Silencing Science Tracker

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

About: “The Silencing Science Tracker is a joint initiative of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law and the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund. It is intended to record reports of federal, state, and local government attempts to “silence science” since the November 2016 election.

We define “silencing science” to include any action that has the effect of restricting or prohibiting scientific research, education, or discussion, or the publication or use of scientific information. We divide such actions into 7 categories as follows…(More)”

CategoryExamples
Government CensorshipChanging the content of websites and documents to suppress or distort scientific information.Making scientific data more difficult to find or access.Restricting public communication by scientists.
Self-CensorshipScientists voluntarily changing the content of websites and documents to suppress or distort scientific information, potentially in response to political pressure.
 We note that it is often difficult to determine whether self-censorship is occurring and/or its cause. We do not take any position on the accuracy of any individual report on self-censorship.
Budget CutsReducing funding for existing agency programs involving scientific research or scientific education.Cancelling existing grants for scientific research or scientific education.
 We do not include, in the “budget cuts” category, government decisions to refuse new grant applications or funding for new agency programs.
Personnel ChangesRemoving scientists from agency positions or creating a hostile work environment.Appointing unqualified individuals to, or failing to fill, scientific positions.Changing the composition of scientific advisory board or other bodies to remove qualified scientists or add only industry-favored members.Eliminating government bodies involved in scientific research or education or the dissemination of scientific information.
Research HindranceDestroying data needed to undertake scientific research.Preventing or restricting the publication of scientific research.Pressuring scientists to change research findings.
Bias and MisrepresentationEngaging in “cherry picking” or only disclosing certain scientific studies (e.g., that support a particular conclusion).Misrepresenting or mischaracterizing scientific studies.Disregarding scientific studies or advice in policy-making.
Interference with EducationChanging science education standards to prevent or limit the teaching of proven scientific theories.Requiring or encouraging the teaching of discredited or unproven scientific theories.Preventing the use of factually accurate textbooks and other instructional materials (e.g., on religious grounds).

Governance of Indigenous data in open earth systems science

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Lydia Jennings et al: “In the age of big data and open science, what processes are needed to follow open science protocols while upholding Indigenous Peoples’ rights? The Earth Data Relations Working Group (EDRWG), convened to address this question and envision a research landscape that acknowledges the legacy of extractive practices and embraces new norms across Earth science institutions and open science research. Using the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) as an example, the EDRWG recommends actions, applicable across all phases of the data lifecycle, that recognize the sovereign rights of Indigenous Peoples and support better research across all Earth Sciences…(More)”

Participatory seascape mapping: A community-based approach to ocean governance and marine conservation

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Isabel James: “Despite the global proliferation of ocean governance frameworks that feature socioeconomic variables, the inclusion of community needs and local ecological knowledge remains underrepresented. Participatory mapping or Participatory GIS (PGIS) has emerged as a vital method to address this gap by engaging communities that are conventionally excluded from ocean planning and marine conservation. Originally developed for forest management and Indigenous land reclamation, the scholarship on PGIS remains predominantly focused on terrestrial landscapes. This review explores recent research that employs the method in the marine realm, detailing common methodologies, data types and applications in governance and conservation. A typology of ocean-centered PGIS studies was identified, comprising three main categories: fisheries, habitat classification and blue economy activities. Marine Protected Area (MPA) design and conflict management are the most prevalent conservation applications of PGIS. Case studies also demonstrate the method’s effectiveness in identifying critical marine habitats such as fish spawning grounds and monitoring endangered megafauna. Participatory mapping shows particular promise in resource and data limited contexts due to its ability to generate large quantities of relatively reliable, quick and low-cost data. Validation steps, including satellite imagery and ground-truthing, suggest encouraging accuracy of PGIS data, despite potential limitations related to human error and spatial resolution. This review concludes that participatory mapping not only enriches scientific research but also fosters trust and cooperation among stakeholders, ultimately contributing to more resilient and equitable ocean governance…(More)”.

Announcing SPARROW: A Breakthrough AI Tool to Measure and Protect Earth’s Biodiversity in the Most Remote Places

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Blog by Juan Lavista Ferres: “The biodiversity of our planet is rapidly declining. We’ve likely reached a tipping point where it is crucial to use every tool at our disposal to help preserve what remains. That’s why I am pleased to announce SPARROW—Solar-Powered Acoustic and Remote Recording Observation Watch, developed by Microsoft’s AI for Good Lab. SPARROW is an AI-powered edge computing solution designed to operate autonomously in the most remote corners of the planet. Solar-powered and equipped with advanced sensors, it collects biodiversity data—from camera traps, acoustic monitors, and other environmental detectors—that are processed using our most advanced PyTorch-based wildlife AI models on low-energy edge GPUs. The resulting critical information is then transmitted via low-Earth orbit satellites directly to the cloud, allowing researchers to access fresh, actionable insights in real time, no matter where they are. 

Think of SPARROW as a network of Earth-bound satellites, quietly observing and reporting on the health of our ecosystems without disrupting them. By leveraging solar energy, these devices can run for a long time, minimizing their footprint and any potential harm to the environment…(More)”.

Scientists Scramble to Save Climate Data from Trump—Again

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Chelsea Harvey: “Eight years ago, as the Trump administration was getting ready to take office for the first time, mathematician John Baez was making his own preparations.

Together with a small group of friends and colleagues, he was arranging to download large quantities of public climate data from federal websites in order to safely store them away. Then-President-elect Donald Trump had repeatedly denied the basic science of climate change and had begun nominating climate skeptics for cabinet posts. Baez, a professor at the University of California, Riverside, was worried the information — everything from satellite data on global temperatures to ocean measurements of sea-level rise — might soon be destroyed.

His effort, known as the Azimuth Climate Data Backup Project, archived at least 30 terabytes of federal climate data by the end of 2017.

In the end, it was an overprecaution.

The first Trump administration altered or deleted numerous federal web pages containing public-facing climate information, according to monitoring efforts by the nonprofit Environmental Data and Governance Initiative (EDGI), which tracks changes on federal websites. But federal databases, containing vast stores of globally valuable climate information, remained largely intact through the end of Trump’s first term.

Yet as Trump prepares to take office again, scientists are growing more worried.

Federal datasets may be in bigger trouble this time than they were under the first Trump administration, they say. And they’re preparing to begin their archiving efforts anew.

“This time around we expect them to be much more strategic,” said Gretchen Gehrke, EDGI’s website monitoring program lead. “My guess is that they’ve learned their lessons.”

The Trump transition team didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Like Baez’s Azimuth project, EDGI was born in 2016 in response to Trump’s first election. They weren’t the only ones…(More)”.

Flood data platform governance: Identifying the technological and socio-technical approach(es) differences

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Mahardika Fadmastuti, David Nowak, and Joep Crompvoets: “Data platform governance concept focuses on what decision must be made in order to reach the data platform mission and who makes that decision. The current study of the data platform governance framework is applied for the general platform ecosystem that values managing data as an organizational asset. However, flood data platforms are essential tools for enhancing the governance of flood risks and data platform governance in flood platforms is understudied. By adopting a data governance domains framework, this paper identifies the technological and socio-technical approach(es) differences in public value(s) of flood data platforms. Empirically, we analyze 2 cases of flood data platforms to contrast the differences. Utilizing a qualitative approach, we combined web-observations and interviews to collect the data. Regardless of its approach, integrating flood data platform technologies into government authorities’ routines requires organizational commitment that drives value creation. The key differences between these approaches lies in the way the government sectors see this flood data platform technology. Empirically, our case study shows that the technological approach values improving capabilities and performances of the public authority while the socio-technical approach focuses more importantly providing engagement value with the public users. We further explore the differences of these approaches by analyzing each component of decision domains in the data governance framework…(More)”

Boosting: Empowering Citizens with Behavioral Science

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Stefan M. Herzog and Ralph Hertwig: “Behavioral public policy came to the fore with the introduction of nudging, which aims to steer behavior while maintaining freedom of choice. Responding to critiques of nudging (e.g., that it does not promote agency and relies on benevolent choice architects), other behavioral policy approaches focus on empowering citizens. Here we review boosting, a behavioral policy approach that aims to foster people’s agency, self-control, and ability to make informed decisions. It is grounded in evidence from behavioral science showing that human decision making is not as notoriously flawed as the nudging approach assumes. We argue that addressing the challenges of our time—such as climate change, pandemics, and the threats to liberal democracies and human autonomy posed by digital technologies and choice architectures—calls for fostering capable and engaged citizens as a first line of response to complement slower, systemic approaches…(More)”.

National biodiversity data infrastructures: ten essential functions for science, policy, and practice 

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Anton Güntsch et al: “Today, at the international level, powerful data portals are available to biodiversity researchers and policymakers, offering increasingly robust computing and network capacities and capable data services for internationally agreed-on standards. These accelerate individual and complex workflows to map data-driven research processes or even to make them possible for the first time. At the national level, however, and alongside these international developments, national infrastructures are needed to take on tasks that cannot be easily funded or addressed internationally. To avoid gaps, as well as redundancies in the research landscape, national tasks and responsibilities must be clearly defined to align efforts with core priorities. In the present article, we outline 10 essential functions of national biodiversity data infrastructures. They serve as key providers, facilitators, mediators, and platforms for effective biodiversity data management, integration, and analysis that require national efforts to foster biodiversity science, policy, and practice…(More)”.

Review of relevance of the OECD Recommendation on ICTs and the Environment

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

OECD Policy Report: “The OECD Recommendation on Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) and the Environment was adopted in 2010 and recognised the link between digital technologies and environmental sustainability. Today, advances in digital technologies underscore their growing role in achieving climate resilience. At the same time, digital technologies and their underlying infrastructure have an environmental footprint that must be managed. This report takes stock of technology and policy developments since the adoption of the Recommendation and provides a gap analysis and assessment of its relevance, concluding that the Recommendation remains relevant and identifying areas for revision…(More)”.

Beached Plastic Debris Index; a modern index for detecting plastics on beaches

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Jenna Guffogg et al: “Plastic pollution on shorelines poses a significant threat to coastal ecosystems, underscoring the urgent need for scalable detection methods to facilitate debris removal. In this study, the Beached Plastic Debris Index (BPDI) was developed to detect plastic accumulation on beaches using shortwave infrared spectral features. To validate the BPDI, plastic targets with varying sub-pixel covers were placed on a sand spit and captured using WorldView-3 satellite imagery. The performance of the BPDI was analysed in comparison with the Normalized Difference Plastic Index (NDPI), the Plastic Index (PI), and two hydrocarbon indices (HI, HC). The BPDI successfully detected the plastic targets from sand, water, and vegetation, outperforming the other indices and identifying pixels with <30 % plastic cover. The robustness of the BPDI suggests its potential as an effective tool for mapping plastic debris accumulations along coastlines…(More)”.