[Radix] How to Kill Disaster-Related Social Science

[Ilan Kelman]

Dear Betty,

Thank you kindly for your thoughts and comments on this situation.  If I would be permitted, I hope that I could ask some questions regarding your remarks?

1. The mission and goals of NCAR's SIP (Collaborative Program on the Societal Impacts and Economic Benefits of Weather Information) http://www.sip.ucar.edu are highly focused on weather information.  In the 306 words at http://www.sip.ucar.edu/mission.jsp "weather" is mentioned 17 times and "weather information" 9 times, but "climate" not once.  Meanwhile, capacity building is implied, but is addressed mainly peripherally.  This program is welcome and it is positive that, so far, it remains intact.  What about the vast areas of social science (disciplinary and geographic, such as those noted in Juha's message) that this program does not cover, many of which were part of the work of Glantz and the Center for Capacity Building?  Similarly, the majority of the research programs at NCAR's ISSE (the Institute for the Study of Society and the Environment) http://www.isse.ucar.edu are physical science.

2. One highlight from NCAR's SIP is WAS IS (Weather and Society Integrated Studies) http://www.sip.ucar.edu/wasis , a program started at NCAR and about which NCAR and SIP are and should be proud.  WAS IS continues this summer at NCAR with a workshop.  Would you be able to provide more details about why longer-term funding for WAS IS has been found in Oklahoma but not at NCAR?  Why did NCAR have the opportunity, but not grasp it?

3. You write "it looks like they will be getting a new NSF grant soon".  Does that grant involve you?  (From the beginning, I have been clear about my interest, and potential conflict-of-interest, in my comments on this situation.)  I am curious how we would compare one NSF grant--or even a few NSF grants, which are sometimes (and possibly appropriately) focused on American domestic interests--with Glantz' decades of service on all inhabited continents?

Again in the interest of full disclosure, as part of my time at NCAR, I worked with people in ISSE and SIP, including publishing in SIP's newsletter, and I presented at previous WAS IS workshops.

In summary, the majority of social sciences work has been removed from NCAR and the remainder is highly focused on narrow topics.  We might therefore disagree on the meaning of "a very active social sciences program".

Today's New York Times has an article by Andy Revkin on the closure of the Center for Capacity Building http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/07/science/earth/07climate.html?ref=us  
NSF is quoted as saying "This came as a very, very difficult decision...You have to protect your core activities, but as budgets keep shrinking you have to redefine your core."  As Roger Pielke, Jr. points out at http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/you-have-to-protect-your-core-4503 this statement from NSF suggests that NCAR is redefining its core away from social science.

Thank you to this list and its members for their indulgence for and support on this discussion.

Ilan


> CC: ilan_kelman at hotmail.com; radix at ecie.org
> From: morrowb at fiu.edu
> To: Juha.Uitto at undp.org
> Subject: Re: [Radix] How to Kill Disaster-Related Social Science
> Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 15:32:17 -0400
>
> It should be pointed out that NCAR still has a very active social
> sciences program. The Societal Impacts program has not been impacted.
> In fact it looks like they will be getting a new NSF grant soon. NCAR
> had some major budget cuts, and the SERE lab was closed, but not the
> rest of the social sciences work.
_________________________________________________________________
Find hidden words, unscramble celebrity names, or try the ultimate crossword puzzle with Live Search Games. Play now!
http://g.msn.ca/ca55/212