forts by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy also are trying to integrate several pieces of the problem and develop policy guidance. The Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences has begun to coordinate interagency efforts and to define the objectives of U.S. research. Workshops on policy-related research prioritics are beginning to emerge.

Such efforts, while laudable and important, have not yet been directed toward managing the entire U.S. research program. These high-level study groups have not systematically addressed the issue of policy. relevant research priorities, nor have individual agencies or interagency working groups taken it upon themselves to initiate such an assessment. Executive branch agencies are unlikely to address these issues critically: Why risk “rocking the boat” by questioning the relevance of current research or suggesting new priorities-particularly for other agencies? Certainly such behavior is not typical of government researchers, nor is it normally rewarded. Thus, new leadership is needed to get the assessment activity started.

Tackling research priorities

The first policy-relevant question an integrated assessment might pose is, "How important is global warming?" Though many estimates have been offered, a definitive answer to that question appears to be decades away. The current generation of general circulation models used for global climate projections have many deficiencies. The ability to predict climate change accurately on a global or regional scale thus will require significantly improved understanding of the ocean-atmosphere-biosphere system, plus a new generation of computers able to perform the massive calculations required. Similarly, the ability to measure the extent of global warming attributable to human activity will require at least another decade of careful measurements to discount the influence of natural variations in climate.

To improve the scientific capability to measure and predict climate change, an integrated assessment must identify the most critical areas of uncertainty. For example, what are the highest priorities for data collection in investigating ocean-atmosphere interactions, the ways these change over time, the role of clouds, and the effects of climate change on people and

ecosystems in different regions of the world? It must determine how various research projects will contribute to answering these key questions: For example. how exactly will the millions of megabytes of data being collected by NASA and other agencies be used? Do data collection efforts serve a clear purpose tied to an identified need? How will the new global climate models being developed be used to make better decisions, and when? Will the models and data developed by different groups of scientists be compatible with one another? What measures can be taken to avoid large gaps and incompatibilities across related projects?

At the same time that the assessment helps focus long-term research and reduce key uncertainties, it also must ensure that the global climate change research program informs the decisions that confront policymakers in the very near future. The time required to gain a fundamentally better scientific understanding of the climate system is likely to be long (barring any major surprises or breakthroughs, which certainly cannot be ruled out). In the meantime, the most immediate priority is to determine the feasibility, costs, and human implications of proposed policy measures to mitigate global warming.

Applied research to evaluate mitigation options that might be undertaken in the coming decade is especially important for two reasons. One is that domestic and international pressures may force Congress to draft legislation and negotiate treaties long before scientists have arrived at a better understanding of climate-change effects. If so, policy-oriented research (including substantial efforts in the social sciences) can help identify the most feasible and cost-effective short- and medium-term options. A second reason is that if longer-term mitigation strategies become necessary, their success may well depend on actions taken now. Policy-focused research can help identify the steps needed to lay the groundwork for developing new technologies, for example, or altering patterns of energy demand.

Mitigation strategies include measures to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, such as controls on the use of fossil fuels and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs); landuse policies, such as those related to agriculture and deforestation; population control; and so-called geoengineering measures to alter the earth's radiative balance, either indirectly, such as by reforestation, or

52

ISSUES IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

CLIMATE RESEARCH

directly, such as by seeding the upper atmosphere with fine particles. To date, relatively little rescarch has been undertaken in many of these areas. The bulk of research on reducing greenhouse-gas

emissions has focused on carbon dioxide. Other important greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, have received comparatively little attention. CFCs have been studied primarily because of their role in stratospheric ozone depletion, but the warming potential of CFCs and their substitutes also requires attention.

An initial task for the integrated assessments would be to review all current research related to potential mitigation strategies for all greenhouse gases. This would cover research on all areas of energy utilization and many non-energy activities. The next task would be to recommend where this research should be expanded, integrated, or redirected to address the anticipated needs of policymakers. For instance, more research is needed to determine the true cost of energy efficiency improvements. A wellfocused assessment can help deliver such policy. relevant information more quickly.

A related priority for integrated assessments is research on adaptation strategies, which entail measures such as moving housing settlements inland in response to rising sea levels, developing new agricultural crops suitable for a drier or warmer climate, improving weather forecasting systems to anticipate storms or tornadoes, and a host of other actions that will be necessary if the climate does change significantly. In many ways, this is a tougher problem than developing mitigation strategies, since it requires the capability to anticipate climate changes at the regional level-a capability we do not currently have. Nonetheless, research in this area may identify some robust strategies for which near-term policy actions, such as those related to coastal zone management, water systems infrastructure, agricultural development, and other landuse issues, may be desirable. Estimates of the costs of adaptation strategies need to be refined as well.

All this is not to suggest that long-term basic and applied research to understand Earth's climate system

should be curtailed. Indeed, such long-term research will undoubtedly continue to consume the largest share of the federal research program. Nor is it necessary that all research have a clearly defined mission. Given the enormous uncertainties involved, adequate sup port for unfettered basic research driven by scientific curiosity remains a healthy and essential component of any national program. Integrated assessments can, however, help to ensure that more research is ultimately of value to policy decisions. The assessments can help find holes, identify needed links, and sort out priorities among current projects. In short, they can help increase the odds that the shortcomings of NAPAP won't be visited on global climate research.

Along parallel tracks

To be credible and effective, the assessment process must be undertaken simultaneously by several groups of researchers. Integrated assessments are too important to be left to a single group. Just as several research teams are pursuing the development of large-scale global climate models, multiple teams are needed to guide the wide-ranging efforts on global climate research.

The assessments should proceed along two parallel tracks. One track would draw assessment teams from nongovernmental organizations, such as universities or nonprofit research groups, and be funded jointly by public and private sponsors. The advantages of nongovernmental groups include the absence of direct political pressure, the freshness of an independent perspective, the freedom to recruit the most qualified people, and the ability to publish findings without undue delay. The primary disadvantage is that those undertaking the assessments have little say over the agencies whose work they hope to influence.

The government should undertake an in-house assessment in parallel to those conducted by nongovernmental groups. The primary advantage of an inhouse assessment is that government researchers would automatically participate; they could not readily ignore the assessment or its findings. Although it is

difficult to ensure that an in-house program can maintain the independent, critical perspective essential for effective program management, the existence of independent assessments outside government can help keep attention focused on the issues and provide a benchmark for evaluating the government effort.

The nongovernmental assessments, conducted by multidisciplinary teams of experts in the natural sciences, social sciences, engineering, and public policy would establish links with other researchers in academia, government, and industry and report their findings periodically. One such effort already is under way at Carnegie Mellon University, with core funding from the Electric Power Research Institute and the National Science Foundation. The major foundations as well as individual government agencies or interagency groups such as the Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences could take the lead in fostering such programs.

The leaders of foundations, corporations, publicinterest groups, and government agencies also should exert their personal influence to support integrated assessments and stress the need for such assessments to senior government officials. Congressional committees, private-sector groups, and professional societies such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science can provide forums for presenting and comparing the results of integrated assessments and establishing their credibility. Periodic conferences, publications, or public hearings will give the assessments visibility in scientific and policy circles.

Either the executive branch or Congress will have to take the initiative to sponsor the in-house governmental assessment. In the executive branch, the science advisor, the EPA administrator, the White House chief of staff, or the president himself arc among those who could take the lead. Similarly, key senators or House committee chairmen could sponsor legislation to mobilize government and nongovemment assessments and monitor their progress.

If the lessons of NAPAP are bome in mind, a government assessment program for global climate change should be of significant value. Several actions could help overcome the institutional barriers that thwarted NAPAP. The assessment director could be confirmed by Congress and given a regular reporting schedule that would underscore the importance of the activity. A well-balanced oversight board of prominent

scientists, business leaders. and political figures can help lend the political clout, scientific influence, and intellectual independence needed to make the assessment effective. The assessment program must also have an independent budget and staffing authority.

The National Academy of Sciences could also participate in defining the initial scope and organizational framework of the assessment program and evaluating its progress periodically. The imprimatur of an Academy recommendation would give the assessment added weight and visibility.

No assessment, whether inside or outside the government, can be assured of success in moving climatechange research toward policy-oriented objectives. Some agencies will see an assessment as intruding on their turf and attempt to ignore it, resist it, or scuttle the effort. Ultimately, success will depend on the merit of the findings and recommendations, the credibility and impartiality of the assessment teams, and the willingness of decisionmakers in the public and private sectors to endorse the process. Nonetheless, the political incentives and visibility created by an interested Congress, coupled with the external pressures of independently funded assessments outside of government, can significantly increase the likelihood of a successful effort.

The commitment of policymakers and research managers to support this effort is essential to its success; the ball is in their court. Does the White House really want global climate change research to inform public policy? Do members of Congress, agency heads, and private-sector leaders really want research to be productive and more relevant? The means for improvement are clear-as are the consequences of pretending there is no problem.

K

54

ISSUES IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

CLIMATE RESEARCH

Change Research Program. Reston, Va.: U.S. Geological Survey, 1991. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,

Policymakers' Summary of the Scientific Assessment of Climate Change; of the Potential Impacts of Climate Change; of the Formulation of Response Strategies. Reports of Working Groups I, II and III, World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Programme, Geneva, 1990.

National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, Integrated Assessment: Questions 1 and 2; Question 3; Questions 4 & 5, External Review Drafts (3 vols.). Washington, D.C., 1990. Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, Changing by Degrees: Steps to Reduce Green

house Gases, Report No. OTA-O-482, Wash

ington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1991.

Oversight Review Board, National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, The Experience and Legacy of NAPAP. Washington, D.C., April 1991. Leslie Roberts, "Learning from an Acid Rain Program," Science 251 (Mar. 15, 1991): 1302. Edward S. Rubin, "Benefit-Cost Implications of Acid Rain Controls: An Evaluation of the NAPAP Integrated Assessment," Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 41, no. 7 (July 1991): 914-921.

U.S. General Accounting Office, Global Warming: Administration Approach Cautious Pending Validation of Threat, Report No. GAO/NSIAD90-63, Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, January 1990.