Archive for the ‘Science’ Category

h1

Monsters of Grok t-shirts

October 24, 2011

Lynne Kiesling

Here’s some outstanding geek attire! Monsters of Grok is a line of t-shirts that use rock band t-shirt logo designs, but the names are instead famous scientists and intellectuals such as Ada Lovelace (done as a Ladytron logo), Isaac Newton (as Iron Maiden), and Benjamin Franklin (as Black Flag). I fell over laughing when I first saw these, literally hyperventilating and weeping. Guess that makes me a geek rocker …

Today, to make myself feel better for having such a nasty ear infection (with gratitude to those of you who have sent get well wishes!), I finally broke down and purchased two of them. The first one’s easy to guess if you’re a regular KP reader, the second one is a little more tricky as there were several contenders. If you guess them both you get a gold star!

Posted in Miscellany, Music, Science, Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

h1

Economics of power market design compared unfavorably to climate science

June 16, 2011

Michael Giberson

From the Harvard Electricity Policy Group meeting in February 2011. By convention the meetings are off-the-record, so the speaker’s name is not identified in the summary:

I think the most important distinction between the fields of climate science and economics for me is the question of evidence. Science is characterized by a subtle interplay between conceptual models and the evidence that supports or contradicts them. There’s a rigorous process of analyzing and evaluating evidence and improving or discarding the conceptual models as the evidence dictates. In economics, evidence can often be harder to come by and more ambiguous in nature. This instance is a strong case in point. There is no real precedent. The markets are brand new. And with a few exceptions, the RTO regions have been basically in capacity surplus since the markets came into being for reasons having nothing to do with the capacity markets themselves.

Where evidence is lacking, theorists can find themselves somewhat less constrained. Under these circumstances, whichever side has the loudest voices or the most money or the most impressive resumes can dominate the conversation. This should never be mistaken as proof that their position are correct.

[...]

I’m aware that many will argue, and have argued, that a focus on market efficiency will in the long run lead to the greatest consumer benefit. This may be true in a nonexistent, two-sided perfect market with no barriers to entry. But it is a tenuous article of faith when applied to real electricity markets. And given the untold billions in costs to get to that uncertain future, it’s no wonder that consumer advocates basically unanimously are not eager to take that bet.

The implementation of capacity markets based on these unproven theories has already led, predictably, to the transfer of tens of billions of dollars of ratepayer wealth to generation owners. I say predictably because this outcome was clearly anticipated by all parties and articulated by many. The whole point was to raise costs. On the other hand, there’s not a shred of hard evidence that this process has led to new generation where it is most needed, or to avoided retirements of needed capacity or to cost-saving transmission investments. These are the ostensible purposes of the construct. There is no reason to believe that it would. It’s just too good an arrangement for existing generation owners as it is.

The speaker observes that capacity markets have also spurred development of demand-side resources, but this “positive benefit … has come at an astronomical cost.”

As an alternative to capacity markets, the speaker suggests a combination of state-sponsored investments, long term contracts, and short term spot markets. Not that he presents any evidence that this approach will work better for consumers, it just seems good to him. I wonder, scientifically speaking, why not just examine the existing evidence on prices and investments in “energy only” power markets in Texas, Alberta, and Australia?

Posted in Economics, Electricity, Science | Tagged , | Comments Off

h1

Jonah Lehrer on voter ignorance

April 27, 2011

Lynne Kiesling

It shouldn’t surprise you to find, given my recent working paper on Adam Smith, sympathy, and mirror neurons that I am an avid reader of neuroscience writer Jonah Lehrer. His post today riffs off of President Obama’s birth certificate to muse on voter ignorance. In discussing some research on the subject, he observes

Why does more education lead to less accurate beliefs? The answer returns us to the difference between rational voters (what we think we are) and rationalizing voters (what we really are). It turns out that the human mind is a marvelous information filter, adept at blocking out those facts that contradict what we’d like to believe.

It sounds like he and Bryan Caplan should have a little blog exchange on neuroscience’s implications for the results of Bryan’s book The Myth of the Rational Voter. It also sounds like yet another reason why we should strive to make as few important decisions as possible through political means.

Posted in Economics, Politics, Science | Tagged , , | Comments Off

h1

Bainbridge’s broad brush criticisms on empirical legal studies slams all interdisciplinary legal work

March 4, 2011

Michael Giberson

Criticisms of the growing field of empirical legal studies by UCLA law professor  Stephen Bainbridge were issued in such broad brush strokes that he ended up blasting just about every law academic engaged in any sort of interdisciplinary work, especially so if the academic seeks to examine data of some sort. The main claims showed up recently in a National Law Journal article, which quoted Bainbridge:

“A lot of the people I see who are empiricists, often with doctorates in the social sciences, aren’t very good lawyers,” he said. “I’ve read numerous papers that just got the law wrong. The problem is that we’re hiring people with Ph.D.s in other fields, but their law credentials are middling at best. Someone who is a brilliant economist wants to be in a economics department, so we get second-rate lawyers who are second-rate in their academic field.”

Perhaps phrasing the criticism in that way touched a nerve with Josh Wright, a law professor at George Mason University who holds both a PhD in economics and a law degree from UCLA. Wright responds at Truth on the Market, noting among other things that Bainbridge is asserting many facts about the state of the world without actually pointing to any evidence (much less adequately testing the evidence once it is identified).

Posted in Education, Law, Science | 4 Comments »

h1

John List’s $10 million crazy idea field experiment in education

February 25, 2011

Michael Giberson

Bloomberg Markets Magazine has a feature on economist John List and his $10 million research project on education. Along the way we get an introduction to List’s work on field experiments in economics, a splash of lab-based economics back story, and the reaction of education specialists who think List’s project is wholly off target.

List, along with collaborators Steven Levitt and Roland Fryer, has obtained a $10 grant for a program which randomly assigned 3-5 year old students to one of three groups: (1) free all-day preschool, (2) “parenting academy” for the student’s parent or guardian, or (3) a control group with neither intervention. The program intends for follow the students into adulthood in order to assess the long-term effects of the intervention.

List says he doesn’t know much about education theory, so he enlisted specialists to consult on the preschool curriculum. One such consultant, Clancy Blair, a New York University professor of applied psychology, says he was astonished by the size of the project and by how it focuses on financial incentives without looking at such variables as how the parents interact with their children.

“That’s a crazy idea,” says Blair, who studies how young children learn. “It’s not based on any prior research. This isn’t the incremental process of science. It’s ‘I have a crazy idea and I convinced someone to give me $10 million.’”

List says too many decisions in fields from education to business to philanthropy are made without any scientific basis. Without experimenting, you can’t evaluate whether a program is effective, he says.

“We need hundreds of experiments going on at once all over the country,” he says. “Then we can understand what works and what doesn’t.” …

“What educators need to know are what are the best ways to educate kids, and this is trying to short-circuit that,” Blair says. “We have fundamental problems in education, and this is sort of a distraction.”

List says he understands the objections. “If I was in the field, I’d hate me, too,” List says in November while driving to his sons’ indoor baseball practice in one of Chicago’s south suburbs. “There should be skeptics.”

Posted in Economics, Education, Science | Tagged , | 4 Comments »

h1

Ethanol blather courtesy of the EPA and the Financial Times

January 24, 2011

Michael Giberson

On Friday, the EPA announced it now believes it is safe to use fuels made with up to 15 percent ethanol in cars, SUVs and light-duty trucks manufactured between 2001 and 2006.  EPA administrator Lisa Jackson said, “Whenever sound science and the law support steps to allow more home-grown fuels in America’s vehicles, this administration takes those steps.” It is, as the Houston Chronicle reported, “a victory for ethanol advocates, including manufacturers, corn farmers and their supporters on Capitol Hill.”

“Sound science and the law?” The EPA action was to grant a waiver on a Clean Air Act-based limitation on selling gasoline with more than 10 percent ethanol for the vehicle classes mentioned. While the Clean Air Act also allows for waivers to be granted, I’d say that the law is no more than neutral on the matter. The essence of  ”sound science” is open inquiry, but it looks like the EPA pursued a rather selective course of study in order to grant this favor to the ethanol industry. From the press release it looks like all that the EPA considered was whether or not use of higher-content ethanol blends would damage emissions control systems. I think a broader inquiry is needed before concluding sound science supports steps to allow more “home-grown fuels.”

The Financial Times Energy Source blog quoted Jackson on “sound science and the law” and followed with quotes from sundry other lobbyists (a “move in the right direction,” “will further increase volatility in food markets,” all mandates “should be repealed,” “takes food out of the mouths of American consumers”). A somewhat limited range of reporting perhaps, but besides lobbyists pro and con who are you going to get to talk about an EPA announcement that comes out on a Friday?

Which is fine except that the FT blogger added, “What nobody is touching on, however, is that the US produces so much ethanol that it has been exporting it.” (The linked story in the FT reports, producers are making so much they are “running out of places to put this ethanol.”) And, the blogger continues, “Raising the content of ethanol in fuels at home will at least put more of the ethanol produced in the US in this country’s vehicles. … if we are going to produce ethanol, it does seem wrongheaded that this country is giving tax credits for the production of a biofuel that is shipped abroad to lower emissions elsewhere.”

Some modest amount of ethanol is used in gasoline as an oxygenate, allowing the gasoline to burn more cleanly (and so providing some local air quality benefits), but the primary alleged public policy reason to further subsidize and mandate use of ethanol is due to its supposed carbon neutrality. Since greenhouse gas accumulations are no respecters of national boundaries, it doesn’t really matter where in the world the ethanol gets burned for us to (allegedly) gain this (supposed) benefit.

I say, let’s let ethanol supporters ship as much as possible overseas. At least then my own vehicle isn’t at risk.

NOTE: Robert Rapier also comments on the decision, adding some informed speculation on how the politics are likely to play out. (Hint: “the ethanol industry usually gets what they wants.”)

Posted in Energy markets, Environmental policy, Politics, Regulation, Science | Comments Off

h1

Incentives and fake success in medical research and public policy

November 8, 2010

Michael Giberson

Al Roth quotes from an article in the Atlantic discussing the powerful incentives to publish badly done, probably false medical research dressed up as success. In a sense the problem is the same as with other academic “publish or perish” reward systems except the incentives in medical research can be much, much higher.  The article centers on the work of medical-research researcher Dr. John Ioannidis, who believes part of the problem is that we expect researchers to always find success and continually be right:

“We could solve much of the wrongness problem, Ioannidis says, if the world simply stopped expecting scientists to be right. That’s because being wrong in science is fine, and even necessary—as long as scientists recognize that they blew it, report their mistake openly instead of disguising it as a success, and then move on to the next thing, until they come up with the very occasional genuine breakthrough. But as long as careers remain contingent on producing a stream of research that’s dressed up to seem more right than it is, scientists will keep delivering exactly that.

“Science is a noble endeavor, but it’s also a low-yield endeavor,” he says. “I’m not sure that more than a very small percentage of medical research is ever likely to lead to major improvements in clinical outcomes and quality of life. We should be very comfortable with that fact.”

(Emphasis added by Roth)

I wonder if we could say the same thing about public policy. Are innovations in government policy also a “low-yield endeavor”? Should we be very comfortable with the fact that only a very small percentage of policy research is ever likely to lead to major improvements in social and economic outcomes and quality of life?

Should we reward politicians and government bureaus for producing a large stream of innovating, possibly-outcome-improving policies, or only for policy innovations that turn out to be outcome improving? The answer must depend on how difficult it is to judge the quality of “innovating, possibly-outcome-improving policies” and how difficult it is to measure whether a policy innovation was outcome improving.

Posted in Politics, Science | 1 Comment »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 47 other followers