A Policy For Science
By Ray Wyman,
Jr.
More often than not, a writer will agree with his/her editor on
changes that are made to a feature article. In this case, I was edited
by the policies of a conservative publisher who did not want to present
an article that might appear politically charged. Written for the UCI
Journal and published as "Matters of Fact", I believe that
my original text is a far more effective examination of the topic.
It is a noble notion that we are the living bridge into the next century.
Yet it is striking how many people are still groping for a bridge to
the past.
These days, science is brimming with new and noteworthy breakthroughs
and discoveries. The milestones in our millennial marathon are engaging,
enlightening and revealing for a society that seeks mastery of its world.
However, even as our libraries swell with volumes of fresh wisdom, the
old knowledge, laden with ancient facts and rumor, is resurfacing faster
than you can pick through old books at the neighborhood library give-away.
Nostalgia for old ideals and flawed principles are effective sedatives
for public debate. This is especially true during elections. National,
state, and local plebiscites often provide a fertile ground for rhetoric
that bears little regard for fact.
Take, for example, the warm December days of 1996. It was one of those
balmy winters that the rest of the world takes as normal for California.
It was also a season when the rhetoric was unusually heated. Politicians,
pundits, and supporters lined up rank and file to implement a new policy
to cut off funding for prenatal care services to undocumented immigrant
mothers.
The new policy, hailed as one giant leap for responsible fiscal management,
was in fact an edict for an estimated 70 thousand undocumented expectant
mothers, among the poorest people in our population. Touted as a $69
million savings plan for taxpayers, the new policy quickly drew on strong
support from a groundswell of public opinion that said these people
came to California to suckle on a bounty of social services.
Not so said University of California anthropologist Leo Chavez. His
work found that four out of five illegal immigrant Latinas in Southern
California see themselves as part of their community and nearly two-thirds
hope to remain in the United States as productive taxpayers. So much
for popular conjecture.
The study, derived from exhaustive telephone interviews, went further
to stipulate that this same group of immigrants do not consider tax-subsidized
social services a lure to stay. Despite their low incomes and the presence
of children, the use of public assistance and preventive healthcare
services was low - in some cases, almost nil when compared to the mainstream
population.
"The political rhetoric focused on the negative," said Chavez
in an interview with the LA Times in 1996. "They claimed that undocumented
immigrants have come to abuse our system and if we stop them from using
social services they'll go back. We're saying those assumptions are
off. These are people who are basically working class and don't seem
to be using exorbitant levels of health care. And they embrace life
here, they feel comfortable here. They have an investment here in terms
of their jobs and kids."
Nevertheless, the pundits continued their postulations and pontifications.
Without the benefit of counter study or any scientific data whatsoever
they attacked Chavez and his colleagues branding their hard work as
"a complete whitewash of illegal immigration." It's the kind
scenario that makes scientists cry into their petri dishes.
Two years later, and with the passage of the anti-immigrant Proposition
187, Chavez is circumspect. "Academic research has provided important
insights into issues that are of public concern, and which often contradict
taken-for-granted assumptions about immigrant intentions and behavior.
Sometimes this wealth of data influences public policy. Unfortunately,
it is also true that policy-makers respond to their constituents' interests,
which may not be based on current academic research findings. Thus public
policy may reflect public attitudes more than research findings."
While immigration is a highly emotional topic, Chavez notes an overriding
problem that is compounded by simple human behavior. "People often
hold beliefs that they know are true because they've experienced them,
or someone they know has had the experience" - this is especially
true for immigration issues, but can be applied to nearly every aspect
in society, Chavez says.
"Even one experience is often enough to make generalizations,"
he adds. "Academic research is sometimes undermined, or less accepted,
by people who already know the 'truth' based upon their taken-for-granted
assumptions."
What is truth, anyhow?
Webster defines the word as conformity with a fact, but then on another
page says that fact is truth. If you think Old Webbie has problem, ask
around for your own definition. A college student answers, "True
is the opposite of False." A nice tip to remember during finals.
A politician remarks, "Truth is a prevailing socially accepted
idea or concept." If you think that's scary, consider the fact
that the sociologist agrees with the politician, adding that truth is
a social construction of things we think are true.
For the tobacco-marketer, the "truth" was a useful tool in
the Golden Age of free marketing. Bracketed by WWI and Vietnam, it was
an era where industrialists and merchandisers had a pretty free reign
on how and where products were sold. The great marketing sages of the
time concocted behavior-bending promotions to generate brand-name loyalty
and lifetime customers. If you're as old as this journalist is, you'll
remember such seemingly innocent novelties as candy cigars and bubble
gum cigarettes packaged to look just like mommy's and daddy's. You could
even get the things from the same machines real cigarettes were sold.
Marketing researcher Cornelia Pechmann embarked on her first quest
for truth in 1991, studying why kids smoke and what impact marketing
has on their decision to start. An associate professor at the UCI Graduate
School of Management, she sought to learn what children do when exposed
to ads that were for or against cigarettes, and how they responded to
non-marketing elements such as peer pressure.
Although not quite as politically incendiary as immigration, smoking
by children is a timely topic and controversial because of what cigarette
marketers have apparently done to promote use of their products. While
lawyers and politicians leaf through the reams of reports for a smoking
gun on the industry's marketing methodologies, Pechmann's work may bear
a better chance to make fundamental changes for the entire tobacco industry.
Her work and the work of other researchers may influence federal, state
or local legislation on tobacco marketing restrictions and on tactics
such as counter-advertising. Pechmann's early findings have been cited
in the FDA's ruling to support proposed restrictions on tobacco marketing.
She has also met with officials from the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids,
which is one of the main public health groups gearing up support for
the federal tobacco settlement.
Foremost, Pechmann's efforts may influence the outcomes of several
pending legal cases that charges the tobacco industry liable for, among
other things, Medi-Cal costs, false claims, and unfair competition.
"It is easier for me to have this type of impact," says Pechmann.
"I simply need to do my job well, publish relevant research in
reputable journals, and present my research at conferences and universities.
Once my research is known, if it is relevant to a particular legal case,
attorneys will find me and cite my work. Attorneys are terrific about
soliciting the advice of academic researchers. They tend not to be intimidated
or frustrated by the technical jargon in academic research papers. In
my experience, they manage to muddle through the most complex articles
to identify the relevant findings for their case."
Well, that's one way to set public policy. Oh, to be a fly on the wall
of the RJ Reynolds's board room. It's the kind of marketing nightmare
that can thoroughly rattle every hinge on mahogany row.
But this cozy relationship between scientist, policy maker, and the
public is far from typical. Given that our system of government allows
only three ways for public policy to come into being (by legislative
order, through judicial decision, and from executive decree), the scientist
is often up against some pretty stiff competition to get people to use
their hard-earned data.
In 1974, Dr. F. Sherwood Rowland, Bren Professor of Chemistry at UCI,
discovered how dangerous this competition can be when he announced the
discovery that chlorofluorocarbons, common aerosol propellants and coolants,
were eating away the earth's ozone layer. In 1985, his data and predictions
were confirmed which led to the 1987 enactment of the Montreal Protocol
of the United Nations Environment Program. Then in 1995, Rowland received
the Nobel Prize in chemistry, a timely reward for work that was initially
vilified.
When Rowland made his initial discoveries, the nabobs of negativism
emerged all at once. The aerosol industry, chemical companies that produced
CFCs and the scientists who worked for them, even the Reagan-era EPA,
joined together to declare that Rowland's discovery was nothing more
than an environmental scare tactic. At one point representatives of
the aerosol industry even tried to get him fired. "They wrote to
then-Chancellor Dan Aldrich basically saying, 'You've got to shut that
guy up,'" Rowland remembers.
Of course, Rowland and his work prevailed, but he denies that winning
the Nobel Prize was a vindication. For that, he observes the measurable
results his work has brought. The bulk of the scientific community had
always supported his findings, but it was the public who ultimately
voted with their dollars. Sales of CFC-based aerosol products gradually
evaporated as legislative bodies around the world instituted bans on
the chemical. And while the long lifetime of CFCs ensures that much
of what is already in the atmosphere will remain for decades, new emissions
have been rapidly curtailed.
"Collectively, we've found that it's possible to get international
cooperation on a global scientific problem on the basis of scientific
observation and consensus," Rowland comments. "Perhaps this
global agreement can be a harbinger of the future; science and technology
must play major roles in solving the problems we see all around us,
and we all must continue to tell this not just to our colleagues, but
to our representatives and to the general public, and we must be prepared
to do it over and over again because the understanding is necessary."
Dr. Dean Baker, who heads the Occupational and Environmental Medicine
Division at UCI's Department of Medicine, feels that the current regulatory
process defers too much of the decision-making power to the financial
interests of the parties involved.
"These financial considerations lead policy makers to ignore or
minimize documentation that scientific research has generated about
harm," he says. "Priorities for public policy management are
sometimes dictated by perceptions of the policy makers or the public
about risk for which they may have relatively little evidence based
on scientific research."
Much of his research involves epidemiological studies of large populations
and their exposure to toxic agents. Among Dr. Baker's collaborators
are the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID),
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). His recent body of work includes
studies on minority inner-city children with asthma, a first-of-its-kind
study of residents in two communities near Superfund-designated hazardous
waste sites, and a project that will measure environmental exposures
to lead in Tijuana, Baja California, and Mexico.
Dr. Baker points out that there is "a degree of disconnect"
between what is documented and what is scientifically hypothesized.
He gives as an example the way in which Congress requests national science
organizations like the National Institutes for Health or the National
Academy of Science to evaluate specific issues. Rarely, he says, do
the organizations use formal mechanisms that involve congressional representatives
and bring them to participate from start to finish.
"I think the balance could be improved by encouraging a broader
dialogue between the scientific community and public," he comments.
"The opinion that the discussions are 'too scientific' for laypersons
is the type of opinion that continues to disconnect science from [the
policy makers]."
Jonathon Ericson, a UCI professor teaching environmental analysis and
design, also expresses his overall dissatisfaction with the role scientific
research plays in public policy management. While he wishes that the
scientist's role was greater, he acknowledges that scientific data is
often overridden by politicians and public opinion which, he asserts,
"is not always warranted or healthful."
Collaborating with Dr. Baker on the survey of lead poisoning in Mexico,
Ericson adds that the public is often the one that is lost in the squeeze
between political agendas and economic protection. "The scientist
is providing primary information about a particular problem. The politician,
if equitable, may be considering the domain and context of the entire
problem. In some cases there is a perfect solution with nearly unanimous
consensus on all sides. A good example is the atmospheric test ban treaty
[of nuclear weapons] and the scientific data collected to support it.
In others there is conflict and the public is placed in the middle."
Presidents and legislators are not making it any easier to pay the
bill for ongoing policy research either. Until last year, federal funding
for non-industrial, non-defense research was third in a declining list
of funding items in the national budget. According to the Government
Accounting Office (GAO), the federal government will spend about $70
billion in 1998 for all scientific research. About 80 percent of this
budget is allocated to research and development of various technologies
for defense, space, and developing industries.
That means more than 3,400 colleges and universities and thousands
of other organizations and private citizens are vying for a slice of
a $14 billion pie. If you want to save yourself from doing the math,
that's about $4 million for each college and university, and not counting
all the other competing institutions and organizations.
Loren Renz, is the vice president of The Foundation Center, a leading
non-profit organization that tracks private funding sources. Noting
that private funding is up to $13 billion, she also points out that
most of the increases are designated for heath policy research while
funding for categories for research overall has remained flat.
"Many private funding sources are focused on conservative policy
issues along with other like-minded organizations." According to
Renz, such budgets saw sharp increases since the Reagan administration.
Most researchers indicate that while they are happy to get what they
can, the demand for general research has fallen sharply. In many cases,
particularly the controversial cases like immigration and certain environmental
and social studies, funding is entirely non-existent. So, one wonders,
how can the policy makers be assured that they aren't making matters
worse with their decisions?
"I personally believe that immigration is going to continue as
a major area of significance for the United States," comments Chavez.
"We need more funding to understand how best to develop policies
that lead to positive integration of immigrants into society. The more
we know now, the better we can plan for the future."
Back in Nevada, for some folks it seems, even the issue of CFCs is
still up for debate. Last year, the Nevada state assembly considered
a bill that would have allowed sale and use of CFCs in that state. The
bill was voted down, but had it passed it would have been overturned
by the national ban.
"They did that to satisfy the hurt feelings of some people,"
says Rowland. "But that kind of thinking is indicative of the need
for more science education generally."
Rowland observes that the making of public policy on scientific matters
requires detailed scientific knowledge that is not represented in most
political bodies. "The legislatures do a reasonable job of representing
society in terms of their ignorance of science. The attitude of most
legislators is that you can always buy a scientist to erect an opposing
side. The news media tends to do this too. Even if 99 percent of scientists
are in one camp, they will find one who disagrees because it makes a
good argument and interesting news." Then, he complains, all that's
left is spin control supporting the politics of the issue, not the facts.
One way to distill this conflagration between science and data is for
the legislature -- and the public -- to gain a better understanding
of science. "Not to become scientists themselves," Rowland
suggests, "but to become scientifically aware."
The work of scientists can be the bane to some and the savior to others.
When properly applied to public policy, their efforts can loft our national
community to a higher order of management and confidence. Well, isn't
that the way it's supposed to be? Embarking on this critical juncture
of our history, don't we long for guiltless and healthier lives, a flourishing
democracy, and two non-polluting cars in the garage?
Recently we have witnessed some pretty strange twists and turns in
what we know, or believe to know. Public policy, as with other aspects
of our lives, is subject to the whims of whomever captures the limelight
most; a nasty little truth that makes for some jittery nerves about
the future. Add economics, special interests, and political agendas
as high as ivory towers and what you have is regulatory obfuscation
that may never clear up any time soon.
Hopefully, some enigmatic scientist is - right now - delving deeper
into his or her oracle, preparing to hit a nerve in the public body
that may somehow inspire new lessons that we can ply into better policies.
Perhaps if they dig deep enough they will compel us, the people - this
living and breathing bridge to the 21st century - to devise a policy
for science that not only makes better use of truth, but one that will
help us make better laws as well. -HP
|
