thinking about goals – technocrats vs. democrats history – a highly ad hoc system politics –...
TRANSCRIPT
Thinking About Goals – Technocrats vs. Democrats
History– A Highly Ad Hoc System
Politics– Who’s in Charge? – Competition & Advocacy
Law– Same
Example: Townes Video & Discussion
Overview
Thinking About Goals: Accurate fact-findingRational decision-making
Technocrat TraditionIncomplete EvidenceValues: Suppress or Surface?
Political responsivenessDemocratic/Populist Tradition
Introduction
History
World War II & PostwarEinstein LetterBohr & TrumanOppenheimer & The H-Bomb Debate
Advising the Military (1950s)The Importance of Informal and Semi-Formal Institutions
TeapotJASONsPugwash & Soviet Contacts
History
Building Institutions (1960s and 1970s)Presidential Science Advisory Committee (PSAC)NAS & APSThe New Agencies & In-House ScienceScience Advisory CommitteesTeller & Reagan
Cycles in InfluenceFrom Kennedy to Bush
“The cooperative spirit of the [1950s] was somewhat unusual…cycles of trust and distrust are perfectly
understandable.” C. Townes
Where DoesScience Fit In?
Fluidity vs. Institutions
Townes – Sense of Duty, No Preconceptions
Von Hippel (but also Teller)– Public Scientists
Politics
Politics
Who’s In Charge?Congress: Legislated mandates; budget; impeachment;
formal oversight hearings; requiring periodic reports; informal contacts. Seatbelts and saccharine.
President: Appointments; termination; budgets; executive orders; legislative initiatives; bureaucratic reorganization; centralized approval; informal contacts.
Public: Hearings and informal contacts. Interest groups.Scientists and advisory committees.
Agencies: Politicking and Leaks…
Agency Motivations:
Institutional Models
Capture, Minimum Coalitions,and Regional Struggles.
Bureaucratic Player Models
“Climbers,” “Zealots,” “Advocates,” and “Statesmen.”
Agency Culture & Self-SelectionEPA vs. NOAA vs. FAA, AEC.
Politics
Waxman ReportCommittee Choices
– “Unqualified Individuals”– Industry Ties & Ideological Agendas – Opposing Qualified Individuals.– Removing Robert Watson from IPCC
Censoring Web SitesCensoring Reports to CongressScreening Manuscripts on “Sensitive Issues”
Is Waxman objective?
Politics
Safe exposure limits, environmental impacts, human health effects; designing treatment procedures; monitoring emissions; projecting climate change.
Establishing Legislation & Self-Selection
Reagan & EPALeaks Budget freeze, OMB Review,
hostile appointees.
Bush & EPA
I can state categorically that there never was such White House intrusion into the business of EPA during my tenure. The EPA was established as an independent agency in the executive branch, and so it should remain. There appears today to be a steady erosion in its independent status. I can appreciate the president’s interest in not having discordant voices within his Administration. But the interest of the American people lies in having full disclosure of the facts, particularly when the issue is one with such potentially enormous damage to the long term health and economic well-being of all of us.
- Former EPA Administrator Russell Train
Bush Administration & Mercury Emissions
“Achievable Standards”34 tons (or else)E-Mails and Multiple Modeling RunsEPA should do “an unbiased analysis…”
Where DoesScience Fit In?
Political Struggle as NormIs the Townes Solution Stable?
Fighting to Control Trusted IntermediariesNAS CommitteesGore and Revelle
Law
Who’s In Charge?
Legislative MandatesA Non-Delegation Doctrine?
-- OSHA: Protection “to the extent feasible.”
Procedural Requirements-- OSHA and “Substantial evidence
test.”
Law
Who’s In Charge?
The Executive BranchIndependent vs.Executive
Agencies
Procedural Due Process“Liberty & Property Interests”
Law
Administrative Procedure ActRule Making: Standards & Limits.
Notice and CommentPeanut Butter, Vitamin Supplements
Adjudication: Permits & Fines.Formal Hearings (ALJ’s)
Federal Advisory Committee Act
Law
Judicial ReviewEmphasizes RationalityAvoids Political Choices
Enforces Congressional WillPolitical Question Doctrine
Enforces Procedural Due ProcessTransparency
Law
Judicial Review ctd….
“Substantial Evidence”
-- Jury-like standard.
-- Substantial evidence does not mean “correct.”
Law
Judicial Review ctd….
“Arbitrary, Capricious or Abuse of Discretion.”
-- Clear error of judgments or failure to consider all factors.
Law
Judicial Review & Science….
“Technically illiterate judges…”
Maximal Deference Where Agency Must Make Predictions at the “frontiers of science.”
Agencies need not regulate “with anything approaching scientific certainty,” a “body of reputable scientific thought” is enough.
Law
Judicial Review & Science ctd….
But: Courts Must Not “Abdicate.” Building a record.
But: Agency cannot make rules based on “hunches” or “guesses.”
Practical Consequences:
Cost, Delay, Uncertainty
Law
Where DoesScience Fit In?
Competition is good (again).
Litigation-Type ProblemsPapering the Record.Building in Error
A Sensible Outcome?
Rational vs. Democratic
Do We Have the Mix Right?How Would We Know?Detecting The Wrong Mix…
Regulation – The Good NewsAcceptability declines with number of people exposed.
Voluntary risk limits are ~ Disease risk
We regulate involuntary risk 1000x more than voluntary risk.
Regulation – The Bad NewsAcceptability rises with cube of benefits.
Your Life is Worth… $6.5m at HHS $6.1m at EPA.
$2.7m at FAA.$1.6m at Agriculture.
… But at least it’s better than it was in the 1980s !
Discussion
Townes:
“I have seen a few people brought in as advisors who then undercut their influence with government by going public with their feelings…I think one reason Nixon became more and more distant from his science advisory committee was due to events such as this, as well as to differences in views about Vietnam. He felt is members were not a completely trustworthy part of his team – and PSAC was in fact shut down during his administration.”
Discussion