Beach Haven

Bibliography

• Jasanoff, Sheila. 2008. "Speaking Honestly to Power." Amercian Scientist 96 (3): 240-243.
• Pielke, Jr., Roger A. 2007. The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 
Review by Michael Beach
 
Roger Pielke reviews some of the various roles in which scientific and technical advisers place themselves when involved in the policy process. It really doesn’t matter the policy or governing body involved (political, corporate, religious, etc.). For Pielke, there essentially four ‘idealized’ roles. The pure scientist has “no interest in… the decision-making process” (Pielke, Jr. 2007, 1). Pielke’s science arbiter is someone who “serves as a resource for the decision-maker, standing ready to answer factual questions” (Ibid., 2). An issue advocate looks to limit the scope of choice, perhaps even getting someone to believe there is really only one good choice. The books namesake, an honest broker, is generally not a single expert, but more likely a panel of them representing some larger group such as an association of experts. This broker group helps to fully vet a topic to give the best consensus on a given scientific or technology topic. For Pielke, individual experts choose how they will add to a policy discussion, and decision-makers seek out different sorts of experts in these various roles. Pielke admits there may be other descriptors, and a person may act in more than one of these categories on different topics, or even within the same policy research concern.

In several areas, Sheila Jasanoff asserts conclusions that are directly opposite those of Roger Pielke as he expresses in his book The Honest Broker. For example, Pielke makes the argument that too much dependency on the linear model may in fact have the effect of politicizing science which is the opposite of what proponents of the framework claim. In his definition, Pielke asserts politicization of science involves advocacy which he defines as seeking to constrict policy options. In fact, advocacy seeks to narrow options to essentially one alternative cloaked as the natural outcome of scientific knowledge. He says this is a false notion that scientific knowledge compels a specific outcome.

In her review of his book, Jasanoff conversely argues that Pielke depends too much on a simplistic quadrant diagram of his own making. She notes how STS scholars have argued that forms of political engagement are not fixed in advance. It continually shifts. Where Pielke argues that the best role of science is to widen the number of the scope of policy alternatives. Jasanoff points out how widening the scope of choice does not always serve public interest. “Negotiated, knowledge-based consensus that compels a particular policy may depoliticize value conflicts” (Jasanoff 2008, 242).
​
Perhaps the two authors can find common ground. Jasaoff sees a problematic tendency in scientists to naturalize values and social preferences that are embedded in science itself. Speaking about the idea of honest brokers in the form of panels in his final chapter, Pielke notes how scientists are humans and citizens. They have personal and professional values and views. It seems to me, if scientists can acknowledge their personal and professional values and how their perspective may be affected by them, the idea of honest brokers in the form of professional groups may be possible. As a typical STS argument, Jasanoff points out that the scientific process itself is value-laden. One conclusion to this typical STS position is how noting personal and professional values not only effect knowledge on policy evaluation, but effect knowledge creation as well, can ultimately help decision-makers to qualify scientific perspective as one of many considerations in creating policy. Understanding these human limits on objectivity would influence policy-makers not to discredit scientific advice, but also not to overweight it.

Lupton, Deborah. 2013. Risk. 2nd. London and New York: Routledge.

Review by Michael Beach

Deborah Lupton takes a fairly thorough look at risk from a social perspective. She spends time comparing the ‘objective’ (read numerical) expression of risk in the form of the invention of statistics and actuarial science. Then she makes a coproduction argument how this approach is a function of social factors, and how belief in numerical objectivity may be misplaced.

She spends time examining risk from theory, culture, government, ‘otherness’, and pleasure. Lupton further gets more specific around cultural and social issues with a focus on modernity and an increased attention on reflexivity. By modernity she means increases societal preoccupation with “individualization, reflexivity and globalization” (p. 77). When Lupton speaks of reflexivity, she breaks ‘societies’ into like-minded people concerning risk rather than thinking about those defined by political borders. For example, those who seek risk such as adventurists reflect their interpretation of risk, as opposed to people who consider medical pandemics.
​
Aside from the introduction, the author references several major authors related to chapter heading topics. Her chapters tend to be a review of their various positions, followed by her own support and criticism of what the other authors have to say about each. It’s a helpful approach for anyone interested in digging deeper into the topic of risk in that she essentially provides a reading list of contemporary thought. 

Vasquez, Robinson. 2021. Prepare My People for the Singularity: Surviving the Dark Side of the Artificial Intelligence Revolution. Monee, IL: Robinson Vasquez.

Review by Michael Beach
​
I struggle with this particular review. This is because I actually know the author. The base assumption to the work is that the singularity is inevitable and will happen soon. The idea of ‘singularity’ refers to the point at which artificial intelligence (AI) systems become sentient and begin to act independent of programming created by humans. Most of the first half of the book makes a case for these two premises in a largely technological determinism argument. The literature and thought of most who study socio-technical issues have left technological determinism behind for several decades now. It’s simply not true that technology advances independent of human choice. It’s not clear that ‘advances’ is even accurate. It seems clear there is technological change over time, but advancement assumes the change is toward some desired outcome. The very linking of change with human goals shows that technical change will follow an inevitable path.

Later in the book, Vasquez makes a shift. He starts discussing how people can avoid a malignant outcome of the singularity. This would put into question his earlier arguments in favor of determinism. Vasquez also speaks to how ‘governments’, ‘corporations’, and ‘churches’ make decisions or could intervene. Such organizations are not independent entities any more than AI is. Organizations are groups of people who interact with each other in a prescribed way. Corporations don’t decide things, rather people within a corporation decide.

Robinson Vasquez even begins linking AI singularity with Christian views of the second coming of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. He wonders if Christ might even come in the form of an AI, or at least communicate with humans through an AI. He finishes the work advocating for ‘prepper’ actions such as hoarding supplies and obtaining remote property to which one might retreat as AI attacks human civilization. In deed, many arguments he makes are direct references to science fiction works and sees dystopian versions as predictive.

The first half and second half of the book would seem to disagree with each other. I find the idea of a singularity and of its inevitability as unfounded. There are certainly many who have made these arguments, and some of them very highly visible proponents. There is a famous example when an AI invented a unique language in order to carry out its programming in a more efficient way. None of these examples make a sure argument. Many others working in the field of AI make arguments against the idea of a singularity. Although there are some interesting ideas in this book, they are just that… ideas. Much of the logic is muddled. 

Mauldin, Bill. 1944. Up Front. New York, New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
 
Review by Michael Beach

The author severed in the US Army during WWII. In that time, he was assigned to the army periodical Stars and Stripes as a cartoonist. The focus of his cartoons was the war experience as seen through the lens of the ‘doggies’ meaning the average front line infantryman. His two consistent characters are Willie and Joe. They are referred to as doggies because of their constant dog face expression from the weariness of war. The book shares some of his more notable cartoons and the stories behind them.

Along with the experiences that inspired his drawings, Mauldin explains many of the attitudes and perceptions of the enlisted soldiers, officers, Italian and French citizens, the partisans, and German soldiers taken prisoner. Mauldin directly interacted with all of these groups. His wit is at times stinging, at times good natured. His editors seemed to always support him, but ‘the brass’ sometimes took umbrage.

My favorite comes near the end of the book. The troops he was with had advanced into the Alps. One soldier sits on a rock near a very attractive local girl. Another soldier stands nearby. The seated soldier has his head in his hands and laments, “I ast her to teach me to yodel. She taught me to yodel.” He was obviously hoping for something else.

Mauldin does a good job of explaining differences between the frontline ‘doggies’ and so many others he encountered who didn’t face the daily stress of direct warfare. He is fair, though. Not all the frontline heroes are heroes, and not all those serving behind the fighting are villains. As you might guess there are plenty of humorous anecdotes throughout. The last few pages seem more serious. He walks the reader through a time when he was ready to rotate statewide. In the interim, he spends time at a field hospital. He notes several characters from doctors, to medics, their wry humor and dedication to treating wounded soldiers over extended periods.
​
I found the work both entertaining and insightful. I think it fair to say the sort of experiences Bill Mauldin documents are probably not unique to the particular war he was involved in.