issues and challenges. In this respect, there are some important lessons to be drawn from the NAPAP experience and perhaps from similar programs that are intended to improve the basis for decision making about a particular issue or set of issues or problems. The NAPAP Oversight Review Board has suggested that one important lesson learned from NAPAP is to give assessment primacy in programs that are at the interface between science and public policy. Primacy, however, does not necessarily mean that assessments should be the primary focus of such programs but rather they should play an important role in influencing science policy decisions in programs that are intended to inform the public policy process. Assessments can counter tendencies for such programs to either become captive to scientific impulses, which can limit their usefulness, or be driven by short-term goals and political pressures that may prevent them from achieving a perspective needed to inform major policy directions and decisions. Another, and perhaps even more important reason for giving assessments primacy is that science and research findings per se have little to offer directly to the public policy process. Their usefulness, instead, depends on assessments that interpret the findings in terms useful to decision makers. Another important lesson to be drawn from NAPAP is to take steps to assure program continuity. Long-term research programs, such as the U.S. Global Change Research Program (US/GCRP), require continuity in vision, goals and implementation. Without such continuity, there is a risk of the program disintegrating into loosely related projects or wither as initial enthusiasm and support wane. This requires organizational structure that is somewhat insulated from changes in leadership, and careful articulation of a long-term research and assessment strategy. Such a strategy may include interim or periodic assessments that both reinforce the importance of the vision of the program and allow, when needed, systematic and orderly mid-course corrections in the research and assessments. Assuring continuity also requires broad and effective communication of the vision and promise of the program. Almost three years ago, the U.S. Global Change Research Program agencies embarked on an assessment of the consequences of climate change and climate variation for the U.S. I admit that my NAPAP experience influenced how I thought about the climate assessment both in terms of institutional and process structure as well as in terms of deliverables. I confess that my original proposal for the institutional structure was a lot more top-down and very much Washington-centric. Perhaps I overestimated the efficiency and uniformity of a centralized activity. I also worried that the alternatives would be more difficult to fund at the appropriate levels. Clearly, our climate assessment has evolved differently from my original vision but I am not at all disappointed by this turn of events. Talented and dedicated people from many regions and even more disciplines have come together to contribute to this effort. We probably wouldn't have this rich diversity of talent and commitment if they had listened to me back then. However, this is still an experiment in progress. As we approach the milestone of our first report this fall, we should be prepared to both draw lessons from other assessments, including those from NAPAP, and undertake a rigorous "lessons learned" study of the national assessment for both course corrections as well as for future endeavors of this type. One of my strong interests remains in understanding how information reaches and can influence policymakers and whether it is even realistic to expect that an orderly roadmap can be designed for the task. I believe what we've started on the climate assessment will give us more insight into the matter and help us develop the assessment tools and processes to better fulfill this important mandate of the Global Change Research Act of 1990. |
|
