The Global Environment: Critical Issues for the Next Century - Henry W. Kendall Memorial Symposium at MIT (4/5)

[MUSIC PLAYING]

FRANCIS: The next issue is the role of science and scientists in public policy. There is a panel discussion moderated by Howard Reese. Howard is the executive director of the Union of Concerned Scientists. And Howard will introduce his panel.

HOWARD REESE: Thank you, Francis. While everybody's sitting down, I've been asked to respond to two questions. One, where is Tim Wirth's speech? A FedEx arrived from his office this morning, unfortunately completely empty.

[LAUGHTER]

Therefore, we'll make an effort to get it transcribed, and it will probably appear at least on our website, which is ucsusa.org, sometime over the next several weeks when we can make that happen. Possibly also at MIT and elsewhere. Secondly, people have asked, what is the orange book outside? That is actually a sort of memoir that Henry Kendall had been working on before he died. It's a collection of all of his articles, ranging from physics to his work in the environment and national security, and some original sections that he wrote and we worked with Springer-Verlag to get published. It just arrived from the publisher this morning. So there is a flyer out there. If you're interested, you can take one back with ordering information.

We're going to change tacks here a little bit this afternoon. We're also going to give the audience a chance to participate at the conclusion of our panelists here. You heard various talks this morning about some of the more serious critical issues facing our future, ranging from climate change to nuclear weapons and biodiversity. These are all issues where it is absolutely essential for policymakers, the media, and the public to be adequately informed about both causes and solutions, and where the scientific community can play an important role.

Often, there are controversies where the data is insufficient or unclear, or where the scientific consensus has not been adequately communicated or at its worst, deliberately clouded by those who oppose action. Clarifying the scientific consensus and mobilizing scientists for thoughtful and effective actions were goals that drove much of Henry Kendall's work in the public arena with the Union of Concerned Scientists and other organizations.

Indeed, today, UCS has a large and innovative project called the Sound Science Initiative, designed primarily to facilitate the participation of scientists in public policy issues. So we thought it would be appropriate today to spend some time examining the role of scientists in the public policy process from three different perspectives. That of a US representative on Capitol Hill, a journalist with Newsweek magazine, and a senior official at the US Department of Energy responsible for setting national policy on some of the key issues we've been hearing about today.

Congressman Rush Holt is a Democrat from New Jersey, serving his first term in the US Congress. I believe congressman Holt is one of just two members of Congress with a PhD in physics. Prior to his election in 1998, Dr. Holt was assistant director of the Princeton plasma physics laboratory. Sharon Begley is a senior editor at Newsweek magazine, where she has worked since 1977. Ms. Begley is well-known for her ability to translate complex scientific theories or issues into compelling, informative, and I'll underscore, accurate prose. She covers a broad range of scientific, health, and environmental issues, exemplified by these three recent titles. The Birth of the Planets, Are we all a Little Crazy, and To Walk on Mars.

Dr. Ernie Moniz is undersecretary at the US Department of Energy, where he is responsible for R&D priorities on energy, environment, national security, and fundamental science. Many of you here will, of course, know him as Professor Moniz from the Department of Physics at MIT. I've asked each speaker to focus on some broad questions about how scientific input is assembled, used, not used, or abused in the media and the public policy process, to comment on their own personal experience as journalists or scientists in decision-making roles.

For example, what's it like to be a scientist on Capitol Hill? How do journalists sort out the facts on complex controversial issues when you have to meet a 1 o'clock deadline? How is national policy made when the science is not yet clear or all the data isn't in? Each speaker will have 15 to 20 minutes, and then we'll have an opportunity for them to react or ask questions of each other. And then we'll open up the floor for questions from the microphone.

After the discussion period, I want to show another short film. And I have to apologize, I hadn't seen that film we showed this morning for a while. I thought it was 11 minutes. It turned out to be 21 minutes. The film I will show in a little while is only 59 seconds, and I can guarantee you that.

[LAUGHTER]

It is one of the last projects Henry was working on at UCS, so I think it'll help tie some of the themes of the day together. So before we finish this panel, I will show you that. So let's begin with Rush Holt.

[APPLAUSE]

RUSH HOLT: Thank you, Bud. And thank you for inviting me to be with you this afternoon. I don't venture as a freshman member of Congress. I don't venture very far from Central New Jersey often. But for Henry Kendall and for his memory, I am pleased to be here. It's an honor. I see a number of friends, many of whom I haven't seen for years, a few I've seen in recent days. Dick Garwin in my office not long ago. And I might add, Dick embodies some of what I will be talking about today, which is effective lobbying.

But Henry Kendall was really a living testimony to how scientists and politicians can work together to further public welfare. And he testified numerous times, of course, before Congress about issues of safety and planetary survival. But it's his leadership of the UCS that particularly impressed me. It's deeply rooted in a belief that with accurate information, public and policymakers ultimately will make the right decision.

He had a rare gift for taking a long view and understanding how human activities and natural systems are intricately interconnected. He encouraged all of us to not shy away from the big problems facing the future of humanity and the natural world. And I think it's fair to say that he used his scientific abilities to identify those big problems and to frame the questions.

I have been a member of UCS since, I think, certainly the early '70s. I believe since my first year in graduate school. And Henry Kendall was a role model, not because I aspired or ever expected to be a Nobel Prize winner in my physics, but because I was constantly searching for ways to apply my science for the public good. And he offered a model for doing that.

I'm often asked why a physicist would leave a perfectly good job helping to run a major research lab to roll around in the muck of politics. I'd spent many years teaching at Swarthmore College and elsewhere. And it's a long answer, too long for this discussion, but there are several parts to it. One is, of course, anyone who knows my background knows that it was in my blood.

I grew up surrounded by politics. My father was a US senator. The youngest person, in fact, ever elected to that body. And my mother was Secretary of State of West Virginia, the only woman to have held that position. And although through most of my career, I was working as a physicist in the laboratory and the classroom, I also was looking for opportunities outside the classroom.

I worked for a couple of years for the New York City Environmental Protection Administration. I worked for the US State Department on arms control and nuclear nonproliferation for a couple of years. And I spent a year as an American Physical Society congressional science fellow. And that's when I really thought hard about the interface between science and politics, science and Congress in particular.

I certainly remember our first week, our orientation week as congressional fellows. Several dozen mostly mid-career, some young, some older scientists, microbiologists, chemists, physicists getting briefings from the Congressional Research Service and the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and people from the Office of Technology Assessment, rest its soul. And we were sitting there somewhat nervous whether we had made the right decision to leave the laboratory or the classroom for a year to work on the Hill. And one speaker said, now, of course, you understand that here in Washington, facts are negotiable.

[LAUGHTER]

And we squirmed nervously in our seats. And the next day, a speaker, I think it was from the Congressional Research Service, who said, you must understand that here in Washington, we treat facts differently. And finally, still a day later, we were beginning to understand what we had gotten into when, still, another speaker said, of course, in Washington, perceptions are facts.

[LAUGHTER]

But we did learn a lot that year. We learned a lot about the role of science in the Congress, and what science does, and what it doesn't do there. We certainly learned this important lesson that you've all heard, usually attributed to Tip O'Neill from right down the street here, that all politics is local. And I think that even applies to global warming, global climate change, and to comprehensive test ban treaties, and any number of other things.

The district I represent in New Jersey, the 12th congressional district, is a swath across the central part of New Jersey from the Delaware River to within four blocks of the Jersey Shore. It's a sprawling suburban district, and one of the best educated in the country. About 2/3 of the people there have college education, nearly twice the national average.

There's a heavy concentration of research and development in the district, and some colleges and universities. [INAUDIBLE] knows one of them of Princeton, but also some other fine, less well-known colleges and universities in the area. In this district, there are some people who appreciate the importance of research and development in our economy to maintain the kind of growth that we hope we could maintain in order to deal with almost anything else material that our government deals with.

There are some people who understand the nature and role of science in society, but really not so many. My district is not that different from most districts around the country. The scientists there shy away from politics. The politicians there shy away from science. They often seem to be in two separate worlds. And, indeed, it does seem that the perceptions are factual.

I think I am in a privileged position. Certainly, it is a privilege to serve in the House of Representatives to represent nearly 700,000 people, to try to balance the interests of 700,000 people, something that one former physicist who has worked for many years on Capitol Hill talks about as trying to feel the heft of the different issues. Not to balance these issues in any analytical way, because to do so would overwhelm any bank of parallel processors that you could come up with. But it is an honor and a challenge to represent this district.

The members that I serve with in Congress are a remarkable set of people. Most of them, by and large, very, very good at what they do at balancing these interests. It's frustrating from the outside to watch it. And I must tell you, from the inside, it is sometimes frustrating. Although, having worked on the Hill as a congressional fellow nearly two decades ago now, and having spent the intervening years around Capitol Hill a great deal, nothing that happens there would surprise me.

It is very effective at representing society at large. Congress and members of Congress value science, but they would be hard pressed to tell you why. The House of Representatives is, if nothing else, representative. They represent the hopes and the fears of the people of the country and the misapprehensions of the people at large.

The members of Congress, by and large, are smarter than most, but not necessarily wiser than most. Certainly, none of us is wiser than the collection of people whom we represent. And that's something Henry Kendall understood. Henry Kendall understood that to influence public policy, in other words, to lobby, used a couple of approaches. One appealed to the wisdom of society at large, and one appealed, Henry appealed, to the wisdom of individual members of Congress. He realized that it took a two prong approach.

I feel that I have a responsibility to try to help my colleagues in Congress understand science, understand the terminology, and techniques, and technicalities to the extent that they are relevant to the policy issues, but also to understand the role and goals of science. I was working under the tutelage, I would like to say, of someone who was remarkably wise, and whose loss we also mourned this year, and that's George Brown.

Congressman Brown from California understood better than anyone in Washington in the past 20 years, if you'll forgive me, Ernie Moniz and others, he understood better than anyone in Washington the role and nature of science, and was generally good at communicating that. But one person isn't enough. We need to work on communicating that to the members of Congress, both directly and indirectly through the input from the citizens.

But ask me if I think the views of scientists carry any special weight on Capitol Hill, and what factors enhance or degrade the credibility of scientists who want to participate. Well, there is significant credibility granted to the independent and thorough approach inherent in science. And when scientists are successful in articulating the meaning of science and scientific research in the ways that Congress and the general public can understand, they are then regarded as valued experts, and often asked for testimony and hearings, and consulted in legislative matters.

They are seen as smart people, but smart people who might be able to argue equally well on either side of the issue. You have your scientists and my scientists. So in that sense, scientists are sometimes, in fact, too frequently seen only as another interest group. And this is accentuated when it is apparent that so-called science is used to develop predetermined results for political needs, as seems to be the case in, I would say, the tobacco industry and in other special interest groups, as they try to employ junk science to support their position. So the Sound Science Initiative that Henry launched is to be applauded.

A misunderstanding of the scientific method by politicians can lead to problems, like the one that has developed regarding public access to scientific data funded under government grants. A year ago at this time of year, as we approached an appropriations train wreck, to use the parlance of Washington, as we seem to be approaching again this week and next, in an omnibus appropriations bill, there was hidden some language a Senator Shelby insertion that requires that all data obtained with federal grants be available to requests under the Freedom of Information Act. It was added without a hearing without open discussion. Final regulations are now in place.

And while the openness of scientific exchange that exists in the research community is vital to maintaining scientific progress and vibrancy, this legislation, instead of creating more openness, will, I'm really quite convinced, create several problems for the scientific community. It will subject researchers to harassment by groups with ulterior motives. Universities will have to deal with the costs and develop administrative ways of responding to requests for information, as well as protecting the researchers from those who wish to politicize science.

The openness of scientific exchange that exists in the research community is vital for maintaining scientific progress. And this legislation, I think, will make industries reluctant to continue or enter into partnerships with federally funded researchers. Once data are commingled in a partnership, it may be difficult to distinguish data produced with federal funds and those produced with other funds.

The resulting reluctance of industry to enter partnerships will significantly hurt fast-paced high tech industries. And as another example, tobacco companies and organizations like the National Rifle Association are already using intimidation and freedom of information threats to stop research that shows that their products or procedures are harmful.

This legislation will open up researchers, I believe, to further harassment. I'm taking an active role in combating this, working to try to repeal this provision. Here again, the late George Brown, who had, I think, the clearest grasp of the role in the process of science, recognized this instantly. He found this buried in the omnibus appropriations bill of last year, and immediately sought its repeal.

It's going to take a while to build the political support to get the repeal. It really depends on what effect these regulations have on researchers. But I have now taken the principal sponsorship of the George Brown bill to repeal this. I don't know what the relationship was between Henry Kendall and George Brown, but I do know that George Brown worked for at least the last three decades on a number of issues where he must have had close association with Henry Kendall, be it nuclear safety, anti-satellite weapons, the banning of anti-satellite weapons, International Science nonproliferation to name a few.

And he, like Henry, was fearless. Each of them put at risk their principal work. Remember, Henry got involved in politics. He dirtied his hands before his reputation as a scientist was as secure as it eventually became. Similarly, George Brown would dirty his politics with his fearless pursuit of his vision where his clear thinking and his scientific thinking led him, regardless of where the political chips would fall long before he was safe. And, in fact, he was never safe politically. George Brown was at great risk every two years, as, well, a number of us are.

[LAUGHTER]

So that is why we honor Henry now, because he had this fearlessness. He recognized what was important, and he went after it, damn the torpedoes, but also asked one way to improve the manner in which scientific input would be utilized in Congress. Well, I can say that simply, one way to do it would be to revive the Office of Technology Assessment.

I still shake my head in disbelief that Congress would abolish the Office of Technology Assessment and say, in effect, don't tell us. We don't want to know. But that's what happened back in 1995 in the 104th Congress. And the climate now will not allow its rebirth. I'm hopeful that in about a year and a half, the climate will be different, but we can talk about that.

I won't sit down without mentioning science education. That's what it all comes down to. It's dearest to my heart. Of course, in the 10 years that I was at the Princeton plasma physics laboratory, certainly, I got the most satisfaction from my work in science education, founding a series of programs, a number of programs, in fact, in science education, doing my best to involve scientists in the schools.

It probably was the most significant thing I did at the plasma physics laboratory, with all of the important work that goes on there. Promoting science education is a vital step in ensuring that the public has an understanding of science, not just an appreciation of the fruits of science, but an understanding of the methods of science, to know how to evaluate sound science from bogus science. And it starts in the earliest years.

I don't need to tell you the importance of science education for all students, not just for future scientists, but for all citizens. I think it should take the form of every science for every student in every year so you don't have to wait until your senior year to take physics or your junior year to take chemistry. It should be integrated throughout. But if you think for just a moment what a revolution that would be in the training that you had to have more integrated interdisciplinary science, but if you think about what a difference it would make for an organization like UCS if we did approach science that way.

There was an article in the Washington Post this week, an excellent op ed piece by none other than Newt Gingrich, arguing why we must invest in research and development. It was quite a good article. Vern Ehlers, the other physicist in Congress who sits on the other side of the aisle from me, copied the article and sent it out to all colleagues. Previously, I had talked to my staff and I said, should I copy this and send this out to all my colleagues? And I'm still kicking myself that I didn't.

[LAUGHTER]

But he talked about not just the importance of the fruits that come from a vigorous federally funded research and development program, and what that meant for the research and development programs, privately funded, corporately funded, and so forth, but he also talked about the lesson of understanding-- he didn't put it in these words, but I would put it in these words-- how to think. That's the lesson that we would learn from a science education program that I envision for this country, a science education program that teaches people why research is good, not just that it powers our economy, that it provides the new ideas that we need for growth and productivity, but a way of thinking that challenges are previously held beliefs.

We all, as you know, go through life looking for evidence to confirm what we think we already know. I envision a science education program that leads students to use the methods of science every day to challenge what they think they already know. Henry Kendall did that on a societal scale. And that is why we celebrate him and his memory today. And I'm honored to be here to join you in that celebration. Thank you.

[APPLAUSE]

HOWARD REESE: Thank you, Rush. It's very hard to cut a speaker off when they keep saying, Bud asked me to talk about this. So if you all do that, we're going to be in trouble. Let me now turn to the perspective of a journalist, Sharon Begley from Newsweek magazine.

[APPLAUSE]

SHARON BEGLEY: Thank you, Bud. When I saw the composition of the panel that Bud had put together for this afternoon, my first reaction was, let's just dispense with the niceties and call us the forces of darkness, because you have on the one hand, Congress, which sort of willfully tries to torpedo environmental legislation on issues that you all care deeply about, and the administration, which, at least in the eyes of some, fails to show the courage and leadership that many of us feel are needed on environmental issues. And then, of course, the press, which doesn't cover the stories as well or as much as many of you would like. But there you have it. And it's nice of you to hold your rotten tomatoes.

[LAUGHTER]

That said, there is, I think, a lot of fairly good environmental coverage in the press. But I'll focus on why there's not more of it and why it's not better, because that's a lot more fun. If you were my reporters and I was the assignment editor at a newspaper, or a news broadcast, or a magazine, here are some stories that if you came and proposed them to me, I could almost certainly guarantee you 50 column inches or two minutes in primetime.

DDT got a bum rap. There was no reason to ban it, and doing so reflected junk science and environmental hysteria. TCE has also been unfairly pilloried. TCE is best known as the organic solvent that was present in the drinking water wells in Woburn, Massachusetts. That's the town where some of the children died of leukemia. It was a subject of the book and then the movie Civil Action. Third, EPA's program to test 15,000 chemicals for their endocrine effects is also junk science and a waste of taxpayer money. And four, global warming and climate change will be a boon to at least some regions of the world.

Now, these, unfortunately, are not hypothetical examples. These are stories that ran. And they did not run in out of the way outlets. They ran in, in order, the New York Times, the New Yorker, the Atlantic, and, mea culpa, Newsweek. I won't read you from each of them, but I just took the DDT one. I'll read you a few of the excerpts.

Many scientists doubt that DDT is much more hazardous than malathion. This was written when New York City was apparently besieged by mosquitoes carrying the West Nile virus, and undertook a program of aerial spraying of malathion. Rachel Carson had little scientific expertise. She mistakenly claimed that DDT causes cancer, which wasn't proved then, and still hasn't been.

And then the obligatory quote from the eminent scientist, there's never been any good evidence that DDT is harmful to humans. There's some evidence that it hurts birds, but even that's iffy, unquote. And finally, DDT might have contributed to the decline of populations of some birds, like Eagles and Falcons, although some scientists have long attributed the declines to other factors. So as Congressman Holt was saying, you have your scientists, and the other side has theirs.

What I think these stories and these story selections illustrate is that editors these days put a premium on high drama, on sensationalism, and especially on stories that appear to contravene the conventional wisdom. Now, maybe it's to your credit that issues like climate change and the perniciousness of environmental toxic is now perceived as the conventional wisdom. In many spheres, they are. And therefore, to take a position questioning that is deemed somehow good journalism or at least worthy of some significant play, because if nothing else, you get talked about and you get people talking.

And I also don't know how we've gotten to this point, but to write a story or to do a newscast that really takes the position advanced by the coal industry or the chemicals industry is, at least in many journalism quarters, perceived as somehow braver and smarter than taking a line that would be attributed to the environmental community.

So that category of stories is the first entry on what I would call the taxonomy or the biodiversity of stories that have elements of science and public policy. The second category relates to quantity, rather than quality. And it's one I call the Franco syndrome. Those of you with long memories will perhaps recall that the Spanish dictator lingered on his death bed for weeks, and weeks, and weeks.

And I suppose the wire services did-- well, they certainly could have moved a story every day, saying, Franco is still dying. Franco is still dying. Franco is still dying. For many environmental stories, we have the problem of, the world is still warming. Species are still vanishing. How does that differ this week, my editors ask me, from the conditions last week, or last month, or last year? There's a reason these things are called newspapers, and news magazines, and news broadcasts.

For those of you who care about these issues, you have to make a concerted effort to explain to people like me what happened. What's different this week from last? Why should I be doing it? How can I convince my editors that this deserves space more than a movie review, or an earthquake, or all of the other issues that are competing for space and for airtime every day?

The third category of story comes from the multi-handed reporter. On the one hand, we have this. On the other hand, we have something else. On yet another hand, we have something else. You see these kinds of stories because reporters, even those who cover science as their beat, are not scientists. Very few of them have science training. That's changing a little bit, but it will still, for many years, be the case.

They therefore feel unqualified to make judgments. You can't get in trouble if you simply repeat the arguments of both sides. This is a tried and true technique. It carries over from political reporting from reporting on social issues, where if you are doing a story on, let's say, school vouchers, it's perfectly legitimate to say this size says this will be the outcome of issuing school vouchers so that parents can send their kids to private schools with taxpayer money. The other says, no, this will be the outcome.

For many issues like that, there simply is no defined answer. And by giving both sides, you have done your journalistic duty. This carries over into areas of science. And it is the job, the responsibility, perhaps, of those of you who care about these issues to explain to people like me how a question like climate change is not like school vouchers. There is a consensus on climate change. If you can point out to me where to find it, and what it is, and why that consensus exists, that will go a long way to disarming the multi-handed reporter.

Now, in all fairness, there is a lot of science that is too knew for there to be a consensus. One emerging issue is genetically modified foods. There was a paper just over the summer in nature, which looked at fields that had been planted with so-called Bt cotton. This is cotton that is engineered to carry a gene so that it expresses the insecticide known as Bt.

Turns out that in these fields planted with Bt cotton, pink bollworms, which are a leading cotton pest, developed resistance to Bt. It's very common. This has been the bane of the use of insecticides since World War II. However, the resistance was carried on a recessive gene. The scientists argued that that was OK, because given random mating, recessive genes generally are not expressed. They would not be expressed to such an extent that the entire population or a significant fraction of the population of pink bollworms in any field would be resistant to the insecticide that you have engineered your cotton to produce.

But other scientists came along and said, but these resistant insects develop more slowly than the susceptible insects. Therefore, they would be out of phase for random mating. When the susceptible insects were ready to mate, they would mate with each other. But here you have these laggards, who tend towards developmentally slowed, but who carry the resistance gene. There's none of these guys to mate with. They mate with each other by simple Mendelian inheritance. A fair proportion of them would therefore express the resistance gene, and you would have a field of Bt-resistant pink bollworms. It's too early to know which of those positions is right. And to do justice to the story, I don't think you can do more than present both positions.

As I said, I think that's the exception, at least among the issues that we heard described this morning, where there is a consensus opinion. So I'd like to spend a few minutes on how those of you who are scientists and who care about these issues can help us report them fairly and accurately. To repeat, help us find the consensus and understand it. Whether it's the IPCC report, whether it's the National Academy of Sciences report, whether in a field very different from those we're talking about today, NIH consensus conference, these things exist. You can point us to them.

Second, your, I don't know if I should call them opponents, but those scientists who say that DDT is not a problem and was unfairly banned, they're very clever. And you have to be equally clever. People who doubt the need for environmental regulation are often not very forthright about what's known and what isn't. It's important for scientists to point out that for someone to say there is no basis for public policy, generally for tighter regulations on pesticides or on CO2 emissions, that has a flip side. There may similarly be no basis for concluding that current policy is justified. That's an important thing to remind reporters of.

Third, too many reporters, again wearing the skeptics hat, equate the absence of evidence with evidence of absence of harm generally. Again, a lot of us know that those two are not equivalent. Scientists are often not explicit about the distinction, especially scientists who oppose regulation on the issues that we're talking about. Again, point that out to people like me who call you.

Fourth, scientists, especially on issues that are highly polarized, are more and more labeling as false or wrong interpretations of evidence that they simply do not regard as valid. I tore out a commentary from Nature Biotechnology on GM, genetically modified foods. And eight times in the course of a one-page article, the scientists labeled as rumor and innuendo allegations that there was anything to worry about with genetically modified crops.

Here-- and I don't have to remind this audience of this-- the more accurate distinction is between facts and hypotheses. The debate over that is one of the essences of science. When I call you about some issue, it's very helpful for you to explain to me what are the facts. What do we know based on solid empirical evidence? And what are hypotheses that deserve further investigation?

Fifth, scientists could be much more helpful and more explicit about what is a value judgment and what is a statement with, again, solid empirical support. At least some of the people who downplay the risk of climate change, of loss of biodiversity, of environmental toxics do so because they see other issues as much more important. The lack of clean water to much of the world's population, tobacco.

But they fail to say explicitly that they are making a value judgment. So when someone says to me, oh that's simply not a major risk, that's not an important risk, that's not a problem that we should worry about, it might not seem obvious that they're making a value judgment. But to a reporter listening to a scientist, often, that comes across as a scientific statement as opposed to one that's laden with ideology and politics. Again, for those of you who care about the issues we heard about this morning, it's helpful for you to point that out.

I'll leave you with one final hurdle or obstacle. Scientists know that yesterday's heresy can become today's orthodoxy. I'll reach way into the past so that I don't trample on anyone's toes for an example. Continental drift. In the early decades of this century, you would be laughed out of the room if you said that the Earth's plates were moving around like the chocolate on a chocolate-covered cherry. But today, of course, it's the foundation of geophysics.

Reporters see it a little bit differently. Reporters are convinced that today's orthodoxy can turn out to be tomorrow's N-rays or polywater. Reporters are always on the lookout for something which is, today, accepted and conventional wisdom, but which might be overturned tomorrow. Sometimes, doing that takes precedence over sorting out the facts.

[APPLAUSE]

HOWARD REESE: I actually don't think we need Sharon's five or six step process. We just need to clone her a few thousand times over. Let me now turn to Ernie Moniz.

[APPLAUSE]

ERNIE MONIZ: Thanks, Bud. Actually, I think as Rush was indicating, I think those of us as physicists in Washington still are viewed with some kind of suspicion and as a curiosity. Certainly in my own role at DoE just two days ago, I was giving a talk at a meeting of the--

SPEAKER: [INAUDIBLE]

ERNIE MONIZ: Oh, that better? I was just saying that certainly in my role, perhaps as with Rush, as a physicist in my job, still viewed as something of a curiosity and many of the places the job takes me. Two days ago, I was giving a talk to the Western United States and Canadian Natural gas people, guys who drill wells, pipelines, end users.

And the introducer decided that it was appropriate to tell a story that a physicist-- he knew that I engaged somewhat in fishing, in fly fishing, that a physicist was out on the stream before the season was open. The warden came over and asked him to pull his fly out of the water, preparing, of course, to fine him. The physicist pulled out a magnet. The warden decided, OK, moved on. The physicist, of course, snickered. He didn't know the steelheads were running.

[LAUGHTER]

So this is a not untypical reception of physicists in these jobs. But whatever the case, I'm certainly pleased to have this chance to take part of this symposium honoring Henry Kendall. I've certainly personally had the opportunity to admire Henry for essentially my entire physics career. Indeed, my first year of graduate school at Stanford, I worked in Dick Taylor's group in the Friedman-Kendall-Taylor collaboration that proved to be so productive in my absence, of course, since I then moved on to a different group.

Here at MIT, also particularly in my years as department head in physics, Henry was always very supportive. And I just wanted to stress, he was always there also for discussions and action in terms of undergraduate education. Particularly, laboratory experiences was one of the areas that he focused on.

And in my more recent public service career, Henry, of course, stands out I think as one of the truly great physicist contributors to shaping important public policy debates. By the way, in the program it says that I will give a perspective from the White House, but actually I will do DOE which is sort of halfway between Capitol Hill and the White House.

Let me note some of the ways in which Henry contributed to the diverse portfolio of Department of Energy activities. Indeed, in some ways, the diverse DOE portfolio almost seems to have been put together as a way to engage Henry. Science, energy, environment, and nuclear national security issues, all of which he was engaged in. In science, of course, DOE is the largest supporter of basic and applied research in the physical sciences. And of course, Henry's role in the work recognized by the Nobel Prize speaks for itself in his contribution to particle physics, a field that for which DOE is the principal steward.

But beyond that, a major study done about four years ago, the so-called Galvin study, was one that has helped reshape our approach to at least trying to get a more of a corporate engagement of our laboratories with the Department, and Henry was a very important member of that Commission. In energy and environment, the Department's responsibilities range from environmental remediation of the Cold War legacy mess to addressing sustainable development through new energy technologies and energy policies. Henry, again, contributed in a major way in both areas. Perhaps less well-known than the latter is in the former. That is, the issue of environmental remediation.

Again, on the Galvin Commission, Henry was the principal driver and principal author for a chapter that emphasized the need for the Department to engage its laboratories in technology development to help environmental remediation. To do it faster, perhaps, to do it cheaper, and more-- and perhaps even more important, to drive towards better end states as we try to clean up this mess. That agenda that Henry set out, and really was the principal driver for, is not an easy one to implement. But I think we are making progress and, indeed, the last two days I've been in Idaho precisely to advance that agenda that Henry set out in terms of bringing science and technology to bear on this important environmental challenge.

Of course, you've already heard this morning about Henry's extensive work on the sustainable world, one that can help improve the lives of an enormous number of the world's citizens while preserving our environmental values. Again, I would just say that DOE's principal role here is in addressing new energy technologies that, in fact, address environmental challenges at all geographical scales, from local in an urban environment to the global issues that Bob Watson certainly discussed this morning.

Finally, in national security, and again, Dick Garwin covered many of the issues, the Department's principal role is as steward of the nuclear weapons stockpile and as a lead agency for nuclear nonproliferation, particularly through our work in Russia to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, nuclear materials, and nuclear weapons know-how. Henry's last service to the government, I believe the program notes this, came when he signed out in February of this year the Child's Commission report. This was a report which has served-- is serving the Department of Energy very well. It's a report that focuses on the human resource needs to maintain the nuclear weapons stockpile-- a declining stockpile-- in the absence of nuclear testing. And in fact, that challenge, the human challenge in that program, is an important one, and our ability to manage that challenge and to convince Congress that we have managed that challenge will be very important in the remaining discussions in the next years on the CTBT.

So as you can see, from this discussion of what the Department of Energy is about and areas in which I'm certainly engaged, my personal answer to the charge of this panel, the role of scientists in public policy, is basically working on Henry Kendall's agenda. He really did advance us in all of these-- in all of these ways. He was one of, I think, a number of faculty here at MIT, elsewhere as well but I will focus on my home base at MIT, who I think, by valuing public service and demonstrating it, really helped a number of us, certainly in my generation, to accept the challenges as they came forward.

The role of-- the role of scientists in public policy is, of course, built on the role of science in public policy. And as I just reviewed, for the DOE, science and technology underpins everything we do. And yet, there are very few scientists in senior roles where decisions are taken in the administration and including in the Department of Energy. Which again, is basically science ener-- a science agency. Thus, the major role for most science-- for most scientists, whether inside or outside the government, tends to be in conveying scientific information and judgment to the non-scientists-- lawyers, et cetera-- who in fact, are those in most positions making decisions.

That dialogue, I think, needs to be based on some very simple principles. The information and judgments need to be truthful yet streamlined and without the endless hierarchy of qualifications that sometimes characterizes scientist communications. It needs to be without arrogance, particularly without disdain for politics, because that is the business of reaching decisions. And it needs to be regular and not just offered in response to a funding shortfall. I think that guidance typifies scientific advice that tends to be effective.

Let me just mention a few examples of the types of scientific interaction that I think we need to be able to reach good choices, good policy, good programs. One role-- one obviously important role, and it's very important for DOE certainly, one very important role is for the scientific community to help shape science support. There's no need going in here into the role of science in our society, in our economy, et cetera, Rush touched on that.

I just want to emphasize, because even though it's obvious I think it happens not frequently enough, emphasize the importance of community processes in coming forward to Washington. I think when a community is coming in and speaking together, having gone through its internal discussions, sometimes bloody, to reach a set of priorities and sticks to it, it's a very, very effective way of moving the whole political system.

Let me give you one example. In fact, I'll draw upon Russia's own professional field, before politics, that is. Infusion. Infusion is a case where-- the fusion plasma science area-- is a case where the program was going along, frankly I think, having some problems within the community in terms of its directions. Congress, in the end, decided that it was time for that field to re-evaluate its future. The message was pretty clear. It was a 30% cut in funding in one year to the next.

This was very difficult, as Rush knows. Some staff in the Congress, et cetera, were viewing that as simply the first step towards continued major declines in that field. I think that community deserves a lot of credit. What they've done is, in a dialogue involving OSTP, DOE, OMB, the Congress, and the community, they have, in what is a difficult process, pulled themselves together, done a joint roadmap, provided a common vision as to where they're going. And in fact, this year the budget has now started to turn up, and I believe the field is on a much stronger scientific foundation and one that promises very important science results, and perhaps even, in the long-term, an energy future. So again, but the message here is I think it's an example of a community getting together, really having frank discussions about their field, where it was going, coming-- working with the government in shaping their vision, and in fact, I think being on a very, very sound foundation to go forward.

Let me turn to a second area relevant at DOE where I think scientists, again, working together-- government scientists, those from universities, in this case industry as well-- come together in mapping out an applied research future, namely that involving energy to energy technologies. Frankly, in the-- this is actually, again, a legacy in a certain sense of the Galvin report that Henry worked on. That report emphasized the importance of having DOE sort of reorganize its portfolio and engage in a road mapping process going forward to identify the important areas of applied research that best aligned with our policy goals-- our environmental policy goals, for example, policy goals involving private sector developments such as restructuring, et cetera.

That lesson was taken to heart. I think it's an example where it shows, I think, the importance of our trying to get more scientists into senior positions. Because what happens is, in this case, and I think it's a good example, I think by having senior decision making scientific leadership, one is able, then, to energize the senior career technical people to work with the community and have an effective process. That process this year has gone forward, and without going into details, it has put new energy into the program-- and that was not a pun-- put new energy in the program, and in fact, identified three or four major gaps in the portfolio, major opportunities going forward, that will serve our energy goals and serve our environmental goals.