Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Usable information for policy: An appraisal of the U.S. Global Change Research Program

  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) was established in law in 1990 (P.L. 101–606) with a mandate to provide policymakers with ‘usable information.’ The law gave a White House Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences (CEES) responsibility to implement the program with respect to its policy mandate. In 1994 CEES was replaced, in part, because it failed to provide ‘usable information.’ This article, documenting the development of the program's policy mandate and CEES implementation of the USGCRP, finds a performance shortfall. The shortfall is attributed to a breakdown in the legislative process, participant perspectives, and the structure of post-World War II science policy. The purpose of the article is to explain the CEES performance shortfall in hope that its successor can improve USGCRP performance with respect to its legal mandate based upon the lessons of experience.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (1992).AAAS Report XVII: Research and Development FY 1993. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy.

  • Ascher, W. (1993). ‘Accountable policy-relevant science: the case of global change research,’ a paper prepared for the 14th Annual Research Conference of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Washington, DC (October 30).

  • Atkinson, R. C. and W. A. Blanpied (1985). ‘Peer review and the public interest.’Issues in Science and Technology 1 (4): pp. 101–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baucus, M. (1990). Floor statement, U.S. Senate.Congressional Record (January 6) p. S 817.

  • Bernabo, J. C. (1992).Joint Climate Project to Address Decision Makers' Uncertainties. EPRI Report TR-10072 (April).

  • Boucher, R. (1993/94). ‘Getting serious about science-policy reform.’Issues in Science and Technology 10 (2): pp. 25–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, G. (1986). ‘Methods for synthesis: Policy exercises,’ inSustainable Development of the Biosphere, W. Clark and R. Nunn, eds., Cambridge University Press: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, H. (1964). ‘The scientific advisor,’ in R. Gilpin and C. Wright, eds.Scientists and National Policymaking. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 73–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunner, R. D. (1991). ‘Global climate change: Defining the policy problem.”Policy Sciences 24: 291–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunner, R. D. (1992). ‘Performance as promised: restructuring the U.S. Civil Space Programme.’Space Policy 8: 116–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunner, R. D. (1993). ‘Policy and global change research: A modest proposal,’ a paper prepared for the 14th Annual Research Conference of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Washington, DC, October 30.

  • Brunner, R. D. (1994). ‘Myth and American politics.’Policy Sciences 27: 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunner, R. D. and W. Ascher (1992). ‘Science and social responsibility.”Policy Sciences 25: 295–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bush, V. (1960).Science The Endless Frontier. Washington, DC: US GPO (original publication in 1945).

    Google Scholar 

  • Byerly Jr., R. (1989). ‘The policy dynamics of global change.’EarthQuest 3 (1): 11–14, 24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, W. C. and G. Majone (1985). “The critical appraisal of scientific inquiries with political implications.’Science, Technology, and Human Values 10: 3: 6–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences (1990).Our Changing Planet: The FY 1991 Research Plan. Washington, DC: OSTP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences (1991).Our Changing Planet: The FY 1992 Research Plan. Washington, DC: OSTP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences (1992a).Our Changing Planet: The FY 1993 Research Plan. Washington, DC: OSTP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences (1992b).Economics and Global Change: The FY 1993 Research Program on the Economics of Global Change. Washington, DC: OSTP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences (1993).Our Changing Planet: The FY 1994 Research Plan. Washington, DC: OSTP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee on Earth Sciences (1987), ‘Charter,’ 3 pp.

  • Committee on Earth Sciences (1988). ‘Minutes of CES Meeting 2,’ 7 pp.

  • Committee on Earth Sciences (1989a).Our Changing Planet: A U.S. Strategy for Global Change Research. Washington, DC: OSTP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee on Earth Sciences (1989b).Our Changing Planet: The FY 1990 Research Plan. Washington, DC: OSTP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee on Earth Sciences (1989c). ‘Minutes of CES Meeting 5,’ 5 pp.

  • Committee on Earth Sciences (1990). ‘Minutes of CES Meeting 7,’ 5 pp.

  • Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (1994a). ‘Charter,’ 2 pp.

  • Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (1994b).Our Changing Planet: The FY 1995 Research Plan. Washington, DC: OSTP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Currie, D. P. (1988).The Constitution of the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowlatabadi, H. and M. G. Morgan (1993). ‘Integrated assessment of climate change.’Science 259: 1813, 1932.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelson, E. (1988). ‘Laying the foundation.”Mosaic 19: 3/4: 4–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • England, M. J. (1982).A Patron for Pure Science: The National Science Foundation's Formative Years, 1945–1957. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzioni, A. (1968). ‘How may Congress learn?’Science 159: 170–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology (1993).FCCSET Initiatives in the FY 1994 Budget. Supplement to the President's FY 1994 Budget (April 8).

  • Feldman, M. S. and J. G. March (1981). ‘Information in organizations as signal and sign.’Administrative Science Quarterly 26: 171–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabriel, T. (1989). ‘Greening the White House.’New York Times Sunday Magazine, August 13, p. 25.

  • General Accounting Office (1990). ‘Administration Approach Cautious Pending Validation of Threat,’ Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, NSIAD-90-63 (January).

  • Goodwin, I. (1993). ‘Conversation with Allan Bromley: Reflections on Exiting Center Stage.’Physics Today (January): 53–59.

  • Gore, A. (1993).The Gore Report on Reinventing Government: Creating a Government that Works Better and Costs Less. New York: Times Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology (1989). ‘The Global Change Research Act of 1989,’ 101: 74 (July 27).

    Google Scholar 

  • House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology (1991). ‘Priorities in Global Change Research,’ 102: 79 (October 8 and 10).

    Google Scholar 

  • House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology (1992a). ‘U.S. Global Change Research Program,’ 102: 148 (May 5).

    Google Scholar 

  • House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology (1992b). ‘Report of the Task Force on the Health of Research,’ 102-Serial L (July).

  • House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology (1993). ‘Global Change Research: Science and Policy,’ 103–60 (May 19).

  • House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee (1976). ‘Report on joint hearings on the conduct of the Environmental Protection Agency's “Community Health and Environment Surveillance System” (CHESS) Studies' (April 9).

  • Kelves, D. J. (1977). ‘The National Science Foundation and the debate over postwar research policy, 1942–1945: a political interpretation ofScience.The Endless Frontier 68 (241): 5–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, D. (1992a). ‘The U.S. Government and global environmental change research: ideas and agendas,’ Case C16-92-1121.0. John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

  • Kennedy, D. (1992b). ‘This far and no further: the rise of the Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences,’ Case C16-92-1122.0. John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

  • Kingdon, J. (1984).Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambright, W. H. (1994). ‘Administrative entrepreneurship and space technology: the ups and downs of “Mission to Planet Earth.’”Public Administration Review 54: 2: 97–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambright, W. H. (1993). ‘Bureaucratic entrepreneuship and the U.S. Global Change Research Program,’ a paper prepared for delivery at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association (September 2–5).

  • Lambright, W. H. and S. A. Changnon (1989). ‘Arresting technology: government, scientists, and weather modification.’Science, Technology, and Human Values 14 (4): 340–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell, H. D. (1971).A Pre-View of Policy Sciences. New York: American Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell, H. D., and A. Kaplan (1950).Power and Society. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. (1982). ‘Theories of choice and making decisions.’Society 19 (6): 29–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • MARS (1991a).Responses to Our Changing Planet: The U.S. Mitigation and Adaptation Research Strategies Program. MARS Working Paper I, Description of Proposed Coordinated Program. A report by the Working Group on Mitigation and Adaptation Research Strategies of the Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences, MARS Secretariat, Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.

  • MARS (1991b). ‘Terms of reference for the Working Group on Mitigation and Adapatation Research Strategies of the Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences’ (August 16).

  • Marshall, E. and D. P. Hamilton (1992). ‘R & D budget collides with the deficit.’Science 258: 208–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moe, R. C. (1994). ‘The “reinventing government” exercise: Misinterpreting the problem, misjudging the consequences.’Public Administration Review 54: 111–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monastersky, R. (1993). ‘The $1.5 billion question: can the U.S. Global Change Research Program deliver on its promises?’Science News 144: 158–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (1994).Science Priorities for the Human Dimensions of Global Change. Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (1990).Research Strategies for the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Committee on Global Change. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nitze, W. (1991). ‘Improving U.S. interagency coordination of international environmental policy development.’Environment, 33 (4): 10–13, 31–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office of Technology Assessment (1991).Federally Funded Research: Decisions for a Decade. OTA-SET-490. Washington, DC: US GPO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office of Technology Assessment (1993).Preparing for an Uncertain Climate, Vols. 1–2. OTA-O-568. Washington, DC: US GPO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry, J. (1992).The United States Global Change Research Program: Early Achievements and Future Directions. Report of the National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry, J. (1991). ‘Global change: from rhetoric to reality.’Reviews of Geophysics, Supplement to Vol. 19, U.S. National Report to the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics 1987–1990, Vol. I, pp. 39–45.

  • Pielke, Jr., R. A. (1994).Completing the Circle: Global Change Science and Usable Policy Information, Doctoral Dissertation. University of Colorado, Boulder.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prager, D. (1988). ‘Confronting political realities,’ in K. Thompson, ed.The Presidency and Science Advising. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reilly, W. K. (1990). ‘What we can do.’EPA Journal, March/April: 32.

  • Roberts, L. (1989). ‘Global warming: Blame the sun.’Science, 246: 992–993.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossiter, C., ed. (1961).The Federalist Papers. New York: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, A. J. (1991). ‘$40 billion “Mission to Earth”: Big money, little scrutiny.’Congressional Quarterly 49 (May 11): 1185–1191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, E. S., L. B. Lave, M. G. Morgan (1991/92). ‘Keeping climate research relevant.’Issues in Science and Technology 8 (2): 47–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senate Committee on Appropriations (1990). ‘Global climate change,’ 101–965 (February 8).

  • Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation (1987). ‘Global Environmental Change Research,’ 100–301 (July 16).

  • Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation (1988). ‘Global Change Research,’ 100–816 (July 13).

  • Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation (1989a). ‘National Global Change Research Act of 1989,’ 101–32 (February 22).

  • Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation (1991). ‘Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming,’ 102–259 (April 25).

  • Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources (1993). ‘Science Concerning Global Climate Change,’ 103–55 (March 30).

  • Smith, B. L. R. (1990).American Science Policy Since World War II. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. S. and J. R. Justus (1990). ‘Mission to Planet Earth and the U.S. Global Change Research Program,’ CRS Report for Congress: 90–300 SPR (June 19).

  • Vig, N. (1994). ‘Presidential leadership and the environment from Reagan to Bush to Clinton’ in N. J. Vig and M. E. Kraft, eds.Environmental Policy in the 1990s. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2nd ed. pp. 71–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wise, G. (1985). ‘Science and technology.’Osiris 1: 229–246.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Environmental and Societal Impacts Group, National Center for Atmospheric Research, P.O. Box 3000, 80307-3000, Boulder, CO

    Roger A. Pielke Jr.

Authors
  1. Roger A. Pielke Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pielke, R.A. Usable information for policy: An appraisal of the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Policy Sci 28, 39–77 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01000820

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01000820

Keywords

Search

Navigation