Science provides an invaluable source of guidance to individuals and governments. This is true, in part, because scientists can often predict the future consequences of current actions.
For example, we know that someone who smokes two packs of cigarettes a day is likely to have a serious problem with cancer some 40 years later. And science predicts that unless we severely constrain consumption of oil and coal around the world, the climate will continue to warm, increasing ocean volume and melting huge amounts of ice in the Arctic and Antarctic — thereby causing disastrous rises in sea level.
These are but two examples of thousands of instances in which it makes good sense for decision-makers to take into account what science can predict about the future. And yet, what science knows is far too often overlooked when high-stakes decisions are made.
INFORMED DECISIONS
This is not to say that scientists should dominate the government decision-making process. It is the business of politicians, not scientists, to consider the relative costs and benefits of the options before them, weighing them as they see fit in reaching their conclusions. But many such judgments will be poor ones without effective scientific input.
For example, the US government is well-served by an organization called the National Academies, based on three honorary organizations composed of the nation’s most distinguished scientists, engineers, and health professionals (the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine, respectively). This independent, non-governmental organization produces more than 200 reports a year — most in response to specific requests from the US government.
These requests range from questions about the health hazards of trace amounts of arsenic in drinking water, to questions about how best to support various forms of scientific research. Through a rigorous review process, the academies insist that each report be limited to what science can say about the subject based on evidence and logic, without preempting the decisions that need to be made by others.
Thus, for example, the report on drinking water predicted the frequency of bladder cancers that would eventually occur in a population exposed to levels of five, 10, or 20 parts per billion of arsenic. But it did not say what maximum arsenic concentration the government should legislate.
The full text of some 3,000 reports by the Academies are available online (at www.nap.edu) and each can be downloaded for free in any of 146 countries. The dangers of arsenic are the same across the globe, and in this case a US-based report can help all nations.
GLOBAL NETWORK
However, there are other important science-based issues that require study by international organizations in order to be widely accepted.
To meet this need, the InterAcademy Council (IAC) in Amsterdam was founded in 2000 by a worldwide organization of science academies called the InterAcademy Panel (IAP). The IAC is governed by a Board that includes a rotating group of 15 academy presidents from around the world, representing nations at a range of economic development levels, and its reports present a truly international perspective backed by the world’s best scientists and engineers.
The IAC provides advice on subjects requested by the UN and other international organizations, all of which is freely available at www.interacademycouncil.net.
The first IAC report was titled Inventing a Better Future: A Strategy for Building Worldwide Capacities in Science and Technology. It argued convincingly for the importance of supporting science and technology institutions in every country that focus on harnessing the increasing store of international scientific and technical knowledge to meet that nation’s needs.
Inventing a Better Future also provided detailed guidance to governments and international organizations on how to build institutional capacities for science and technology in both developing and industrialized countries.
The IAC’s most recent effort, entitled Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy Future, presents an ambitious science-based agenda for meeting the world’s enormously challenging energy requirements.
AUDIENCE
An important audience for each IAC report are the 100 academies of science that belong to the IAP. Each has a special responsibility for disseminating a report’s recommendations throughout its own country, which can considerably enhance the academy’s effectiveness in influencing policies.
The combination of the IAP and the IAC is an important new experiment for providing international scientific advice — an experiment that has only just begun to demonstrate its potential effectiveness for spreading the benefits of science and technology to all humanity.
Bruce Alberts is professor of biochemistry and biophysics at the University of California, San Francisco, co-chair of the InterAcademy Council, Amsterdam, and editor-in-chief of Science magazine.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
US political scientist Francis Fukuyama, during an interview with the UK’s Times Radio, reacted to US President Donald Trump’s overturning of decades of US foreign policy by saying that “the chance for serious instability is very great.” That is something of an understatement. Fukuyama said that Trump’s apparent moves to expand US territory and that he “seems to be actively siding with” authoritarian states is concerning, not just for Europe, but also for Taiwan. He said that “if I were China I would see this as a golden opportunity” to annex Taiwan, and that every European country needs to think
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
US President Donald Trump is an extremely stable genius. Within his first month of presidency, he proposed to annex Canada and take military action to control the Panama Canal, renamed the Gulf of Mexico, called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy a dictator and blamed him for the Russian invasion. He has managed to offend many leaders on the planet Earth at warp speed. Demanding that Europe step up its own defense, the Trump administration has threatened to pull US troops from the continent. Accusing Taiwan of stealing the US’ semiconductor business, it intends to impose heavy tariffs on integrated circuit chips
RSS