Jeff Mount recently opined on what will happen to Delta Science:
The Chief Scientist for the Delta has retired. No, not Cliff Dahm. He’s the Lead Scientist for
the Delta Science Program (although he is returning to the University of New Mexico). Rather, it is Oliver Wanger, the mercurial judge of the United States District Court, who has moved on, and now apparently works for one of the more enthusiastic litigants in his court (Westlands Water District– yes, this was a bit of a surprise).
uring his tenure overseeing the many lawsuits over the operation of the State Water Project and the Central Valley Project, Judge Wanger became the arbiter of scientific disagreements. In effect, the least qualified scientist in the Delta was making decisions about what qualified as Science. [emboldening mine]
Well,what's new? Judges increasingly make decisions about science. Perhaps we can get hydrogeologists to render decisions involving criminal law. Hey, Law and Order used to be one of my favorite shows. A stupid idea, for sure.
Mount then asks the question to which no one has the answer:
Now that Judge Wanger has moved on, what’s next for Delta Science?
A modest proposal: let's decide such similar societal-scientific issues, whether in the Delta or elsewhere, by a panel of experts chaired by a sitting judge. But how would the experts be chosen? Perhaps each side could select an equal number of experts with the stipulation that the experts could not have been employed by any of the parties involved. Each side could even be allowed to place one attorney on the panel. This selection process might result in an unwieldy panel (likely too large).
Better yet, have a disinterested third party or organization select the experts.Maybe the National Academy of Sciences?
Once the panel was selected, the scientific case would be made by each side for the panel to decide. The judge would be there to ensure that the law was followed. The panel's decision, say by a 2/3 majority, would be binding.
Such an approach has worked in simpler cases. I was once asked to be nominated as an expert in a groundwater contamination case. A three-person panel, chaired by a retired judge, would decide the merits of the case and render a binding decision. I had to decline because of time constraints. But I found the premise quite intriguing; it's a way to mitigate the 'dueling experts' syndrome.
Dumb idea? No dumber than having judges pass on science.
Or, perhaps a water czar might do?
"Injustice is relatively easy to bear; it is justice that hurts. ~H.L. Mencken
Have the scientists on all sides put their money where their mouth is -- on falsifiable claims -- and THEN we'll see where the science is!*
-- just another solution from your friendly, neighborhood economist.
* If you missed the implication: those who prove the claim wrong get paid by the scientist who made the false claim.
Posted by: David Zetland | Tuesday, 06 December 2011 at 11:21 AM