Science and Environmental Policy-Making: Bias-Proofing the Assessment Process

Scientific assessment panels are playing increasingly influential roles in national and international policy formation. Although they typically appeal to the standard of journal peer review as their quality control criterion, there seems to be confusion about what peer review actually does. It is, at best, a necessary condition of reliability, but not a sufficient condition. There is also the problem that assessment panels may be biased in favor of one side or another when evaluating areas in which the science is unclear. In this paper I argue that additional checks and balances are needed on the information going into scientific assessment reports when it will be used to justify major policy investments. I propose two new mechanisms to bias-proof the outcome: an Audit Panel and a Counterweight Panel. The need for such mechanisms is discussed with reference to the "hockey stick" debate in climate change.     

管理能源的最佳做法

需求响应计划旨在能源批发市场价格较高时,或是系统的可靠性受到损害时,能把用电量保持在较低的水平.