美國科學家在Nature上抗議：特朗普的計劃會讓政府變得愚蠢_風聞

特朗普的計劃會讓政府變得愚蠢

大多數運作正常的民主國家的政治領導人都建立了檢查制度和法律，以確保他們的國家受到知識的指導。6月14日，美國總統唐納德·特朗普(Donald Trump)採取了他迄今為止最大的舉措之一，廢除了這個體系在美國的一個重要部分：一項行政命令，要求聯邦機構將諮詢小組的數量削減至少三分之一。

這不僅僅是他的又一個不明智的政策，也不僅僅是一個只有書呆子才關心的政策。這是政府讓自己變得愚蠢。忽視、壓制或操縱科學建議一直是本屆政府的一種模式；現在，提供這種科學建議的委員會正在被取消。

科學家必須敲響警鐘。

作為華盛頓特區科學家關心社會事務聯盟科學與民主中心（ Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington DC）的研究主任，我長期研究政府決策中科學的使用和濫用。聯邦諮詢系統——包括科學和利益相關者委員會——是一種保障。它確保政策決策以證據為指導，即使在存在忽視信息的政治壓力時也是如此。

大約有1000個這樣的委員會，總共約6萬名成員。為了解決從毒品法到食源性疾病的問題，政府機構依賴於領軍專家的建議。交通部的委員會使公共交通更加安全；農業部的專家小組負責監督食品安全，等等。

特朗普政府對科學的攻擊，其影響將遠遠超出本屆總統任期。政府制度知識、技術培訓和整體能力的喪失不會僅僅通過選舉一個對科學友好的政府來恢復。重建工作需要數年時間。與此同時，聯邦科學機構將努力履行其保護公眾健康、安全和環境的使命。

現在受到威脅的委員會還幫助公眾在決策者忽視重要證據時追究他們的責任。2008年，喬治·W·布什(George W. Bush)政府和2011年巴拉克·奧巴馬(Barack Obama)政府未能按照清潔空氣科學諮詢委員會(Clean air Scientific Advisory Committee)（該委員會由七名成員組成）的建議，制定環境臭氧（一種導致呼吸和心血管疾病的空氣污染物）水平的標準。這項建議使公眾能夠對政府的決定提出質疑。沒有諮詢委員會，科學評估和政策決策之間的界限就變得模糊了。

行政命令表面上是一項削減成本的措施。但對納税人來説，聯邦諮詢委員會是一筆好買賣。除了其他職責外，該機構的工作人員每年還要召開幾次會議，委員會成員所承擔的經濟艙差旅費和其他費用也會得到部分補償。根據美國聯邦諮詢委員會法案數據庫，清潔空氣科學諮詢委員會在2018年花費了951860美元，其中只有110540美元用於直接委員會費用。(剩下的給了現有的工作人員，無論如何他們都會得到報酬。)成千上萬的世界級專家貢獻他們的時間來幫助政府做出明智的決定。

此外，諮詢委員會的每次會議都徵求公眾意見。這給了社區倡導者和不容易接觸到政府官員的人提供了一種表達他們觀點的方式。即將進行的行政命令將減少公眾參與的機會。

外部建議一直是特朗普政府試圖將科學邊緣化的主要目標之一。2017年，美國環境保護署(EPA)局長髮布了一項指令，要求撤銷當前得到EPA資助的顧問（這些人的專業技能顯然已經被EPA發現是有用的）。該機構聘請了與EPA法規中有財務利益關係的行業相關的顧問。

我們的分析發現，在特朗普政府執政的第一年，聯邦科學顧問委員會開會的頻率低於政府開始跟蹤他們以來的21年中的任何一年。這些委員會中有近三分之二的會議次數少於它們的章程所規定的次數。到目前為止，我們還記錄了100多起針對特朗普政府使用和傳播科學行為的攻擊，比任何其他總統都多。這些措施包括避免或刪除“氣候變化”等術語，停止美國國家科學院(US National Academy of Sciences)的一項研究，推翻禁止一種與兒童神經系統疾病有關的殺蟲劑的決定。

這些行為削弱了美國獲得科學建議的途徑。這一行政命令需要一個千斤頂。總統要求各機構任意取消三分之一的諮詢委員會，實際上是在問你希望把哪個輪子從你的車裏拿掉。是水質、空氣污染還是化學廢物?

美國第四任總統、開國元勳詹姆斯麥迪遜寫道：“知識將永遠支配無知；一個人想成為自己的主人，必須用知識賦予的力量武裝自己。”我們對自身、自身的專業能力、美國、受到美國決定影響的許多其他國家都負有責任（在排放、傳染源、藥物以及多得多方面），要堅持由知識而不是無知來統治。為科學委員會發聲就是為民主發聲。

那麼該怎麼辦呢？反抗，要求行動。利用選民的權力，敦促國會進行監督，甚至在必要時訴諸法庭。這不是關於黨派政治，而是關於基於現有的最佳信息做出決策。

英文原文：

​

Trump’s plan would make government stupid

Political leaders in most functioning democracies have established checks and laws to ensure that their countries are guided by knowledge. On 14 June, President Donald Trump took one of his biggest steps yet to dismantle an important part of this system in the United States: an executive order that federal agencies should cut the number of advisory panels by at least one-third.

This is not just another of his ill-informed policies, or one that only wonks care about. It is the government making itself stupid. Ignoring, suppressing or manipulating science advice has been a pattern of this administration; now the very committees that provide that advice are being eliminated.

Scientists must sound the alarm.

As the research director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington DC, I’ve long studied the use and misuse of science in government decision-making. The federal advisory system — which includes both science and stakeholder committees — is a safeguard. It ensures that policy decisions are guided by evidence, even when there is political pressure to ignore information.

There are roughly 1,000 such committees, totalling some 60,000 members. To address issues from drug laws to foodborne illness, government agencies rely on the advice of leading specialists. Committees at the Department of Transportation make public transit safer; panels at the Department of Agriculture oversee food safety, and so on.

The Trump administration’s assault on science will have an impact far beyond this presidency. The loss of institutional knowledge, technical training and overall capacity in the government won’t simply be restored through the election of a science-friendly administration. It will take years to rebuild. Meanwhile, federal science agencies will struggle to fulfil their missions of protecting public health and safety, and the environment.

The committees now under threat also help the public to hold decision-makers accountable when they ignore important evidence. In 2008, the administration of George W. Bush — and in 2011, that of Barack Obama — failed to set a standard for ambient levels of ozone (an air pollutant that causes respiratory and cardiovascular distress) that the seven-member Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee recommended. The recommendation enabled the public to challenge the administrations’ decisions. Without an advisory committee, the lines between science assessments and policy decisions are blurred.

The executive order is ostensibly a cost-cutting measure. But federal advisory committees are a bargain for taxpayers. Agency staff run a few meetings a year, alongside other duties, and some compensation is granted for economy-class travel and other expenses that committee members incur. According to the US Federal Advisory Committee Act Database, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee spent US$951,860 in 2018, of which only $110,540 went to direct committee costs. (The rest went to existing staff members, who would have been paid anyway.) Thousands of world-class specialists donate their time to help the government to make informed decisions.

Also, every meeting of an advisory committee solicits public comments. This gives community advocates and people without easy access to government officials a way to make their views known. The upcoming cull will give the public less opportunity for input.

External advice has been one of the main targets of the Trump administration’s many attempts to sideline science. In 2017, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a directive to remove advisers with current EPA grants (individuals whose expertise the EPA clearly found useful). The agency retained advisers tied to industries that have financial interests in EPA regulations.

Our analysis found that, in the first year of the Trump administration, federal science advisory committees met less frequently than in any of the 21 years since the government started tracking them. Nearly two-thirds of these committees met less often than their charters direct. We have also logged more than 100 attacks on the use and communication of science in the Trump administration so far, more than for any other president. These include avoiding or removing terms such as ‘climate change’, halting a study by the US National Academy of Sciences and reversing a decision to ban a pesticide linked to neurological conditions in children.

Those actions have chipped away at the nation’s access to science advice. The executive order takes a jackhammer to it. By asking agencies to arbitrarily eliminate one-third of their advisory committees, the president is essentially asking which wheel you’d like removed from your car. Which is it to be: water quality, air pollution or chemical waste?

James Madison, the fourth president and a founding father of the United States, wrote, “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” We owe it to ourselves and our expertise, to the United States and the many other nations affected by its decisions — on emissions, infectious agents, drugs and so much more — to insist on being governed by knowledge, not ignorance. Speaking up for science panels is speaking up for democracy.

So what to do? Push back, demand action. Use the power of constituency, urge Congress for oversight, and even go to court if necessary. This is not about partisan politics; it is about making decisions based on the best available information.

Nature 570, 417 (2019)

doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-01961-6