Roundtables | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Glass houses of accuracy?

Randy Olson — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 16:14:06 -0800

Roundtable Topic: When politicians distort science

For my final essay in this Roundtable, I want to shift momentarily from the distortion of science in the public sphere to the distortion of science within the profession itself.

Politics is about acting alike, not thinking alike

Roger A. Pielke, Jr. — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 13:51:43 -0800

Roundtable Topic: When politicians distort science

I have enjoyed the exchange between Randy Olson and Robert Socolow on the need for effective communication of science, and not simply as a means of conferring content but as a two-way process that builds trust and legitimacy. In my final commentary in this exchange, I'd like to return to discussing Socolow's central claim that science is under attack and needs defending from the anti-science brigades.

Reliable, confirmable, universal, welcoming: Attributes of science that convey its power and uniqueness

Robert Socolow — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 18:52:27 -0800

Roundtable Topic: When politicians distort science

Randy Olson is right: "Superior" is a badly chosen word. Saying, as I did in Round Two, that science is a "superior way of knowing" contradicts my first-round essay, which argued that science is not just one of many belief systems, but a different way of knowing. To explain how science should not be defended, I invoked the scene on Mount Carmel staged by Elijah, where the God of the Jews sets a pile of wood on fire after Baal is unable to do so. I said: "Science is not just another point of view."

Arrogance as a way of alienating

Randy Olson — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 15:23:47 -0800

Roundtable Topic: When politicians distort science

Something unfortunate has happened here. I liked and agreed with both of my colleagues' first-round essays (Roger Pielke on the importance of fairness and honesty; Robert Socolow on science not being "just another point of view"). But I'm afraid Socolow has overturned the table with his second essay, starting (and ending) with his title.

Relativism gets us nowhere. Science is a superior way of knowing.

Robert Socolow — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:14:45 -0800

Roundtable Topic: When politicians distort science

In Round One of this Roundtable discussion, I drew the distinction between distortion of the substance of science and rejection of science as a way of knowing. I asserted that distortion is less dangerous than rejection. The scientific process itself sorts out distortions, often quickly. Rejection of science, on the other hand, lacks self-correcting mechanisms. Rejection is dangerous not just for science, but for civilization. I wrote: "Another age of darkness could lie ahead.

The non-defense of science

Randy Olson — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 18:20:18 -0700

Roundtable Topic: When politicians distort science

To ask for the proper scientific response to the political distortion of science is kind of like asking what sort of defense a team of dwarves should run in a basketball game against the Los Angeles Lakers. I suppose I could recommend that the dwarves run a zone defense, but it really doesn't matter because nothing they try is going to work. The dwarves' problems are fundamental and systemic, and until they are addressed at the large scale, nothing will succeed.

Paths to a sustainable-energy future: realistic risks and options

Sharon Squassoni — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 16:16:19 -0700

Roundtable Topic: Is nuclear energy different than other energy sources?

Enter with caution

Roger A. Pielke, Jr. — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 15:35:58 -0700

Roundtable Topic: When politicians distort science

Here we go again. The US presidential campaigns of 2004 and 2008 saw some in the scientific community seek to exert influence on the elections. In 2004, scientists mounted an aggressive effort to unseat George W. Bush, and four years later sought to raise the profile of science in the election by calling for a presidential debate on science. Neither effort bore much fruit.

Yes, science is being distorted. But, much more dangerous, it is being rejected.

Robert Socolow — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 05:29:50 -0700

Roundtable Topic: When politicians distort science

This roundtable explores "the proper scientific response to the political distortions of science." Indeed, distortions abound regarding both what science understands and how science is conducted. Of even greater concern, however, is the rejection of the scientific way of knowing -- or rather its relegation to the status of just one of many equally valid ways of knowing. If the scientific method loses its place as a privileged way of knowing, the consequences will be devastating.

Fact check: Nuclear energy has an important role in US energy policy -- with or without footnotes

Tony Pietrangelo — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 05:20:23 -0700

Roundtable Topic: Is nuclear energy different than other energy sources?

With all due respect to scientists and peer-reviewed journals, the notion espoused on the roundtable on September 22 that facts are only facts if uttered by a scientist or published in a peer-reviewed journal is foolish on its face. To help along those who might miss the real-world forest for the footnoted trees, here are a few references that may help:

What alternatives to nuclear energy?

Charles Forsberg — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 14:52:32 -0700

Roundtable Topic: Is nuclear energy different than other energy sources?

For those opposed to nuclear energy, the belief is that there are alternative energy sources -- a faith in alternatives, ironically, as strong as some of the early advocates for nuclear power in the 1950s. But no such options exist in a world that will soon have 10 billion people (see Forsberg, "Mutually Assured Energy Independence"). That fundamental reality dictates the need for nuclear energy.

Why nuclear power is unique. Uniquely dangerous.

Sharon Squassoni — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 04:59:03 -0700

Roundtable Topic: Is nuclear energy different than other energy sources?

Charles Forsberg suggests that nuclear energy holds the kernel of energy independence, that it can be a force for peace, and that it can remove "energy demands as a cause of war," citing the West's oil interests in the Middle East as a reason for military interventions.

Myths about nuclear reliability, radiation, and markets

Kristin Shrader-Frechette — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 06:36:14 -0700

Roundtable Topic: Is nuclear energy different than other energy sources?

Why do people disagree about atomic energy? In the 1787 Federalist Papers, James Madison warned: "No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment." If Madison's warning applies to this roundtable, two reasons might explain why scientific and market data contradict many roundtable claims:

Why nuclear energy is not the answer

Arjun Makhijani — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 10:25:21 -0700

Roundtable Topic: Is nuclear energy different than other energy sources?

Nuclear power proponents claim:

It has low carbon emissions.
It is the peaceful face of the atom and proliferation problems are manageable.
It is compact -- so little uranium, so much energy.
Unlike solar and wind, it is 24/7 electricity.
It reduces dependence on oil.

Let's examine each argument.

Nuclear power: Between faith and fear

Sharon Squassoni — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 06:01:11 -0700

Roundtable Topic: Is nuclear energy different than other energy sources?

Several years ago, an American utility executive said, "Nuclear energy is a business, not a religion." This was a refreshing change from the usual ardent support or criticism of nuclear energy. To most people, the nuclear landscape looks quite different. Nuclear energy is not seen as just another way to boil water, and that is precisely why it usually evokes an almost religious faith or fear.

Cheaper, safer alternatives than nuclear fission

Kristin Shrader-Frechette — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 03:56:00 -0700

Roundtable Topic: Is nuclear energy different than other energy sources?

If reactors were safe, nuclear industries would not demand government-guaranteed, accident-liability protection, as a condition for their generating electricity. Escaping from liability is one of many differences between atomic power and renewable-energy sources. Given the need to curb greenhouse-gas emissions and avoid fossil fuels, comparing nuclear power with renewable alternatives is urgent. What are their differences?

Low-carbon, low-cost electricity 24/7

Tony Pietrangelo — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 04:55:30 -0700

Roundtable Topic: Is nuclear energy different than other energy sources?

Yes, nuclear energy is different than other energy sources. This happens to be both a great strength and, if not managed properly, sometimes a great challenge.

Nuclear energy is the only low-carbon electricity source that can operate around the clock on a mass scale. It is the largest solution to global goals for reducing carbon emissions in the power sector: It provides 70 percent of US electricity generated by low-carbon sources; globally, it produces nearly half of all low-carbon electricity.

The Fukushima tragedy demonstrates that nuclear energy doesn't make sense

Arjun Makhijani — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 08:36:24 -0700

Roundtable Topic: Is nuclear energy different than other energy sources?

From the time we learn to walk, mistakes are inherent in the process of human learning. An essential design principle for technology should be that we, the generations that benefit, should bear the major costs of its mistakes. Nuclear power fails this simple test miserably. It is just not possible to pick up the pieces and move on after a grave accident. Land is contaminated for generations. Cancer risks lurk in the shadows. Local economies are destroyed and cannot be restored.

Tracking Fukushima radionuclides: A research cruise in Japanese waters

Nicholas S. Fisher — Tue, 19 Jul 2011 08:27:01 -0700

Roundtable Topic: Fukushima: What don't we know?

The release of radionuclides from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactors in Japan is the largest accidental release into ocean waters in history. While it is entirely possible that some of the consequences of this release may be problematic with respect to safe consumption of some seafood items, much of this concern stems from the public's fears about the unknown in general and fear of radioactivity specifically.

Small radiation doses: The unknown might hurt us

David J. Brenner — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 09:35:42 -0700

Roundtable Topic: Fukushima: What don't we know?

Radiation can't seem to stay out of the news. We worry about people over-exposed to CT scans, and people getting medically unnecessary x-rays. We worry about dirty bombs. Some even worry about whole-body airport scanners. Now, sadly, it's the Japanese nuclear accident: a few brave folks inside the reactor getting significant radiation exposures; and many worried people near the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, in the rest of Japan, and worldwide getting exceedingly small radiation doses. Just how worried should we be? What do we really know?