INTERIOR COLUMBIA BASIN ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROJECT

The interface between science and management decisions: what the science is and isn't and how the manager can best use it.

1. How can science information help in the making of a decision?

Neutral starting point with the public:

Properly done, scientific information is neutral to differing values and therefore can be a neutral forum to begin to facilitate productive discussion among different and competing interests. This can help focus the discussion on choices and their consequences rather than on dogmatic positions.

Credibility with the public:

The perception of objectivity and lack of bias comes from the rigors of peer review and the independence of the science process from the decision making process.

Scarce information to focus management actions and estimate consequences:

The science information includes identification of risks, opportunities, and consequences of actions not found elsewhere. This will increase the likelihood that the consequences of management will in fact lead to the outcomes that were desired in the decision.

Possibly more management choices:

It will also enlighten the decision making with more choices. More choices always holds open the hope that more of the competing needs of the different stakeholders can be met.

Bottom Line: Science information can help the decision maker get a better decision that is more strongly supported....if it is done right.

2. Differences between the normal science arena and the application of science to management issues:

Geographically broad and everything is varying at once:

Science studies are usually done in closely controlled conditions that restrict the variation to only a few factors and they are often focused on geographically narrow bounds. Policy applications are often broad scale and conditions are far less controlled in the real world.

Completely integrated:

Science studies are usually isolated investigations of one facet of a larger system. The policy world is that larger system where decisions require the integration of a lot of considerations to make a reasoned decision.

Extrapolation to whatever is needed for the decision:

Science studies usually produce modest increments of new insights which can be added onto existing knowledge. Policy applications often demand broader scope and more integrated consideration of interrelationships that are farther out on the margin of knowledge and often require much larger increments of information.

Bottom Line: The very things that make the science information and the scientists a strong ally are put at risk in contentious policy applications. These differences between the typical science arena require several precautions, precautions for both the scientist and the manager, if the benefits of creating a more informed public decision through the application of scientific information is to be achieved.

3. Precautions for the scientist: The principal role of the scientist is to provide objective information and trends, conditions, risks, and opportunities. The scientist can also estimate the consequences of alternative management actions and possibly describe management options that were not apparent to the manager.

Don't take positions:

The scientists should not take positions or advocate a particular solution or outcome. There are plenty of people who can express the value differences. The scarce commodity in most decision settings is sound and reliable information about choices, and consequences of choices. Avoid the temptation of taking a position even when asked to by a decision maker. Information doesn't make decisions, decision makers make decisions and scientists are not decision makers.

Don't even make recommendations:

Recommendations have two downfalls. First, they can compromise a scientist's objectivity through the advocacy and defense of a recommendation. Second, a recommendation can be perceived as if it were that taking a particular position or advocacy of a particular solution. Information similar to what is usually contained in a recommendation can be displayed by simply pointing out actions that a decision maker could take to advance the decision maker's stated goals, or actions to avoid that put that goal at risk.

Do accomplish as much quality control as possible:

Tight time lines do not remove the responsibility to conduce quality assurance processes. Peer review is usually possible even in the tightest time frames and is a minimum requirement.

Do describe confidence in the science findings:

The scientists should as clearly as possible state the confidence in their findings or conclusions. This is particularly relevant in policy applications because scientific information is being generated at the frontier of knowledge under time constraints where standard statistical methods to measure confidence are lacking.

Do quantify risk:

Especially in complex systems where all of the relationships are not known with certainty, the variability around the estimated consequence of an action should be displayed. The scientists should not internalize their own risk preference within their analysis or science findings.

Don't say how much risk is appropriate:

The appropriate level of risk is a public policy issue, not a science information questions. The decision makers must explicitly deal with risk as a decision variable.

Do retain independence:

The scientists should remain independent of the managers who are designing and evaluating choices, publicly as well as organizationally.

Do make all information publicly available:

The openness of the science process is one of the actions that assures independence and reinforces the objectivity of the science input. The science findings, preferably in a summary of key findings written so that nontechnical audiences can understand it, should be made available during the decision making process. The glare of public scrutiny is a key to insuring that the science information is objective and considered in the decision making. Likewise, do follow this up with fully documented scientific reports.

Do conduct a consistency check between the science information and the decision:

The decision, and the consequence of the decision, are usually described in a decision document separate from the science documents. A check of the consistency between the science and the decision documents should determine whether all of the science information was used, whether it was properly interpreted, and whether the risks were considered and acknowledged.

4. Precautions for the manager: The principal role of the manager is to work collaboratively with interested stakeholders to identify issues, create options, assess the consequences of the options and select one to implement.

Do articulate the management goals:

The goals and the decision criteria are the most important normative statements in the decision process and they need to come from the manager. They are not science information, but the decision-relevant science information can't be assembled without the goals.

Do clarify the management questions:

Without clear questions that need to be answered so that the goals can be achieved, the science information can't be effectively collected, or even collected at all. While this might be an adaptive process collaboratively with the scientist, the manager has the lead to determine what issues to make decisions on.

Do determine the risk level tolerance:

Even with the best science information, we still don't know everything. Risks are inevitable and they can't be ignored. Since the risk tolerance is a key decision variable, the manager must specify what level is acceptable.

Don't challenge or disregard science results because the answers are uncomfortable:

If the scientists are doing their job, the decision space is left to the manager. Work with the decision space and don't try to change its shape or the shape of the choices within the decision space by trying to change the science. That destroys the manager's credibility and doesn't work anyway since the science is public.

Don't ask the scientists to take a position on a decision:

While you might like the support of the scientist on your decision, this undercuts the credibility of the science and in the end the manager.

Bottom Line: The introduction of the scientific information is not a silver bullet and it is not without risks. It is potent and has to be used with care. Simply put, mining the credibility of the science program, the two things that made us a valuable partner in the first place, is not sustainable.