Arbitration 1 Effective Science Arbitration : Some Lessons from Recent Scientific Assessments

This paper focuses on three case studies in which scientific assessments failed to accurately portray relevant scientific literature. Assessments are a form of “intelligence” in decision processes and thus have well established criteria for evaluation. Specifically, this paper asks two questions in the three case studies: Does the assessment faithfully represent the existing literature? If not, what does the literature actually say? The first of these cases examines how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) presented conclusions on the role of human-caused climate change in the trend of escalating disaster losses. The second case discusses the IPCC’s treatment of sea level rise impacts related to storm surge. The third case discusses the treatment of seasonal hurricane forecasting in an assessment report published by the American Geophysical Union in the summer of 2006. The three cases discussed here provide the basis for suggesting some general guidance for the production of scientific assessments for decision makers. First is the importance of adhering to quality standards in assessment production. Second is the continuing importance of the peer reviewed literature on which an assessment is based. Finally, effective science arbitration would benefit from a clear Pielke – MTS 20 October 2006 Effective Science Arbitration 2 presentation of criteria of policy relevance which are used to judge the inclusion or presentation of particular scientific findings or conclusions to decision makers. Pielke – MTS 20 October 2006 Effective Science Arbitration