Fragilecologies Archives
7 May 2004
There is a growing body of research focused on the impacts of climate on society and the environment. Climate impacts research started with a small number of researchers studying weather and its impacts on agriculture, water, and fisheries, among other topics. The numbers of researchers studying impacts have sharply increased, slowly at first in the 1980s, and more rapidly in the 1990s.
Since the end of the Cold War and a shift in focus to concerns about how human activities may be altering the atmosphere, thereby changing global climate (e.g., global warming), funding for research on the societal aspects of the climate system has also sharply increased around the globe, albeit from a relatively modest base. This has helped a lot to improve the understanding of climate-society interactions. Despite the hollow cries of the climate skeptics, certain well-publicized climate processes have helped to bring attention to the societal impacts that have influenced them (e.g., thinning of the ozone layer that protects human life from harmful UV radiation, or the likely impacts on global climate of increasing amounts of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere).
As of today, though, there appears to be a lack of realization by the physical science community of the contributions to their research by the climate and climate-related impacts communities. This is obvious when one reviews physical science papers on climate issues; references to literature related to societal impacts research are usually missing.
This is not to say that we haven’t come a long way since the mid-1970s in terms of some recognition, but there is a long way to go. It requires following a difficult path, one that is largely psychological; i.e., how to get physical scientists to take more seriously social science and humanities contributions to climate-related research and the application of that research to meet societal needs. Part of the reason for this neglect is the “NIH” syndrome: “not invented here.” The social sciences have contributed greatly to the use of otherwise unused scientific research findings. It seems that when the scientific community is ready to deal with issues of societal concern (many of which were identified a decade or more ago), they embrace them, especially when espoused by “one of their own.” This is not an attack on science, but rather a personal perception of the way the system works.
Here’s where Ginger Rogers comes into the picture. Ginger Rogers was the dance partner of Fred Astaire who was a famous dancer and film star of the 1930s, ’40s, and ’50s. They were a fantastic dance team. “Team” is the operative word here: admittedly, I do not have the facts in hand, but I would bet that he made a lot more money as part of the team than she did. It seems that he got the lion’s share of attention and praise for his prowess on the dance floor. She was his partner but was not the center attraction.
A friend of Ginger Rogers once discussed the dance team in an interview and was asked about Astaire and the dance team. She put the relationship in the proper perspective when she said that, “Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did, but she had to do it in high heels and backwards.” On reflection, it becomes clear that her task was much more difficult than his (not to belittle his role in the partnership). As far as I am concerned, she was the unsung heroine in this story.
Now back to climate impacts. It is my feeling, after spending over 30 years interacting with the physical sciences, that the societal aspects of climate system research have been the Ginger Rogers of climate research. We have raised issues for scientists to focus on. We have helped to make research findings usable by various elements of society. We have supported their efforts to receive adequate funding for their experiments in the field, in the laboratory, and in space. We have helped to generate interest in society at large about their work. We have done all this as members of the climate research TEAM. We have done so with paltry resources, as well as under difficult conditions in distant and often remote areas. We have done so because we really do believe that societies and the leaders that govern it can benefit from an improved understanding of climate-society interactions and from the application of climate and climate-related research to address societal issues. We do not seek fame or fortune. Many work for “bed and breakfast” in hostile environments.
What the climate-related social science research community does deserve is acceptance by and awareness of the physical science community of their contributions to climate science. Ginger Rogers deserved much more credit than she got, all the while making Fred Astaire look good.
Physical scientists and policy makers need to recognize and support the activities of the social sciences and humanities in addressing climate-related issues. Without application, much scientific research could end up like the proverbial tree falling in the forest with no one around to hear it make a sound.