Do/Does question(Primary 2)

Question 1: What is the primary purpose of using rubrics in assessment? A. To reduce the number of assignments teachers must grade B. To give students random feedback C. To assess learner performance using specific criteria and levels D. To make grading faster and easier for instructors Question 2: Which of the following is a characteristic of analytic rubrics? A. Assess the entire task as a whole B. Provide a single descriptive paragraph for all criteria C. Use multiple criteria with individual performance descriptors D. Do not include any scoring scale Question 3: What is one benefit of using rubrics in education? A. They eliminate the need for grading B. They confuse learners about expectations C. They help provide informative and constructive feedback D. They discourage students from revising their work Question 4: When choosing between an analytic and a holistic rubric, which is true? A. Holistic rubrics provide detailed feedback for each component B. Analytic rubrics assess the task as a whole C. Holistic rubrics are used to give a general judgment of overall performance D. Analytic rubrics are used when no feedback is needed Question 5: Which of the following is not a step in developing a rubric? A. Define the purpose of the learning task B. Choose rubric type C. Design final exam questions D. Write performance descriptors Question 6 What does “content validity” refer to in assessment instruments? A. The extent to which the test predicts future performance B. The extent to which test items cover the intended content C. How consistent the results of the test are over time D. The judgment of whether a test looks valid on the surface Question 7 Which type of reliability involves the consistency of scores given by two or more raters? A. Intra-rater reliability B. Test-retest reliability C. Inter-rater reliability D. Internal consistency Question 8 Which statistical method is used to confirm that all items measure the intended construct? A. Content mapping B. Guessing analysis C. Construct charting D. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Question 9 According to the PDF, what is one way to increase the validity of an assessment instrument? A. Shorten the test to reduce variability B. Apply penalties for guessing C. Conduct a vetting session with experts D. Use the same rater for all responses Question 10 In the affective domain construct map, what is the highest level of affective behavior? A. Responding B. Valuing C. Characterisation D. Organisation

*1. What is the primary objective of Step 3 in the adolescent health program development process?* a) To gather evidence for situational analysis. b) To decide on the priority issues and behaviors for the program. c) To implement interventions for various health problems. d) To assess the effectiveness of the program. *Answer: b) To decide on the priority issues and behaviors for the program.* *2. What key question is addressed in this step regarding health problems and resources?* a) How many resources can be allocated to each health problem? b) How many health problems can be addressed given the available resources? c) Which health problems have the highest prevalence in the community? d) How do we measure the success of the program? *Answer: b) How many health problems can be addressed given the available resources?* *3. Why is it necessary to prioritize health outcomes for the adolescent program?* a) To ensure that all health problems are addressed simultaneously. b) To accommodate the preferences of community leaders. c) Due to limited resources, focusing on the most immediate needs of adolescents is crucial. d) To align with evidence gathered during the situational analysis. *Answer: c) Due to limited resources, focusing on the most immediate needs of adolescents is crucial.* *4. How does the worksheet help in prioritizing health outcomes for the adolescent program?* a) By providing a list of health problems without any scoring system. b) By assigning equal scores to all health problems. c) By listing general health outcomes and specific health problems with a scoring system. d) By excluding the opinions of adolescents and community leaders. *Answer: c) By listing general health outcomes and specific health problems with a scoring system.* *5. What does the example on the prioritization worksheet illustrate about early pregnancy?* a) It is a low priority health problem. b) It has a low magnitude of the problem. c) It has a moderate level of importance in the community. d) It is the highest priority health problem with a score of 6. *Answer: d) It is the highest priority health problem with a score of 6.* *6. What does a SMART health status objective entail in the context of adolescent health program development?* a) It is a short-term outcome without specific indicators. b) It focuses solely on individual behaviors without considering community perspectives. c) It is specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and time-bound. d) It does not require baseline data or target year for achievement. *Answer: c) It is specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and time-bound.*

Auteur Theory is a way of looking at films that state that the director is the “author” of a film. A film is a reflection of the director’s artistic vision; so, a movie directed by a given filmmaker will have recognizable, recurring themes and visual queues that inform the audience who the director is (think a Hitchcock or Tarantino film) and shows a consistent artistic identity throughout that director’s filmography. The 3 Components of Auteur Theory Andrew Sarris, film critic for The New York Times, expanded on Truffaut’s writing and set out a more comprehensive definition for auteurs according to three main criteria: technical competence, distinguishable personality, and interior meaning. 1. Technical competence: Auteurs must be at the top of their craft in terms of technical filmmaking abilities. Auteurs always have a hand in multiple components of filmmaking and should be operating at a high level across the board. 2. Distinguishable personality: What separates auteurs from other technically gifted directors is their unmistakable personality and style. When looking at an auteur’s collected works, you can generally see shared filming techniques and consistent themes being explored. One of the primary tenets of auteur theory is that auteurs make movies that are unmistakably theirs. This is in sharp contrast with the standard studio directors of the era who were simply translating script to screen with little interrogation of the source material or editorial input. 3. Interior meaning: Auteurs make films that have layers of meaning and have more to say about the human condition. Films made by auteurs go beyond the pure entertainment-oriented spectacles produced by large studios, to instead reveal the filmmakers unique perspectives and ruminations on life. https://www.masterclass.com/articles/film-101-what-is-an-auteur#3ClNjwO6Gkgjd8ix2Cm5qI Who is the author of a TV program? It seems like it ought to be an easy question to answer, but it is not. There are, of course, scriptwriters, who are the literal authors of episodes in the sense of generating words that an actor eventually speaks, but in a soap opera or a sitcom there may be a dozen or more scriptwriters working on dialogue as the months go by. Is any one of them truly responsible for the overall tenor of the show, or are they just following rigid guidelines set down by other scriptwriters ahead of them? And the script is just the blueprint of an episode anyway. Actors, production designers, directors, videographers, editors, and on and on, are all necessary to construct an episode from that blueprint. Should we call one of them the author? And, at a more basic level, should we even bother looking for authors in television? Do viewers need to know who created a program in order to enjoy it? What does it add to our appreciation or understanding of television if we assign authorship of a program to an individual? In the closely related medium of the cinema, questions such as these have been answered by the auteur theory, which stems from the French word for “author,” auteur. Its basic precept is that a single individual is, and should be, the “author” of a work in order for it to be a good, artistically valuable work. A book, poem, film, or television show should express this individual’s personality, his “vision” (the masculine pronoun is significant; auteurist studies almost all focus on men). This notion stems from the nineteenth-century Romantic image of the author as a figure who sits alone in a dingy room, scratching out angst-ridden poems with a quill pen. The tormented, misunderstood author or artist is a cherished character type that can be traced back to the poet Lord Byron (1788–1824) and observed in numerous portrayals of demented painters, musicians, and writers in television programs and other media. Consider this: Have you ever seen or read a story about a creative person who wasn’t somehow strange or crazy? The auteur theory originated in French film criticism of the 1950s, where it was initially theorized that auteurs could be drawn from the ranks of producers, directors, scriptwriters, actors, and other filmmaking personnel.1 However, the vast bulk of auteurist film criticism has been about directors: Alfred Hitchcock, John Ford, and Quentin Tarantino, among many others.

Chapter 22 Antihypertensive Drugs Hypertension Defined (JNC-8) Pharmacology Overview 7 main categories of drugs to treat HTN Adrenergic drugs (old friend) Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) Diuretics Vasodilators Direct renin inhibitors A. Adrenergic Drugs: 5 Subcategories and where they act A1. Adrenergic neuron blockers (central and peripheral)- we won’t talk about this A2. Alpha1 receptor blockers (peripheral) A3. Alpha2 receptor agonists (central) A4. Beta receptor blockers (peripheral) A5. Combined α and β receptor blockers (peripheral) A2. Peripherally Acting Adrenergic DrugAlpha1 Blockers (we’ve met these) Doxazosin, prazosin, alfuzosin Block alpha1-receptors which causes BP to decrease Reduces peripheral vascular resistance and BP by dilating both arterial and venous blood vessels Main Use: benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) Alpha1 Blockers REMEMBER Tamsulosin (Flomax)* is an α1 blocker BUT *Tamsulosin is not used to control BP, just for BPH. A3. Centrally Acting Adrenergic DrugsAlpha 2 agonist Clonidine and methyldopa 1- Stimulate alpha2-adrenergic receptors. in the brain Decreases sympathetic outflow from the CNS which decreases NE production 2. Stimulate alpha2-adrenergic receptors in kidneys remember alpha 2 opposes alpha 1 Dilates peripheral blood vessels → lowers peripheral resistance → Results in decreased BP So ….Clonidine (Catapres) Used primarily for its ability to decrease blood pressure in an urgent setting Also use in opioid withdrawal as previously discussed Oral (multiple times a day), and topical patch formulations Do not stop abruptly as it may lead to rebound hypertension In reality, Clonidine and methyldopa Not prescribed as first-line home antiHTN drugs High incidence of unwanted adverse effects: orthostatic hypotension, fatigue, and dizziness MIGHT be uses as adjunct drugs after other drugs have failed, in conjunction with other antiHTN such as diuretics A4. Adrenergic Drugs Selective Beta 1 Blockers Metoprolol, Atenolol Reduction of HR through β1 receptor blockade (remember adrenergic blocking of this receptor???) HR results in BP Cause reduced secretion of renin = BP A4. Adrenergic Drugs Selective Beta1 Blockers Nebivolol (Bystolic) Uses: hypertension and HF Action: blocks β1 receptors and produces vasodilatation, which results in a decrease in SVR High doses loses selectivity and blocks both β1 and β2 Less sexual dysfunction All BB- Do not stop abruptly; must be tapered over 1 to 2 weeks A4. Adrenergic Drugs NONSelective Beta Blockers Propranolol Acts equally on β1 and β2 Other uses include situational anxiety associated with public speaking, test taking As mentioned on previous slide, nebivolol at high doses becomes beta nonselective A5. Dual-Action Adrenergic Drugs α1 and β Receptor Blockers Dual antihypertensive effects of reduction in heart rate (beta1 receptor blockade) and vasodilation (alpha1 receptor blockade) Examples are carvedilol (common) and labetalol (not as common) A5. Dual-Action Adrenergic Drugs α1 and β Receptor Blockers Carvedilol (Coreg) Widely used drug that is well tolerated Uses: HTN, mild to moderate HF in conjunction with digoxin, diuretics, and ACE inhibitors Contraindications: severe bradycardia or unstable HF, bronchospastic conditions such as asthma, and various cardiac conduction problems Adrenergic Drugs Indications - HTN But also for Glaucoma (topical) BPH: doxazosin, prazosin, and terazosin (2 for 1) Management of severe HF when used with cardiac glycosides and diuretics Contraindications Acute HF- have to stabilize first MOAIs- yeah doesn’t everything interact with MAOIs? Peptic ulcers Severe liver/kidney disease Asthma (with beta blockers) Adrenergic Drugs: Adverse Effects Orthostatic hypotension 1st-dose syncope Rebound hypertension with abrupt discontinuation Most common: Dry mouth, drowsiness, constipation, sedation Interactions- always check for specific drug interactions Can cause additive CNS depression with alcohol, benzodiazepines, opioids Question #1 When administering an alpha-adrenergic drug for hypertension, it is most important for the nurse to assess the patient for the development of what response? Hypotension Hyperkalemia Oliguria Respiratory distress Answer A Hypotension This is a key point in patient education These drugs have strong vasodilating properties and may cause severe hypotension, especially at the beginning of therapy. B. Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitorsaka ACE Inhibitors or ACEi Large group of safe and effective drugs Currently are 10 ACEi Often used as first-line drugs for HF and hypertension May be combined with a thiazide diuretic, loop diuretic, or Calcium Channel Blocker (CCB) You need to understand the basics ACE Inhibitors: Review RAAS ACE converts angiotensin I, formed through the action of renin, to angiotensin II Angiotensin 2 is a potent vasoconstrictor and also induces aldosterone secretion by the adrenal glands Aldosterone stimulates sodium resorption (H20 follows Na Both act to raise BP which causes kidneys to reduce renin production ACEi= Great drug to treat HTN BUT contraindicated in pregnancy (2nd,3rd trimester due to fetal renal damage) and breastfeeding first few weeks after birth B. ACE Inhibitors - PRIL Lisinopril (Prinivil) super common, often the 1st drug Enalapril (Vasotec) also common Captopril (Capoten) great if liver disease present Benazepril (Lotensin) Fosinopril (Monopril) Perindopril (Aceon) Quinapril (Accupril) Ramipril (Altace) Trandolapril (Mavik) Primary Effects of the ACE Inhibitors Prevent Na (and H2O) resorption by inhibiting aldosterone secretion (volume reduction) (GO BACK TO RAAS DIAGRAM) blood volume decreases work of the heart preload, or the left ventricular end-diastolic volume which is important in HF ACE SUMMARY OF ACTIVITY 1) Prevent vasoconstriction caused by angiotensin 2 (2) Prevent aldosterone secretion  less sodium and water resorption Cardioprotective Effects of ACEi They slow progression of left ventricular hypertrophy (ventricular remodeling) after MI so considered cardioprotective ACE inhibitors have been shown to decrease morbidity and mortality in patients with HF Renal Protective Effects of ACEi ACE inhibitors: reduce glomerular filtration pressure by volume reduction Cardiovascular drug of choice for patients with diabetes since it helps protect kidneys by reducing pressure. Sometimes used low dose for kidney protection with DM without HTN B. ACEi Enalapril (Vasotec) Only ACEi available in both oral and IV Enalapril IV does not require cardiac monitoring Oral enalapril: prodrug (metabolized in liver) Improves patient’s chances of survival after an MI Reduces the incidence of HF B. ACEi Captopril (Capoten) Uses: prevention of ventricular remodeling after MI; reduce the risk of HF after MI Shortest half-life Must be administered multiple times throughout the day so this limits its use Not a prodrug so good for patient with liver disease Question #2 A patient with diabetes has a new prescription for the ACE inhibitor lisinopril. She questions this order because her provider has never told her that she has hypertension. What is the best explanation for this order? The doctor knows best The patient is confused This medication has cardioprotective properties This medication has a protective effect on the kidneys for patients with diabetes Answer D ACE inhibitors have been shown to have a protective effect on the kidneys because they reduce glomerular filtration pressure. This property makes them the cardiovascular drug of choice for patients with diabetes. Question #3 A patient with a history of pancreatitis and cirrhosis is also being treated for hypertension. Which drug will most likely be ordered for this patient? Clonidine Prazosin Diltiazem Captopril Answer D Captopril Captopril is not a prodrug; therefore, it does not need to be metabolized by the liver to be effective. This is an advantage in patients with liver disease. ACE Inhibitors: Adverse Effects *Dry, nonproductive cough, which reverses when therapy is stopped. This is a class effect Dizziness- Note: First-dose hypotensive effect may occur Headache & Fatigue Possible hyperkalemia ** Angioedema: rare but potentially fatal Not safe in pregnancy-are contraindicated during the second and third trimesters of pregnancy because of increased risk of fetal renal damage C. Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers(ARB) Considered an alternative to ACEi Less likely to cause a dry cough and hyper K+ that is common with ACE inhibitors Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers: Mechanism of Action Go back to RAAS diagram! ARBs affect primarily 2 places 1. Vascular smooth muscle - blocks vasoconstriction 2. Adrenal gland -Selectively blocks the binding of Ang 2 to certain Ang 2 receptors inhibiting secretion of aldosterone Lowers volume retention and BP Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers -ARTAN Losartan (Cozaar)- very common Eprosartan (Teveten) Valsartan (Diovan) Irbesartan (Avapro) Candesartan (Atacand) Olmesartan (Benicar) Telmisartan (Micardis) Azilsartan (Edarbi) C. ARB Losartan (Cozaar) Beneficial in patients with HTN and HF Used with caution in patients with kidney or liver dysfunction and in patients with renal artery stenosis ***Not safe for breastfeeding women and should not be used in pregnancy (Cat C 1st trimester, Cat D 2nd-3rd trimester), potential fetal toxicity Appear to be equally effective for the treatment of hypertension and well tolerated ARBs less likely to cause cough and hyperK+ but can still happen Evidence that ARBs are associated with lower mortality after MI than ACE inhibitors Never take ACEi and ARBs at the same time* 5. Calcium Channel Blockers (CCB) Primary use: HTN, angina, some dysrhythmias Cause smooth muscle relaxation by blocking the binding of calcium to its receptors, preventing muscle contraction Results in: Relaxed blood vessels to the heart Decreased peripheral smooth muscle tone Decreased SVResistance Decreased BP E. Diuretics First-line antiHTN in JNC 8 guidelines Decreases fluid volume The results from diuresis: preload, Peripheral resistance Overall effect  Decreased workload of the heart and decreased BP Thiazide diuretics are the most commonly used diuretics for HTN Ie hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), chlorthalidone We will discuss diuretics further in the chapter on diuretics F. Vasodilators Directly relax arterial or venous smooth muscle (or both) Results in: Decreased SVR Decreased afterload Peripheral vasodilation Indicated for treatment of HTN May be used in combination with other drugs F. Vasodilators Hydralazine (Apresoline) Orally: routine cases of essential hypertension Injectable: hypertensive emergencies BiDil: specifically indicated as an adjunct for treatment of HF in African-American patients F. Vasodilators Sodium Nitroprusside (Nitropress) *Sodium nitroprusside and IV diazoxide are reserved for the management of hypertensive emergencies. Contraindications: severe HF, known inadequate cerebral perfusion (especially during neurosurgical procedures) F. Vasodilators Adverse Effects Hydralazine: dizziness, headache, tachycardia, edema, dyspnea, N/V/D, vitamin B6 deficiency, rash Sodium nitroprusside: hypotension, bradycardia, decreased platelet aggregation, rash G. Direct Renin Inhibitors Aliskirin (Tekturna) Blocks the RAS pathway at the point of activation. Inhibiting renin production prevents the downstream production of Ang II (potent vasoconstrictor) Adverse effects: N/V, severe hypotension, hyponatremia, hyperkalemia… Contraindicated in patients with DM taking ACEi or ARB Miscellaneous Antihypertensives Eplerenone (Inspra) Newer class of drugs called selective aldosterone blockers (remember RAAS?) Reduces BP by blocking the actions of aldosterone at its corresponding receptors in the kidney, heart, blood vessels, and brain Indications: routine treatment of hypertension and for post-MI HF Contraindicated if serum potassium levels are high (above 5.6 mEq/L) A Special Form of HTNTreatment of Pulmonary Hypertension Sildenafil and Tadalafil Commonly used for erectile dysfunction Used for pulmonary hypertension but with different trade names Sildenafil: Revatio* (Viagra for ED) Tadalafil: Adcirca* (Cialis for ED)

“There’s No Such Thing as Sound Science” by By Christie Aschwanden was a lead science writer for FiveThirtyEight. FiveThirtyEight, Science, Dec. 6, 2017 Science is being turned against itself. For decades, its twin ideals of transparency and rigor have been weaponized by those who disagree with results produced by the scientific method. Under the Trump administration, that fight has ramped up again. In a move ostensibly meant to reduce conflicts of interest, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has removed a number of scientists from advisory panels and replaced some of them with representatives from industries that the agency regulates. Like many in the Trump administration, Pruitt has also cast doubt on the reliability of climate science. For instance, in an interview with CNBC, Pruitt said that “measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do.” Similarly, Trump’s pick to head NASA, an agency that oversees a large portion the nation’s climate research, has insisted that research into human influence on climate lacks certainty, and he falsely claimed that “global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago.” Kathleen Hartnett White, Trump’s nominee to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a Senate hearing last month that she thinks we “need to have more precise explanations of the human role and the natural role” in climate change. The same entreaties crop up again and again: We need to root out conflicts. We need more precise evidence. What makes these arguments so powerful is that they sound quite similar to the points raised by proponents of a very different call for change that’s coming from within science. This other movement strives to produce more robust, reproducible findings. Despite having dissimilar goals, the two forces espouse principles that look surprisingly alike: Science needs to be transparent. Results and methods should be openly shared so that outside researchers can independently reproduce and validate them. The methods used to collect and analyze data should be rigorous and clear, and conclusions must be supported by evidence. These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has struck some fields of science.1 But they’re also used as talking points by politicians who are working to make it more difficult for the EPA and other federal agencies to use science in their regulatory decision-making, under the guise of basing policy on “sound science.” Science’s virtues are being wielded against it. What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. “Our criticisms are founded in a confidence in science,” said Steven Goodman, co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford and a proponent of open science. “That’s a fundamental difference — we’re critiquing science to make it better. Others are critiquing it to devalue the approach itself.” Calls to base public policy on “sound science” seem unassailable if you don’t know the term’s history. The phrase was adopted by the tobacco industry in the 1990s to counteract mounting evidence linking secondhand smoke to cancer. A 1992 Environmental Protection Agency report identified secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen, and Philip Morris responded by launching an initiative to promote what it called “sound science.” In an internal memo, Philip Morris vice president of corporate affairs Ellen Merlo wrote that the program was designed to “discredit the EPA report,” “prevent states and cities, as well as businesses from passing smoking bans” and “proactively” pass legislation to help their cause. The sound science tactic exploits a fundamental feature of the scientific process: Science does not produce absolute certainty. Contrary to how it’s sometimes represented to the public, science is not a magic wand that turns everything it touches to truth. Instead, it’s a process of uncertainty reduction, much like a game of 20 Questions. Any given study can rarely answer more than one question at a time, and each study usually raises a bunch of new questions in the process of answering old ones. “Science is a process rather than an answer,” said psychologist Alison Ledgerwood of the University of California, Davis. Every answer is provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence. It’s not entirely correct to say that “this study proves this fact,” Ledgerwood said. “We should be talking instead about how science increases or decreases our confidence in something.” The tobacco industry’s brilliant tactic was to turn this baked-in uncertainty against the scientific enterprise itself. While insisting that they merely wanted to ensure that public policy was based on sound science, tobacco companies defined the term in a way that ensured that no science could ever be sound enough. The only sound science was certain science, which is an impossible standard to achieve. “Doubt is our product,” wrote one employee of the Brown & Williamson tobacco company in a 1969 internal memo. The note went on to say that doubt “is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’” and “establishing a controversy.” These strategies for undermining inconvenient science were so effective that they’ve served as a sort of playbook for industry interests ever since, said Stanford University science historian Robert Proctor. The sound science push is no longer just Philip Morris sowing doubt about the links between cigarettes and cancer. It’s also a 1998 action plan by the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron and Exxon Mobil to “install uncertainty” about the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. It’s industry-funded groups’ late-1990s effort to question the science the EPA was using to set fine-particle-pollution air-quality standards that the industry didn’t want. And then there was the more recent effort by Dow Chemical to insist on more scientific certainty before banning a pesticide that the EPA’s scientists had deemed risky to children. Now comes a move by the Trump administration’s EPA to repeal a 2015 rule on wetlands protection by disregarding particular studies. (To name just a few examples.) Doubt merchants aren’t pushing for knowledge, they’re practicing what Proctor has dubbed “agnogenesis” — the intentional manufacture of ignorance. This ignorance isn’t simply the absence of knowing something; it’s a lack of comprehension deliberately created by agents who don’t want you to know, Proctor said.2 In the hands of doubt-makers, transparency becomes a rhetorical move. “It’s really difficult as a scientist or policy maker to make a stand against transparency and openness, because well, who would be against it?” said Karen Levy, researcher on information science at Cornell University. But at the same time, “you can couch everything in the language of transparency and it becomes a powerful weapon.” For instance, when the EPA was preparing to set new limits on particulate pollution in the 1990s, industry groups pushed back against the research and demanded access to primary data (including records that researchers had promised participants would remain confidential) and a reanalysis of the evidence. Their calls succeeded and a new analysis was performed. The reanalysis essentially confirmed the original conclusions, but the process of conducting it delayed the implementation of regulations and cost researchers time and money. Delay is a time-tested strategy. “Gridlock is the greatest friend a global warming skeptic has,” said Marc Morano, a prominent critic of global warming research and the executive director of ClimateDepot.com, in the documentary “Merchants of Doubt” (based on the book by the same name). Morano’s site is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which has received funding from the oil and gas industry. “We’re the negative force. We’re just trying to stop stuff.” Some of these ploys are getting a fresh boost from Congress. The Data Quality Act (also known as the Information Quality Act) was reportedly written by an industry lobbyist and quietly passed as part of an appropriations bill in 2000. The rule mandates that federal agencies ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information” that they disseminate, though it does little to define what these terms mean. The law also provides a mechanism for citizens and groups to challenge information that they deem inaccurate, including science that they disagree with. “It was passed in this very quiet way with no explicit debate about it — that should tell you a lot about the real goals,” Levy said. But what’s most telling about the Data Quality Act is how it’s been used, Levy said. A 2004 Washington Post analysis found that in the 20 months following its implementation, the act was repeatedly used by industry groups to push back against proposed regulations and bog down the decision-making process. Instead of deploying transparency as a fundamental principle that applies to all science, these interests have used transparency as a weapon to attack very particular findings that they would like to eradicate. Now Congress is considering another way to legislate how science is used. The Honest Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas,3 is another example of what Levy calls a “Trojan horse” law that uses the language of transparency as a cover to achieve other political goals. Smith’s legislation would severely limit the kind of evidence the EPA could use for decision-making. Only studies whose raw data and computer codes were publicly available would be allowed for consideration. That might sound perfectly reasonable, and in many cases it is, Goodman said. But sometimes there are good reasons why researchers can’t conform to these rules, like when the data contains confidential or sensitive medical information.4 Critics, which include more than a dozen scientific organizations, argue that, in practice, the rules would prevent many studies from being considered in EPA reviews.5 It might seem like an easy task to sort good science from bad, but in reality it’s not so simple. “There’s a misplaced idea that we can definitively distinguish the good from the not-good science, but it’s all a matter of degree,” said Brian Nosek, executive director of the Center for Open Science. “There is no perfect study.” Requiring regulators to wait until they have (nonexistent) perfect evidence is essentially “a way of saying, ‘We don’t want to use evidence for our decision-making,’” Nosek said. Most scientific controversies aren’t about science at all, and once the sides are drawn, more data is unlikely to bring opponents into agreement. Michael Carolan, who researches the sociology of technology and scientific knowledge at Colorado State University, wrote in a 2008 paper about why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. “While these controversies may appear on the surface to rest on disputed questions of fact, beneath often reside differing positions of value; values that can give shape to differing understandings of what ‘the facts’ are.” What’s needed in these cases isn’t more or better science, but mechanisms to bring those hidden values to the forefront of the discussion so that they can be debated transparently. “As long as we continue down this unabashedly naive road about what science is, and what it is capable of doing, we will continue to fail to reach any sort of meaningful consensus on these matters,” Carolan writes. The dispute over tobacco was never about the science of cigarettes’ link to cancer. It was about whether companies have the right to sell dangerous products and, if so, what obligations they have to the consumers who purchased them. Similarly, the debate over climate change isn’t about whether our planet is heating, but about how much responsibility each country and person bears for stopping it. While researching her book “Merchants of Doubt,” science historian Naomi Oreskes found that some of the same people who were defending the tobacco industry as scientific experts were also receiving industry money to deny the role of human activity in global warming. What these issues had in common, she realized, was that they all involved the need for government action. “None of this is about the science. All of this is a political debate about the role of government,” she said in the documentary. These controversies are really about values, not scientific facts, and acknowledging that would allow us to have more truthful and productive debates. What would that look like in practice? Instead of cherry-picking evidence to support a particular view (and insisting that the science points to a desired action), the various sides could lay out the values they are using to assess the evidence. For instance, in Europe, many decisions are guided by the precautionary principle — a system that values caution in the face of uncertainty and says that when the risks are unclear, it should be up to industries to show that their products and processes are not harmful, rather than requiring the government to prove that they are harmful before they can be regulated. By contrast, U.S. agencies tend to wait for strong evidence of harm before issuing regulations. Both approaches have critics, but the difference between them comes down to priorities: Is it better to exercise caution at the risk of burdening companies and perhaps the economy, or is it more important to avoid potential economic downsides even if it means that sometimes a harmful product or industrial process goes unregulated? In other words, under what circumstances do we agree to act on a risk? How certain do we need to be that the risk is real, and how many people would need to be at risk, and how costly is it to reduce that risk? Those are moral questions, not scientific ones, and openly discussing and identifying these kinds of judgment calls would lead to a more honest debate. Science matters, and we need to do it as rigorously as possible. But science can’t tell us how risky is too risky to allow products like cigarettes or potentially harmful pesticides to be sold — those are value judgements that only humans can make.

Related quizzes

Related quizzes