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
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
Workers’ rights groups on July 17 called on the Ministry of Labor to protect migrant fishers, days after CNN reported what it described as a “pattern of abuse” in Taiwan’s distant-water fishing industry. The report detailed the harrowing account of Indonesian migrant fisher Silwanus Tangkotta, who crushed his fingers in a metal door last year while aboard a Taiwanese fishing vessel. The captain reportedly refused to return to port for medical treatment, as they “hadn’t caught enough fish to justify the trip.” Tangkotta lost two fingers, and was fired and denied compensation upon returning to land. Another former migrant fisher, Adrian Dogdodo
RSS