WaterWired

John A. Cherry Editorial: 'The Groundwater Project - Democratizing Groundwater Knowledge'

Dr. John A. Cherry, the only hydrogeologist (apologies to Gedeon Dagan - thank you, Gretchen Miller) to win the Stockholm Water Prize (2020) wrote this editorial in the current issue of Groundwater 58(5) September-October 2020. It's important enough for me to publish here. I admire John as a scientist but I admire him even more for what he has undertaken.

Download Gwat.13029

Read on:

We are in a global water crisis right now and groundwater is at the core of it because 99% of the Earth's liquid freshwater is groundwater, and groundwater is the buffer of the world water system. Nearly 50% of the world population depends on groundwater for domestic use and many more on its irrigation benefits. An inevitable increase on this dependence is coming as the population swells. Groundwater is used locally but transferred around the world in food and products. There are unprecedented rates of change to the water cycle and much is out of balance. Unfortunately, this elusive and invisible groundwater resource is commonly misunderstood, mismanaged, and abused. A key limiting factor is that the immense advances in groundwater science of the past 50 years are not being put to work in solving today's problems. The science is not being converted into widely recognized benefits to humanity and the environment. Why? Scientific knowledge is not sufficiently democratized.

Knowledge democratization means full accessibility to it around the globe. Accessibility to knowledge has been limited by a number of impediments. First is the peer‐review journal publication process. Although successful as the gatekeeper for scientific advancement, it is a tragic restriction presenting only fragments of incremental insights. By design, journals communicate short, ongoing, often inconclusive, and site/time‐specific research findings that do not filter and synthesize the exploding literature into the essence of scientific advances needed for education and into actionable knowledge useful to policy makers and resource managers. Second is the flawed judging of science. Journal citation statistics are the main criteria for career advancement in universities and strongly influence who receives research funding, resulting in funding of established ideas, not new ones. Pressure to publish has caused the fragmented groundwater literature to become immense, making synthesis incredibly challenging. The third limitation is financial. Research is conducted using primarily public resources through university and government salaries supporting the researchers, journal editors, and reviewers, yet to finance the journal, the journal's copyright restricts access to only those who are willing to pay. The unintended consequence is that science created using public money for the public good is severely restricted in serving its constituency, the public. The fourth limitation is lack of incentives for conversion of the journal outputs into synthesized knowledge for understanding beyond the narrow expertise of its origins. Time spent on writing a book or article of long‐term benefit to the broader scientific community, users of science (policy makers, managers), and benefactors of science (the public) does not get administrative support and can restrict career advancement. The fifth limitation, a corollary from the previous ones resulting from the ignorance of groundwater benefits to humans and ecology, is lack of funding for field testing of many of the new concepts, models, and technologies to assess advantages to serve societal needs.

As a giant step toward overcoming these impediments to democratization of groundwater knowledge, The Groundwater Project(GW‐Project) has been initiated, which is an online platform for groundwater knowledge. At its core is a comprehensive and living e‐book series, free to all, in many languages, to represent quality syntheses from elementary to advanced levels for our state‐of‐knowledge on all aspects of groundwater science and engineering, with regular updating as the knowledge grows and evolves. It is written and edited by expert scientists and practitioners with many decades of experience volunteering their time to realize a noble shared vision: knowledge should be free, and free knowledge should be the best knowledge synthesized in a unifying framework.

Motivated by the textbook Groundwater(Freeze and Cherry 1979), and with more than 300 participants from 14 countries on 6 continents, the GW‐Project is ushering in a new era for understanding groundwater and its vital role in the freshwater cycle. The team is answering humanity's call to service, to transcend college campuses, national boundaries, language barriers, and socioeconomical ladders, enabled by the Internet. To help facing our global water crisis, we invite you to join our community as we embark on our journey. Check https://gw‐project.org for more information.

The author appreciates the contributions of Ying Fan, Allan Freeze, Ineke Kalwij, Doug Mackay, Stephen Moran, Everton de Oliveira, Beth Parker, Eileen Poeter, Warren Wood, and Yan Zheng to this vision, in alphabetical order.

Read my blog post on the project. Consider a donation: click here.

Enjoy!

“Those who can, do; those who understand, teach.” - Aristotle

Sharon B. Megdal's Reflections: 'Relevance Today of Comments on Arizona’s Future from 1987'

Sharon B. Megdal, a friend, colleague and one of the smartest ones in the room, runs the Arizona Water Resources Research Center at the University of Arizona. She has started a series of Reflections that I have found fascinating. Today's is: Reflections: Relevance Today of Comments on Arizona’s Future from 1987.

Here she is with Gov. Bruce Babbitt - 1987 and 2020 (click on the graphic to enlarge it):

Here goes:

I have lived in Arizona for close to 42 years. When I moved to Arizona from New Jersey, where I grew up and was educated, I had no idea I would become a water professional. I studied economics as an undergraduate at Rutgers University and as a graduate student at Princeton University. My fields of specialization were Public Sector Economics (the economics of government tax and expenditure policy), Econometrics (using statistical methods and models to characterize economic behavior), and International Economics. Note the absence of anything sounding like water, agricultural, or environmental economics.

Some interesting twists and turns in my professional career led me, since the early 1990s, to focus almost exclusively on water. The most pivotal event occurred in September 1985, when Governor Bruce Babbitt appointed me to fill a vacancy on the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC), the body responsible for regulating privately owned utilities. I was therefore especially pleased to publicly thank Mr. Babbitt at the WRRC’s June 2020 annual conference for profoundly influencing my career. 

Recently, when scanning some publications from the 1980s, I came across a document I had totally forgotten: the proceedings of the October 27-28, 1987 Arizona Futures Symposium. My speaking assignment at the symposium was to react to Robert Theobald’s comments, entitled “A Framework for Thinking About Transportation Issues.” I was asked to focus on economic issues and Arizona’s future carrying capacity. Robert Theobald (June 11, 1929 – November 27, 1999) was a distinguished consulting economist and futurist author. In October 1987, I had the experience of ACC service and my economics training to draw upon. I was a self-employed consultant and part-time Visiting Associate Professor at Northern Arizona University, teaching economics for NAU’s MBA program. 

As I reviewed the transcript of my commentary, I found portions pertinent to our situation today and our quest to address wicked water problems. To acknowledge the 35th anniversary of my appointment to the ACC, I would like to reflect upon observations from that time, specifically my 1987 symposium commentary. Perhaps you will find my comments relevant to some of our current-day water policy challenges and efforts to identify pathways to solutions and conclude, as I did, that “the more things change, the more they stay the same.”

In late 1987, we were in the transition from the industrial era to the communications era, just a few years after the break-up of AT&T, the monopoly that provided most of the country with telephone service. These were uncertain times for the telecommunications industry. Judge Harold Greene, who presided over the breakup, wielded a lot of power. I asked the question: “Can we rely on the Judge, the state and federal regulatory bodies, the companies involved, and the market to coordinate so that the communications network develops in an appropriate fashion? There are some who are quite pessimistic about the answer to this question. The infrastructure we will have in place to handle our transportation and communications needs will depend on many parties and many actions, and is not likely to be ‘optimal’.”

I pointed out that communications and transportation systems can be substitutes, something we are so keenly aware of now that COVID-19 has upended our work, educational, and personal lives. Then, teleconferencing and facsimile transmission were two examples of how the communications network could be used instead of the transportation network. Who would have imagined that we’d have the virtual meeting platforms we now have?!

When looking toward the future, I asked: “What will make things change so that a farsighted public policy replaces the crisis management spirit that pervades so much of government’s – and the private sector’s – operations? We are talking about things that require a long lead time. Shorter run problems require more immediate attention and resources. How can a community that cannot determine its carrying capacity in the short run (or does so only by default) ever find the resources to devote to longer term problem solving?” I noted the need to “formulate the questions now and educate the public – including decision makers – on the questions and also on the future implications of current decisions. Too often we search for answers when the questions have not even been properly articulated.”

Drawing upon the fiscal federalism framework that has shaped my thinking about a multitude of public policy matters, I spoke about jurisdictional responsibility. “What level of government should have the responsibility of dealing with these issues? We live in a federal system of states, counties, cities, school districts, improvement districts, etc. Arizona is made up of many different regions, each with its own character and problems and, therefore, solutions. Most observers of demographic and economic trends point to the disappearance of the bell-shaped income distribution. Instead we see a bimodal distribution – lots of poor and lots of well-to-do, with little in between…How will such an income distribution affect social and physical infrastructure requirements?”

Whether transportation, water, or other governmental responsibilities, I have long been interested in the diversity of situations. I suggest to you that these 1987 observations could be made today and in the context of water: “Economic conditions vary not only within counties, but also between counties. There is already a feeling within the state of the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’. Fiscal constraints are going to be no less important [in the future] than they are today. In fact, they may become more severe.” I further observed that “the challenges of developing appropriate policy for the future will necessitate cooperation among many levels of government and between the private and public sectors. I think this is a reality that must be recognized.”

I ended my remarks with some statements that I again suggest have relevance to today’s water policy dialogues. “What can be done so that we have a chance of choosing a policy vector that leads us to a desirable future? We must recognize that we are borrowing from future generations so that we may have today. We are borrowing for things we should not be [borrowing for] and not borrowing for things (such as building of infrastructure) that we should be. There are no easy solutions. We have difficulty solving today’s problems. Management is rewarded on quarterly profits. Elected public officials are judged on what they did while in office, not on the basis of what they might have done for the very long run.”

I am going to end this essay as I ended my commentary. I have been consistent in my call for education at all levels and in acknowledging that both the private and public sectors have important roles to play in resolving our thorny public policy challenges. “I am convinced that more resources have to go into public education on issues related to our future. There needs to be a continual effort to formulate questions and discuss issues and potential solutions…The commitment of resources will have to come from the government and the private sector, as both have a stake in our future.”

We both came to Arizona from the Northeast: she from New Jersey, me from New York.

In 1987 I was long gone from the UofA and Tucson; I was there from August 1970 to June 1976. I still have fond memories of Tucson (although the metro area is about 3X larger than in 1970 and it is hotter in the summer as well. 

Enjoy!

“You know you’re an Arizona native when you hug a cactus only once in your lifetime.” - Nancy Dedera

Lisa Beutler: What to Do about Wicked Water Problems

Lisa Beutler is a friend and colleague of mine, a former president of AWRA, among other things. She is now at Stantec (formerly MWH Global) where she is a Senior Principal and executive facilitator. When it comes to wicked water (or other) problems I cannot think of anyone better. She's 'da one'. 

So why I am telling you this? Because in yesterday's post, another A-lister, Sharon Megdal, referred to Lisa's keynote address at the 2016 WRRC Annual Conference.

Here goes:

It’s a rare day when western water managers don’t check the weather. A defining feature of this geographic region of the United States is a lack of precipitation. A second feature is great faith by its people in a technical solution to whatever problem a lack of rain creates. 

Long before Europeans arrived, predecessors to the Hohokam people migrated from central Mexico to southern Arizona, bringing domesticated crops and their knowledge of irrigation with them. Their descendants constructed networks of diversion dikes to capture runoff rainwater and cultivate fields. Mission priests expanded and enhanced the historic systems, building new rock dams and small earthen reservoirs. In 1902, the U.S. Reclamation Service (later changed to Bureau of Reclamation) was created to advance a federal effort of “irrigation works for the storage, diversion and development of waters”— to irrigate arid and semiarid lands in 16 Western states and territories. 

It worked. The West bloomed. Planners and engineers crisply defined, understood, and fixed problems through technical solutions. It was not simple, yet problems were solvable. Either solutions worked or they didn’t. 

Lately, more and more water problems seemingly defy standard solutions. This typically occurs for four reasons: incomplete or contradictory knowledge, the number of people and opinions involved, the large economic burden, and the interconnected nature of these problems with other problems. These are wicked problems. Wicked problems are often hot potatoes tossed back and forth among policy makers, and decried as too substantial for grand solutions. 

Wicked problems are not solved—they can only be mitigated through an approach that emphasizes empathy, abductive reasoning, and rapid prototyping. It is not possible to present an elegant solution and be done. 

Horst Rittel, one of the first to formalize a theory of wicked problems, cites ten characteristics of these complicated social issues 

1. Wicked problems have no definitive formulation. The problem of poverty in Texas is grossly similar but discretely different from poverty in Nairobi, so no practical characteristics describe “poverty.” 
2. It is hard, maybe impossible, to measure or claim success with wicked problems because they bleed into one another, unlike the boundaries of traditional design problems that can be articulated or defined. 
3. Solutions to wicked problems can be only good or bad, not true or false. There is no idealized end state to arrive at, and so approaches to wicked problems should be tractable ways to improve a situation rather than solve it. 
4. There is no template to follow when tackling a wicked problem, although history may provide a guide. Teams that approach wicked problems must literally make things up as they go along. 
5. There is always more than one explanation for a wicked problem, with the appropriateness of the explanation depending greatly on the individual perspective of the designer. 
6. Every wicked problem is a symptom of another problem. The interconnected quality of socio-economic political systems illustrates how, for example, a change in education will cause new behavior in nutrition. 
7. No mitigation strategy for a wicked problem has a definitive scientific test because humans invented wicked problems and science exists to understand natural phenomena. 
8. Offering a “solution” to a wicked problem frequently is a “one shot” design effort because a significant intervention changes the design space enough to minimize the ability for trial and error. 
9. Every wicked problem is unique. 
10. Those addressing a wicked problem must have authority and responsibility for their actions. 

Water planners and managers play a central role in mitigating the negative consequences of wicked problems. They will be required to position efforts in new and more desirable directions. This will not be easy, quick, or solitary. It requires methodical, rigorous iteration focused on the system qualities of the problem. Interdisciplinary collaboration that captures a broader knowledge of science, economics, statistics, technology, psychology, politics, and more is necessary for effective change. 

Water managers and planners will also need to more actively utilize abductive reasoning in addition to deductive  and inductive approaches. 

Abductive reasoning begins with an incomplete set of observations and proceeds to the likeliest possible explanation for the set. This method yields the kind of daily decision-making that does its best with the information at hand, which often is incomplete. In court cases, judge and jury consider whether the prosecution or the defense has the best explanation to cover all the evidence. While reasonable, it is subjective. 

Whereas deductive reasoning creates certainty and inductive reasoning quantifies uncertainty, abductive reasoning attempts to create meaning when uncertainty exists. 

Managing wicked problems is a new kind of work. It requires changing the questions, managing uncertainty, and creating resilience. It does not solve existing problems but instead drives to a desired future state. 

Reframing water issues as wicked problems will be essential for moving forward to a healthy water future. It begins with considering issues and solutions at the system scale. Water projects can no longer be solely the domain of the water community. Creating a change in one part of the water system will change the entire system, including the dependent social and environmental systems, sometimes in unexpected ways. This will require yet another solution to address that situation. It is an adaptive, iterative exercise. Solutions to wicked problems are never one and done. 

Traditional approaches that focus on solution-proposing will need to transition to a process that defines a desired state. Solutions then balance and reconcile tradeoffs while considering self-interests of the parties. 

Given that issues must be addressed at the system scale, collaboration and interdisciplinary approaches are key. The way the parts work together are as important as how they work individually. While this degree of upfront engagement may seem time consuming, it takes far less time than the rework required when a lack of integration creates problems. 

The largest hurdle may be reframing the public’s perception of water management. The faith in the technological solution and the ability of the water professionals to create certain outcomes, while well deserved, does not match the emerging reality. 

Introducing a wicked problems framework and the need for adaptive management is key. Also needed is an understanding that solutions for wicked problems are only good or bad, not true or false. This requires a change to previous approaches for defining success. 

Moving forward, water managers will continue looking at the weather. The good news is, there are new ways of thinking about how to manage what it brings. 

Enjoy!

“Managing wicked problems is a new kind of work. It requires changing the questions, managing uncertainty, and creating resilience. It does not solve existing problems but instead drives to a desired future state.” - Lisa Beutler

Sharon B. Megdal Reflections: Time to Retire the Water Buffalo Symbol?

Say what? So who's got a problem with the water buffalo symbol? Dr. Sharon B. Megdal, Director of the University of Arizona's Water Resources Research Centerand a friend and colleague, asked this question a month ago and I am repeating here.

BTW: She would like feedback - smegdal@arizona.edu by 24 August 2020. I will provide mine at the end of her article.

Here's the PDF: Download Reflections-water-buffalo_July2020

Sharon's Take

I am writing to invite your feedback on an important issue that came up at the Happy Hour discussion I hosted at the Water Resources Research Center’s 2020 Annual Conference, Water at the Crossroads: The Next 40 Years. On June 18 and 19, 2020, the audience heard distinguished speakers and panelists address the history, current status, and future of Arizona water policy and management. We are grateful for the many individuals who joined us virtually. Keynote addresses, along with panel presentations and discussions, are available at our conference website. In addition to the formal sessions, at the end of the first day, two of our sponsors and I hosted informal Happy Hour discussions. The conversation at the Happy Hour I hosted was quite lively and brought up a controversy that has prompted me to write this Reflections essay.

What was the controversial matter? Was it the potential transfer of water from the Colorado River communities to Central Arizona? Was it the role of the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District? Both were prominently discussed by Governor Bruce Babbitt in his opening keynote address. No, the controversial matter relates to something else Mr. Babbitt mentioned multiple times, namely, his reference to the water buffalo. He noted the more than 400 water buffaloes assembled for the conference at the very beginning of his remarks. In fact, he mentioned water buffaloes three times, and other speakers referred to the water buffalo as well. Some participants in our Happy Hour discussion, however, did not welcome the association. They did not interpret it as a term of endearment, as I have thought of it. I recall responding positively when I was seemingly welcomed to the water buffalo herd back in 2004. At the Arizona Town Hall held that autumn at the Grand Canyon, CAP General Manager Sid Wilson handed me a “Darned Proud Water Buffalo” pin. That pin is shown on the collar worn by the water buffalo pictured above. That wood water buffalo statue is one of my herd of four water buffalo figures, all of which were given to me over the years by a professional friend.

What associates a person with the water buffalo? In our Happy Hour discussion, some participants indicated that the water buffalo is not a pleasant animal; they did not consider being called a water buffalo a compliment. They were also put off by the sense that the water buffalos were members of an exclusive club. When searching online for something written connecting the water buffalo and water management in Arizona, I found the 2004 Annual Report of the Central Arizona Project. General Manager Sid Wilson’s letter to constituents opens: “The theme of Central Arizona Project’s 2004 annual report, Water Buffalos Undeterred, is kind of an in-joke among the water community. However, it is the kind of joke that should include the public. Since before Arizona was a state a small group of individuals has always been concerned with water issues. These people, who are virtually unknown to the general public, are responsible for what we are today.” A few paragraphs later, he writes: “Within the industry, those folks are called ‘Water Buffalors.’ There are a lot of theories about how the name evolved. Some say it’s because they were just a bunch of grumpy old men. Some say it’s because, like the water buffalo, these Water Buffaloes plodded along and would not be deterred from accomplishing their goals.”

A central focus of Bruce Babbitt’s keynote address was the process for engaging in dialogue about difficult issues of water policy, such as the movement of water to Central Arizona from the Colorado River. The importance of process, particularly an inclusive process, came up many times during the conference. Process was vital for Arizona’s coming to agreement on the terms of our State’s participation in the Lower Colorado River Basin Drought Contingency Plan and will be critical to the renegotiation of the interim guidelines for sharing of Colorado River Shortage, both highlighted by U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Brenda Burman in her keynote address.

In this time of national dialogue on the importance of inclusivity and rejection of stereotypes, I suggest it is time to retire the water buffalo as a symbol of those who care about and are involved in water policy and management. The Water Buffaloes of the past deserve great respect for what they accomplished; but as we remain aware of our water history, let’s think about a symbol that better captures the spirit of inclusivity, diversity, mutual respect, and general awareness of commonalities as well as differences in our perspectives. [Italics and emboldening mine.] While it may be unnecessary or too early to agree upon a replacement symbol, I know we can agree that our gatherings for debate and dialogue, whether in-person or virtual, will include more than the water buffalo.

Please email your feedback, including your suggestion for a new symbol, to smegdal@arizona.edu.

Sharon

My Take

I would like to note that real water buffaloes are amazing beasts of burden and food producers. They are quite different from the Cape (or African) buffaloes, dangerous beasts unable to be domesticated. So 'water buffalo" is certainly not a term of derision - far from it. If someone were to call me a 'water buffalo' I don't believe I would be offended.

I first heard the term 'water buffalo' while a graduate student at the U of AZ in the early 1970s. My MS advisor and founder of the UA's hydrology program, Dr. John W. Harshbarger (who could himself be described as a Water Buffalo) used it to refer to the legendary New Mexico State Engineer (the quintessential WB) Steve Reynolds. He had told John that if one drop of water left NM for another state, he would shut down John's consulting project. About twenty years later I met Steve, and yes, he was a WB. Urban legend had it that one of his joys was walking around pulling up phreatophytes.    

Is Pat Mulroy a WB? Yes, she is, as long as you don't mind one with gold lamé shoes. Fine with me! How about water author John Fleck, Not sure - not a classical WB but passes the knowledge test.

I have not thought about WBs in quite a while - not since I left the Southwest (2006) where WBs seemed to grow on things likely willow, cottonwood, saltcedar, etc. My image of a WB is someone from the US West who's been around water most of his/her adult life as a water resources manager/supplier/agency head/policy person or someone like that. That often (but not always) means an OWG (Old White Guy/Gal) - keep in mind my 'WB vision' is mired in the 1970s. Typical profession: lawyer, engineer, maybe economist, irrigator. A WB usually has 'curmudgeonly' qualities and knows a whole lot about water - his/her own plus that of surrounding states. They are often not big on 'environmental things.'

I generally exclude academics, but Sharon is a WB (because she has the credentials). I am not a WB; I'm old enough, among other things. Just a WaterWonk, I suppose.  

I agree with Sharon's text that I emboldened. That the qualities she espouses are the ones most needed today. We certainly need more D&I in the water world. 

The Water Buffaloes of the past deserve great respect for what they accomplished; but as we remain aware of our water history, let’s think about a symbol that better captures the spirit of inclusivity, diversity, mutual respect, and general awareness of commonalities as well as differences in our perspectives.

You got me thinking, Sharon: we could just ascribe the above qualities to WBs. Or WaterWonks.

But my old vision of the WB needs to be let out to pasture. Its time has come and gone. 

"If individuals salvaging public water lost to encroaching phreatophytes were permittted to create new water rights where there is no new water, the price of saltcedar jungles would rise sharply. And we would expect to see a thriving, if clandestine, business in saltcedar seed and phreatophyte cultivation." -- Steve Reynolds, former NM State Engineer

Robert T. Lackey: Darwin Was Right - A Scientist Needs a Heart of Stone

Friend and colleague Robert T. 'Bob' Lackey sent this around on a listserve and I though it worth posting. There is a link to a video of his talk. Here is a link to his blog post, which follows.

****************************************************************************************************************

A few months ago I was asked to present my thoughts about what scientists can do to reverse the decline of public trust in the policy impartiality of scientists.  The importance of good science is broadly accepted across all political ideologies, but the level of trust in scientists (as separate from science) has probably never been lower. Here is the transcript of that talk presented at the 56^th Annual Meeting of the Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, March 6, 2020, Bend, Oregon:

I appreciate the opportunity to wrap up this session:  “Communicating Science Across Different Domains.”   Yes, it is certainly a fitting topic for all of us — and based on the range of perspectives we’ve heard this morning — it reinforces its timeliness.  Further — these days — given the privileged standing afforded science in the legal and policy world — and the potential for its misuse — both intentional and unintentional — it is absolutely critical for all of us all “to get the  science question right.”

OK — my specific assignment today is to answer this question:   How should scientists assure that they are sticking to science — and not drifting into policy advocacy?

I am very sure that each of you frequently see examples of “advocacy masquerading as science.”  I know I do — every day!   And — for those of us who are scientists — and those of us who work at interface of science – policy – and management — how do we avoid this?

Let me start with a simple “role playing” exercise.

First ― imagine that you are now in the spotlight — having been summoned to the state capitol to provide information to the Natural Resources Committee of the Oregon State Senate.   Great career opportunity!

Second ― imagine that the Committee is faced with a contentious question:   whether they should officially support — or oppose — construction of a dam designed to store water to help alleviate August droughts.   And — be assured — dams are always politically controversial!

Third ― you are a scientist who has studied in great detail this particular proposed dam.  In short — you are indisputably a scientific expert on the topic.

What is the proper role for you – a scientist?  This is not trick question — but it is also not a simple one.

My blunt answer:  follow Charles Darwin’s recommendation for scientists who find themselves in such circumstances — develop a heart of stone!

Why exactly did Darwin call for scientists to develop a Heart of Stone?  For sure — today his advice might seem a bit passe in this era of trigger warnings — safe spaces — and postmodernism!   But — what exactly are the alternatives to a heart of stone idea? — and why did Darwin not support these?

At a basic level — legislators — policy makers — and the public — expect scientists to even-handedly present scientific information relevant to the question under consideration.  Seems simple enough!   And — it is hard to argue against this expectation — this idealized view that you heard way back in Political Science 101 — right?

But — more fundamentally — what exactly — is scientific information?  And — equally important — what information is not science?  In short — what is this thing everyone casually labels as “science?”  After all — relatively speaking — the notion of science is only a few hundred years old — at least it has only been broadly popular for a few hundred years.  And — for sure — there are many other ways to acquire information — and indeed science is only one.

Francis Bacon popularized the basic principles of the “scientific method” several hundred years ago.  This is the reason why modern science is sometimes referred to as “Baconian Science.”

To be considered scientific information — it must have 4 characteristics.  In philosophy — as described in their often opaque — even cerebral — philosophical jargon — they are called the “big 4.”

First, the information must be rational — that is — it relies on the senses.  Second, it must be acquired in a systematic way —  a path that is clearly explained.  Third, it must be testable — others can evaluate the results — it is not based on faith.  Fourth, the results must be reproducible — others following the same procedures and methodologies will come up with the same answer.  If the results cannot be reproduced — it is back to the drawing board!

But — there are other kinds of knowledge — and these are not better — or worse — but they are not science.  For example — knowledge gained through experience is ubiquitous — but it is not science.  A common example is fishermen’s knowledge accumulated after years on the water — or perhaps passed down over generations based on a sort of collective experience.

Most definitely — experiential knowledge may be a terrific source of information — but it does not possess the 4 essential characteristics of science.

Think back to Darwin’s time — the dominant faith affecting science was what might be called the classical Christian view of creation.  These days — in my experience — the dominant faith in the areas of science that I work — is what is often called “Green Religion.”  In its simplest formulation — this faith assumes that natural ecosystems — those undisturbed by humans — are inherently superior to human-altered ones.  And — applying a similar theological litmus test — native species are a priori superior to non-native ones.

Don’t get me wrong — there is absolutely nothing inappropriate — or appropriate — with religious or faith-based postulates — but they are outside the purview of science.

But in Darwin’s time — it was not Green Religion — but rather Christian theology that conflicted with the scientific method.  In Darwin’s time — scientists were expected to accept up front the creationist view of the origin of species — and most did so voluntarily.  But — Darwin argued — do your research — test your hypotheses against the observable facts — draw your conclusions.  Stop there!   Do not presuppose anything!  In short — as uncomfortable as it might be — Darwin encouraged scientists to develop a heart of stone.

But even if a scientist follows Darwin’s advice to the letter — that scientist must be trusted.  Thus — managers — policy makers — and especially  the public — would might like to assume that a scientist is presenting straight — unbiased facts and interpretations.  But in reality — the question is always there — is that scientist sticking to the science — or is he slanting the science to cleverly push a particular policy preference?  As a practical matter — if a reader or listener trusts a scientist — that reader or listener will almost certainly accept the veracity of what is being presented by that scientist.

OK — the central question still remains — are scientists trusted by the public these days?  In essence, given that trust is essential for scientists to play a useful role in policy making and management — what do the national polls show?

First — the good news — there have been a lot of polling done on the trust question.  Now the bad news — no poll that I could find addressed fisheries — or any other aspect of natural resource management.  The closest discipline I could find was “environmental science” — for sure not a perfect fit — but it will have to do.

OK — to what extent does the public trust scientists on the topic of environmental issues?  The results?  In a Washington Post/ABC national poll — 40% — 4 in 10 — said they place little or no trust in the impartiality of scientists.  But — even more disturbing to me — the other 60% were not all that supportive — they were lukewarm in their level of trust of scientists.

In another more recent national poll — this one by the PEW Research Center — barely a third of the respondents said environmental scientists provided fair and accurate information all — or most of the time.

Why such a low level of trust?   We can speculate about what has caused this loss of trust — and many people have.  Regardless — there are some things that scientists  themselves can do to help rebuild trust.

The first thing that we need to do is to eliminate “stealth policy advocacy.”

The second is to stamp out normative science from all aspects of the scientific enterprise.

Now — the stealthy part — normative science is very similar in appearance to regular or traditional science — but it has an embedded or hidden policy preference.  And the challenging part — it is often very difficult to pick up on this embedded policy preference!

Don’t be so sure that you are not at risk for normative science.  Why?   Detecting normative science is not as easy as it might appear.  After all — what is being presented:

•  Looks like regular science
•  Sounds like regular science
•  Is offered by people who appear to be “scientists”

Even experienced policy makers and managers can be deceived!  What chance does the general public have?

Let me circle back to the example I started with — the proposal to build a water supply dam — and the proper role of scientists in the decision-making process.  Let’s have a little more role playing — imagine that you are a world expert  in some ecological discipline.  You have been assigned to a blue ribbon team of similarly elite scientists.  Your job is to determine the likely ecological consequences of building a dam on this river.

OK — exactly how would you describe the scientific results to that Senate Committee — or to the public?

Would you be tempted to use the term “degradation” to describe the river with the dam?  If you do — you have slipped into normative science.  Why?  — because you have made an assumption that a free flowing river is preferable to a dammed one.  Perhaps it is better policy-wise — but not better scientifically — just different — a value judgment that others should make — not scientists.

Or — you could take the exact same scientific information and label the river with the dam as “improved.”  After all — it will provide badly needed water in late summer — but the relative importance of that goal is a political determination — a value judgment — not a choice for scientists to make.  Again — the science is the same — the only thing that has changed is that you have embedded a different policy preference.  No other change!

This is so common these days that many listeners will not pick up on it!  How should scientists report these results?  My answer — scientists should use terminology that does not presuppose a value judgment — nor presuppose a policy preference.

In short — in this example — I suggest using the word “alteration” as being much more policy neutral.  Using “alteration” in this example does not imply that either state of the ecosystem is preferred policy-wise.

Let me wrap up — what should scientists do — my recommendation — play the science straight up — do not build in subtle policy preferences.  Be alert.   Test your wording for signs of policy bias.

For sure — there are temptations aplenty to co-opt scientists — mostly they come from policy advocates and politicians.  Whatever the temptation — avoid falling into the trap of stealth policy advocacy.  Leave the advocacy to advocates — stick to science.

And remember Charles Darwin’s advice — he was dead-on all those years ago — a scientist needs a “Heart of Stone.”

Thank you!

Here is a link to the video recording: click here. 

***********************************************************************************************************

Enjoy!

"A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, - a mere heart of stone." - Charles Darwin