SCIENTISTS FOR SCIENCE-BASED Policy (even more, and again)--open letter

Here's a self explanatory email:

Dear NAS Colleagues,

We are deeply appreciative of your decision in spring 2018 to sign the Statement to Restore Science-Based Policy in Government. website https://scientistsforsciencebasedpolicy.org/ 

We are writing now to update you.  This past month we contacted members newly elected in 2019 and 2020, asking if they would like to add their names to the Statement. Although much has happened in the past two years, we decided to keep the text of the Statement  unchanged.  Its wording remains as relevant today as earlier, perhaps even more so.

We are pleased to report that about 62 percent of the new members have signed, raising the total number to over 1220.  We are now distributing the explanatory statement below to selected journalists. This statement is also available at

https://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~cfm754/nas_open_letter_history.pdf

We would be happy if you would disseminate this information as you think appropriate.  Moreover, should you be in touch with members who have not yet signed the Statement and wish to do so, please have them email us and we will add their names.

Regards,

Charles Manski, Ben Santer, and Ray Weymann,  NAS members

********

Here's the closing paragraph of the original (and reissued) letter:

"Scientific evidence and research should be an important component of policymaking. We therefore call on the Federal Government to maintain scientific content on publicly accessible websites, to appoint qualified personnel to positions requiring scientific expertise, to cease censorship and intimidation of Government scientists, and to reverse the decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement."

******

And here are the opening paragraphs of the historical context document:

"Pandemic Exposes Fatal Consequences of Dismissing Scientific Expertise
1,220 members of the National Academy of Sciences call for science-based policy
July 16, 2020

“Ignorance and wishful thinking are not effective response strategies in the face of a global pandemic or global climate change,” said Dr. Ben Santer, one of three co-organizers of this open letter. “We need to restore science-based policy in government – but we also need to ensure that science is valued in public discourse and in all levels of our educational system.”

"This call for restoring science to policymaking has a several-year history. In the summer of 2016, while campaigning for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Presidency, Donald J. Trump publicly announced his intention to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Accord. This announcement – and Mr. Trump’s public dismissal of climate science as “a hoax” – prompted four members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences to write an open letter (http://responsiblescientists.org). The letter’s purpose was to affirm the reality and seriousness of human-caused climate change. It pointed out the severe and long-lasting consequences of an eventual U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord. At the time of its publication in September 2016, the open letter had 378 NAS signatories."

City of Science museum in Naples

Last June I gave some talks in Italy (back when there were airplanes, and in-person talks--remember?) One side trip took me to the City of Science museum in Naples.  I've just now come across a web page that memorialized that visit, with some pictures that reminded me of what a fine science museum it is.  (I still enjoy science museums, even though I'm temporarily out of kids to bring with me...)

Il Premio Nobel per l’Economia 2012 Alvin Eliot Roth in visita a Città della Scienza
19 giugno 2019

NSF 70th Anniversary Symposium--the video

I recently attended the celebration of the 70th anniversary of the National Science Foundation, a two-day symposium on Feb. 6-7, 2020. Below is a video of the first day, in which I took part in a session called Science Breakthroughs, which begins at hour 3:45 and goes for an hour. Hear a moderated discussion ranging back and forth over gravity waves, black holes, thermal vents, nanotechnology, and market design (school choice, kidney exchange, repugnant transactions and the fact that both markets and bans on markets require social support to work well).




Science Breakthroughs
Panel featuring NSF-funded science breakthroughs from the last decade. The topics covered in this panel will feature a mix of major breakthroughs, as well as research that has led to significant impacts on society. In addition, the panelists will be a diverse set of researchers, including those earlier in their careers.

Moderator: Amy Harmon, Correspondent, New York Times
Panelists: Jennifer Dionne, 2019 Waterman Award recipient & Associate Professor, Stanford University
Shep Doeleman, 2019 Breakthrough Prize & NSF Diamond Award recipient & Director, EHT at Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Margaret Leinen, Director, Scripps Institute & Vice Chancellor & Dean, Marine Sciences
Nergis Mavalvala, Professor & Associate Head, Department of Physics, MIT
Alvin Roth, Nobel Prize in Economics 2012 & Professor of Economics, Stanford University

Presenting results anecdatally (and other stories about presenting data to policy makers)

I've recently been involved in several efforts to present data to policy makers who, rightly or wrongly, react more strongly to well-told stories than to comparisons of data distributions.

The reason that scientists of all sorts are distrustful of stories--i.e. anecdotes--is that anecdotes can be outliers, unrepresentative of the underlying data. (Think of political ads that feature particularly memorable crimes committed by paroled prisoners, or immigrants, etc.)

But while comparing data distributions may be more persuasive to scientists, anecdotes, responsibly presented, remain useful for communicating with non-scientists.  And so I've found myself arguing to colleagues that we should present data "anectdataly,"  by illustrating our statistical results with anecdotes that represent well the underlying statistical data.

So...we're in neologism territory here, inventing appropriate new words.

andecdatum. (plural: anecdata)

1. noun.  an anecdatum is a single story that represents the underlying data distribution, e.g. by illustrating its mean or mode. (Compare to "anecdote".)

anecdata

1. plural of anecdatum
2. a collection of stories that together illustrate key features of a statistical distribution (or comparisons of distributions) that may not be well illustrated by a single anecdatum.

anecdatal   

1. adjective: stories illustrating statistical evidence collected as part of systematic scientific evaluation: (as in "the statistical presentation was supplemented with anecdatal evidence.")

anecdataly (also anecdatally)

1. adverb. (as in "the executive summary was presented anecdataly and with summary statistics, with the details of the data presented in the body of the report.")

Golden Goose Awards 2019

The Golden Goose Awards have been awarded for the 8th time. 

Here's an accompanying news story:

2019's Golden Goose Awards Celebrate The Silliest-Sounding Science To Benefit Society

Diversity of methodology in science, interview with E.O. Wilson

The Chronicle of Higher Ed interviews E.O. Wilson on, among other things, diversity in scientific approaches:

A Legendary Scientist Sounds Off on the Trouble With STEM
E.O. Wilson on the next big thing, the gladiatorial nature of academe, and the world beyond the human senses

"There’s no question that we need all the ablest people that can be recruited to go into science and technology to keep this country strong. But STEM is an unnecessarily forbidding set of stairs.

"Consider a young person who’s thrilled by seeing a natural system, a remarkable geological formation that stirs the imagination, or a group of animals or plants. This youngster says, Boy, when I get to college, I would like to move on to a career in science, and biology especially. Now, the STEM-oriented teacher — if we are following the STEM ideology as we hear it — says: "I think that’s a good ambition. But remember that biology is based substantially upon chemistry. So, I advise you to start getting a good background in chemistry. Oh, and while you’re at it, you should keep in mind that chemistry is based upon, to a major degree, principles of physics. So consider starting to get a background in physics, too. And, oh, I almost forgot: To get into physics, and a lot of the best parts of chemistry, you’re going to need ‘M,’ mathematics. So I want you to get started on math courses right now."
...
"Those universities that have large collections of organisms have not come close to providing educational tools for students at the undergraduate and graduate level. Harvard is particularly short. I came there as a graduate student in 1951, and I’m now honorary curator of insects, now that I’ve retired. Harvard has some of the best collections in the world — plants and animals — and we have a great arboretum. And yet the collections are not being used effectively to train people in biodiversity. They’re being neglected.

"We should be putting much more emphasis in both undergraduate and graduate biology courses on biodiversity. Right now we have given formal names to a little more than two million species. How many species remain unknown? The answer: an estimated eight million. We’re not talking about bacteria; we’re talking about eukaryotic animals.

"We need more courses about different groups of organisms — courses in ornithology, or invertebrate zoology, or entomology. That’s the way you get students hooked.
...
"We certainly need research that involves modeling and statistical techniques, but that should be ancillary. What we need much more is a study of those 10 million species.

"I’m going to rattle off the names of some groups of organisms that desperately need experts to work on them.

...

"A. Schizomids: a kind of arachnid found all over the world. Spidery-like creatures. We know almost nothing about them.

"Oribatid mites: Go out to any bit of leaf litter, start digging up decaying leaves, and start shaking out the little things. Among them you’ll find oribatid mites.

"A few years ago I studied a group of ants that were very good at collecting oribatid mites for food. So I thought I’d better figure out what species of oribatid mites I was seeing in my work. I looked around and found that the number of oribatid mite specialists who could do that in the United States was two. One of them, fortunately, was very generous.

"Q. Why isn’t there enough of this work being done?

"A. The dominance of molecular biology and biological medicine. Which is a good thing. But it’s become an overwhelming emphasis.

"That’s going to change. We’re moving into a new era. We’re entering the environmental-science era, where we want to take care of the environment around us, treat the earth the way we would a person and keep it healthy. And we need to know about these species for the purposes of synthetic biology."

A black market in publishing fake science

ABC (the Australian one) has the story:
Inside the 'shadowy world' of China's fake science research black market

Share

By Natasha Mitchell for Science Friction

"When the cancer research journal Tumor Biology retracted 107 papers last year, a dubious new world record was set — and the world's scientists took notice.

Largely because all 107 papers were penned by Chinese researchers.

...

"But it wasn't a first for the journal, now published by Sage. In 2016, it retracted 25 papers because of similar doubts over their integrity.

The incidents expose a deeper, darker problem for science globally.

A growing black market is peddling fake research papers, fake peer reviews, and even entirely fake research results to anyone who will pay.

"Organised crime in certain countries has realised there is a lot of money to be made here," medically-trained Dr Oransky said.

...

"The pressure on Chinese scientists to publish their work in prestigious, English-language journals is now immense.

This has created new opportunities for China's thriving black market.

Companies offering standard editing and translation services to scientists have, in some cases, become a source of serious fraud.

"They have these fake article mills that pump out papers on order," Mr Cyranoski said.

"People can ask them to produce a paper of a certain kind, and they will produce the figures, the data, everything, and give it to you.

"You see this kind of very large-scale fraud going on in China."

Professor Cong Cao, a leading scholar in innovation studies at the University of Nottingham Ningbo China, said the market for these kind of services is large.

"In China, for a scientist to be promoted, they have to have a certain number of papers," he said.

Chinese graduate students and medical clinicians now also face the same strict requirements.

Some universities also pay huge cash rewards — over $US40,000 — if a scientist succeeds in publishing in a high-profile journal like Science or Nature.

Many see these financial incentives as part of the problem, especially in a country where average academic salaries are very low.

"The incentives are all misaligned," Dr Oransky said.

Professor Cao said the aim was to encourage scientists to be innovative.

"[But] there are some unintended consequences of this kind of policy," he said.

...

"More than 600 papers have been retracted since 2012 for fake peer review, according to Dr Oransky.

...

"Scientific misconduct is a growing global concern, and there is a risk of singling out China as the only hotspot.

But the Chinese Government knows it has a serious problem.

...

"China's Ministry of Science and Technology will now manage investigations into scientific misconduct. This is a departure from other countries where individual institutions are often in charge, despite implicit conflicts of interest."

NSF is looking for a new Division Director, Social and Economic Sciences, SBE

This is an important job in government science:

Division Director, Social and Economic Sciences, SBE

Responsibilities
Serves as a member of the SBE Directorate leadership team and as a principal spokesperson in social and economic sciences for the Foundation.  Provides leadership and direction to the NSF Division responsible for funding research and education activities, both nationally and internationally, to develop and advance scientific knowledge and methods focusing on our understanding of individuals, social and organizational behavior by creating and sustaining social science infrastructure, and by supporting disciplinary and interdisciplinary research that advances knowledge in the social and economic sciences.  The incumbent has managerial and oversight responsibilities for the effective use of division staff and resources in meeting organizational goals and objectives (e.g., broadening participation).  Assesses needs and trends involving the social and economic sciences, implements overall strategic planning and policy setting for the Division, provides leadership and guidance to Division staff members, determines funding requirements, prepares and justifies budget estimates, balances program needs, allocates resources, oversees the evaluation of proposals and recommendations for awards and declinations, and represents NSF to relevant external groups.  Supervises and provides leadership and guidance to senior staff (Deputy Division Director), program officers, administrative and support personnel.  Fosters partnerships with other Divisions, Directorates, Federal agencies, scientific organizations, and the academic community.
***********

I'm a big fan of the NSF and the work it does, and very recently traveled to Washington D.C. to say thank you:

"And thank you to the NSF, and particularly to the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences Directorate, which must be one of the most cost-effective investments the government makes.  Social science isn’t very expensive, but it can be incredibly valuable. It can save lives.

"On a personal note, all of my work that was cited by the Nobel Prize committee was begun with funding from the NSF. Dan Newlon was the legendary director of the SBE Directorate, and he nurtured a generation of economists who made big changes in how economics is done. In the early 1990’s, when I was discouraged by the progress I was making on understanding matching, he encouraged me to stay the course. So for me, the NSF support was about much more than funding."
*********
Here's the set of my blog posts that mention the NSF

Science in society at the Exploratorium (video of a panel discussion)

In late February I took part in a panel discussion about Science in Society, at the Exploratorium. Below is a photo, and the video of the discussion (about half an hour--the introductions go 'til 8:50, and the panel starts then).

On stage: Moira Gunn, Saul Perlmutter, Elizabeth Blackburn, Alvin Roth, Brian Kobilka

Market Design in the Economic Journal: Designing science

Two sections of the October 2017 Feature Issue of the Economic Journal deal with market design.  The second of these, on Designing Auctions, is apparent.  The first, on The Confidence Crisis in Science is less obvious, until you think of the problem of how to conduct open science (peer review, replication, etc.) as a problem in market design.  The first paper linked below lays out this point of view very clearly.

1. FEATURE: THE CONFIDENCE CRISIS IN SCIENCE

   1. You have free access to this content
      The Research Reproducibility Crisis and Economics of Science (pages F200–F208)
      

      Zacharias Maniadis and Fabio Tufano

      Version of Record online: 24 OCT 2017 | DOI: 10.1111/ecoj.12526

      • Abstract
      • Article
      • PDF(111K)
      • References
      • Request Permissions
   2. You have free access to this content
      To Replicate or Not To Replicate? Exploring Reproducibility in Economics through the Lens of a Model and a Pilot Study (pages F209–F235)
      

      Zacharias Maniadis, Fabio Tufano and John A. List

      Version of Record online: 24 OCT 2017 | DOI: 10.1111/ecoj.12527

      • Abstract
      • Article
      • PDF(325K)
      • References
      • Request Permissions
   3. You have free access to this content
      The Power of Bias in Economics Research (pages F236–F265)
      

      John P. A. Ioannidis, T. D. Stanley and Hristos Doucouliagos

      Version of Record online: 24 OCT 2017 | DOI: 10.1111/ecoj.12461

      • Abstract
      • Article
      • PDF(402K)
      • References
      • Request Permissions
   4. You have free access to this content
      Persuasion Bias in Science: Can Economics Help? (pages F266–F304)
      

      Alfredo Di Tillio, Marco Ottaviani and Peter Norman Sørensen

      Version of Record online: 24 OCT 2017 | DOI: 10.1111/ecoj.12515

      • Abstract
      • Article
      • PDF(489K)
      • References
      • Request Permissions
2. Jump to…
   

   FEATURE: DESIGNING AUCTIONS

   1. You have full text access to this content
      The German 4G Spectrum Auction: Design and Behaviour (pages F305–F324)
      

      Peter Cramton and Axel Ockenfels

      Version of Record online: 24 OCT 2017 | DOI: 10.1111/ecoj.12406

      • Abstract
      • Article
      • PDF(279K)
      • References
      • Request Permissions
   2. You have full text access to this content
      Determining the Optimal Length of Regulatory Guarantee: A Length-of-contract Auction (pages F325–F333)
      

      Thomas Greve and Michael G. Pollitt

      Version of Record online: 24 OCT 2017 | DOI: 10.1111/ecoj.12405

      • Abstract
      • Article
      • PDF(119K)
      • References
      • Request Permissions
   3. You have full text access to this content
      A Practical Guide to the Combinatorial Clock Auction (pages F334–F350)
      

      Lawrence M. Ausubel and Oleg Baranov

      Version of Record online: 24 OCT 2017 | DOI: 10.1111/ecoj.12404

      • Abstract
      • Article
      • PDF(155K)
      • References
      • Request Permissions
   4. You have full text access to this content
      Auction Format and Auction Sequence in Multi-item Multi-unit Auctions: An Experimental Study (pages F351–F371)
      

      Regina Betz, Ben Greiner, Sascha Schweitzer and Stefan Seifert

      Version of Record online: 24 OCT 2017 | DOI: 10.1111/ecoj.12403

      • Abstract
      • Article
      • PDF(259K)
      • References
      • Request Permissions
   5. You have full text access to this content
      Pro-competitive Rationing in Multi-unit Auctions (pages F372–F395)
      

      Pär Holmberg

      Version of Record online: 24 OCT 2017 | DOI: 10.1111/ecoj.12402

      • Abstract
      • Article
      • PDF(279K)
      • References
      • Request Permissions