Fragilecologies Archives
17 May 2007
us·able; adjective variant(s) also use·able
1: capable of being used
2. convenient and practicable for use
The phrase “usable information” as it relates to science has been around for well over two decades. The phrase was purposely used in the wording of the law creating the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) in 1990. The USGCRP was created to develop “usable information on which to base policy decisions.”
Most likely, though, the desire for usable information stemming from scientific inquiry or from observations has existed at least since the time that humans formed settlements. How can we do something to protect ourselves from the elements? How can we do what we do now even better, faster, or more efficiently? These are some of the kinds of questions that likely led to various usable scientific and technological developments. The idea behind “usable science” was driven as much by humanitarian practical needs as by just a “need to know” or a “need to do” as it is now by the need for fame or fortune.
Some societies have managed to push ahead of others in the drive for the development and use of helpful new technological devices, examples of the products of usable science. There has always been a gap between the technological “haves” and “have-nots,” even in ancient times. However, the gap between them seems to be growing by leaps and bounds as we enter the 21st century. As an example, although we are in the digital era, a “digital divide” has already emerged between the developed and developing countries, and even in industrialized countries, including the United States. Today, there are many attempts around the globe to bridge this divide between rich countries and poor ones, and between rich and poor citizens in any given country.
The phrase “usable science” seems pretty obvious and straightforward. It suggests that scientific research findings are useful for societal or individual well-being, and especially useful for decision makers. The belief is that the more scientific research that is being undertaken, the “better” the decisions are likely to be. This is accompanied by the belief that the better the scientific research output becomes, the more usable it is likely to be. However, as simple and straightforward as the phrase “usable science” appears to be, closer scrutiny leads one to see that it sends mixed messages.
One can emphasize the first word, “usable,” or emphasize the last word, “science.” Depending on which emphasis one chooses, a different message is conveyed.
To me, “usable SCIENCE” (emphasis on science) is a call to improve physical science research so that it can be packaged for the public in a form it can use. “Usable SCIENCE” also suggests that the problem of understanding the interactions among the physical, biological, and social processes rests with a public lack of understanding of science. If that is the interpretation, then the remedy for enhancing the usability of scientific research output is to come up with better scientific research (i.e., reduce uncertainties), an improved understanding of statistics (i.e., probabilities), identify ways to reduce scientific uncertainties with faster and bigger hardware (i.e., computers) to run gazillions of calculations in fractions of seconds, an enhancement of science and math education from K-12, and so forth.
Some reasons why we need USABLE science (by A. Oman)
Consider now the phrase “USABLE science” (emphasis on usable). This emphasis represents a call for improving not the science but the ways in which society can use scientific information that already exists. The truth is that all science, even basic science, becomes usable at some point in time, even if it is the distant future. But lots of scientific research findings are ready for use today for the benefit of society and the well-being of its citizens. Even though most scientific research output may be surrounded by uncertainties, it can be used in decision-making processes. The truth is that decisions are made all the time with less than perfect information available to the decision makers.
Some years ago, there was a political debate about how funds for science are allocated. A U.S. Senator questioned whether the National Science Foundation was supporting research that was of use to the nation. More specifically, she questioned support for “curiousity-based” scientific research versus “need-based” research that would demonstrably benefit society in the not-too-distant future. This is a false dichotomy. Society needs both kinds of research, since it is highly likely that curiosity-based research will eventually yield benefits to society at some future point in time. This controversy died a quiet death, as the Senator withdrew her opposition to curiosity-based research. Yet, another conflict still rages: to what extent should funding for physical science research be shared with the social sciences interested in making scientific research output more usable to the public?
The funds required for social scientists and other practitioners to make existing scientific information more usable and useful is but a small percentage of what goes into the study of the physical sciences. Supporting scientific inquiry without supporting efforts to enable society to better use such information would be like trying to make a sound by clapping one hand.
A good example is the 60-hour (in advance of making landfall), near-perfect forecast of the trajectory of devastating Hurricane Katrina in late August 2005. The scientific community cheered the “success” of the forecasts’s accuracy. A call for increased research funding in order to increase the forecast’s lead time to 70 hours was heard shortly after the event. Yet one can question whether more lives might have been saved (of the more than 1,800 official deaths associated with Katrina) if more lead time to respond had been available.
Or, would it make more sense to focus on social science research in order to make the 60-hour forecast more usable and more effective — before providing more research support for an improved understanding of the physical aspects of a hurricane in order to produce a reliable 70-hour lead time for a hurricane’s landfall??