European Shale Gas and Oil Summit 2015 - Engagement and National Leadership

European Shale Gas and Oil Summit - Day 2.

We know what the PM thinks about shale gas.

Almost everyone I speak to tells me that they would like to have, but do not have, trusted independent advice that enable them to make an informed decision about shale gas - about whether we need it and about the risks and advantages that come with it.

• The industry tries to tell people - but they are not trusted - too many hands in the till.
• Environmental NGOs try to tell people - but they are not trusted - too much passion and not enough basic sense.
• Local planning officers and civil servants (e.g., employees of the Environmental Agency) would love to tell people, but they are not allowed to.
• Scientists are unbiased (on the whole), expert and would like to tell people, but they have no independent funding and no platform.
• The media are more interested in drama than informing people about important things.
• Government does not try.

Where is the leadership?

People tell me that they would like:

• Direction from the top.
• More political endorsement with reasons why!
• Single point, transparent regulatory accountability that has teeth.
• An unambiguous guide to best practice.

Then they can feel comfortable about making an informed decision. Until then the default position is the status quo, which will ultimately lead to electricity outages, ministers over-ruling planning decisions and an erosion of a local say in local planning.

OUGO is the governments Office for Unconventional Gas and Oil, commonly called OffUGO!. It sits within the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s Energy Development Unit and tells us that it is part of a Unit which is responsible for encouraging and overseeing energy development in the UK. OffUGO has a number of remits. One is to 'Support Public Engagement'. Yet I do not know what they have done in this sphere recently, and I doubt whether many readers of this blog have heard of them.

Leadership - erm...

European Shale Gas and Oil Summit 2015 - Engagement and Local Opinion

Reporting from the European Shale Gas and Oil Summit 2015 - Day 2.

Yesterday there was great interest in a workshop concerned with trying to find what needs to be said about onshore oil and gas, and how and by whom (although not explicitly to whom!) Maybe that last omission was because it is so obvious - I hope so.

The points were made that shale gas engagement (usually opposition, but not necessarily so) is limited to the super local. That does not mean Councillor Joanne Bloggs who changes into the clothes of a super anti-fracking heroine behind the bike-sheds, but geographically. That is, opposition to a development is constrained to those very near the proposed development. For those living a few miles away, the issue feel remote, and remoteness in time also soothes the savage breast (after all the modern world gives us all lots of other stuff to worry about every day).

BritainThinks (vox pop out of the box) tells us that when people in a prospective shale gas area are asked what bothers them, shale gas is rarely mentioned spontaneously - jobs, housing and welfare are all to the forefront. Ironically, these are all things that the government says will benefit from shale gas development.

BritainThinks reports that their respondents:
1. Have no sense of the need for shale gas - the drivers.
2. Do not know where the government stands - despite Cameron's unquestioning support.
3. Do not know what the real risks and hazards in the UK are (although they are often expert in the reported hazards in the USA)

Overall, the UK is a nation of people for whom the advantages and risks of shale gas is nebulous at best.

Locals want to hear from people 'without their skin in the game', and scientists are by far the most trusted. Yet when did you last hear from one of us about shale gas. We have no funding to market our expertise, and if there was funding, it would have to be independent.

When did you last see a scientist on the BBC (other global news groups are available!) talking about shale gas. They 'balance' a panellist from industry with one diametrically opposed from an environmental NGO, which results is much drama but little communication of information and ideas to real people.

Oh, and by the way - there were no journalists apparent in the Public Engagement Workshop at the Summit here - Odd that, since the BBC has sent delegates!

Public Engagement in the Shale Gas Debate - A note to the Prime Minister

More than 60% of British land might be subject to shale gas licensing according to today's Guardian.

Hence, there is a sizeable population of the UK who would and should be concerned about the implications that shale gas exploitation may have for them.

The main issues are all concerned with the environment and its protection, either for its own sake or for our own sake. They can be categorised as:

• Global (i.e., the effect of burning fossil fuels on the climate).
• Regional (e.g., earth tremors).
• Local (e.g., noise, transport inconvenience, water pollution, water availability, air pollution, social unrest, cost of housing).

There would also be benefits from shale gas at all of these levels, but often the debate centres around the threats rather than the benefits, which is only natural because most people prefer a ‘precautionary principle’ approach to assessing unfamiliar opportunities.

Unfortunately, sources of information are limited in availability, relevance, quality and trustworthiness. This results in opinions being formed on hearsay and based on anecdote, followed by a polarisation of views and the almost immediate inability of people with different views to debate the merits of shale gas properly.

For example, almost all of the ‘solid facts’ that are offered to me about the water pollution caused in the USA by shale gas exploitation on investigation turn out either not to be true or to be irrelevant to Europe. The much vaunted flaming water in the film Gas-Land turned out to be gas that existed in the aquifer long before shale fracking was ever carried out in the USA, and what was worse, its makers knew that when they mispresented it as being caused by fracking. How are we, therefore, to judge these disparate and sometimes contradictory pieces of information? One standard answer is to ask an expert – but which one?

Among the experts; the industry, environmental campaigners, politicians, lobbying groups such as Greenpeace, journalists and even scientists, all have their own agenda. They are driven by different desires and have their own natural biases. But what if you are not in any of these groups? What if you are a ‘normal’ person who just wants sufficient reliable evidence to make up your mind? How can you do that? You can pick an expert, but then you know what they are going to say before they tell you. One is forced into an unbalanced position without wanting to.

There are several blogs including this one and Frack-land that seek to provide balanced comment supported by scientific evidence, but frankly it is not enough. We desperately need information.

• It is clear that we cannot know whether there is sufficient economically feasible gas under the UK until we drill and frack many more wells than we have (at least 10 and probably 20).

• It is clear that we cannot know what the environmental risks are associated with drilling and fracking those wells until a comprehensive study is carried out on the first 10 to 20 wells in the UK.

In my view we should not freeze in the on-coming head-lights of shale gas. We should not dash for that gas either. We should walk into the gradual development of shale gas carefully, making high quality, relevant and useful measurements as we go, and making all results public.

In the UK (and elsewhere in Europe) we need:

• Reliable, relevant scientific data on all aspects of shale gas and coal bed methane (CBM) production.
• An independent body of sensible people to oversee shale gas development as well as to commission and analyse such studies.
• A database of all the scientific data, analysis and reports that is fully accessible to the general public (which is something that I have already asked the Prime Minister to provide).

12 Tips for scientists who want to communicate with politicians

Recently Nature has published an article containing twenty tips for interpreting scientific claims, which proposes that most MPs are not able to interpret scientific statements properly (Sutherland et al., 2013). The article was timely and, I believe, just as well targeted at the electorate as their representatives.

In this article, I turn the question around and propose that most scientists lack the skills to communicate their science effectively to politicians and the general public. In this case, what are the 20 things scientists need to know about communicating science to politicians?

The Nature article argues that the “immediate priority is to improve policy makers’ understanding of the imperfect nature of science” by suggesting 20 statistical and scientific concepts that should be taught to government ministers and public servants”. By contrast, this article suggests that the way scientists deliver information to policy and decision makers is key to having it understood and applied in governing the country.

If, according to Burgman (Guardian, 2013) “politicians, broadly speaking, struggle to critically examine scientific advice” it is also a truism to state that scientists are so immersed in their science that they often fail to take proper account of the broader application of their work where perception is as important as fact.

The bottom line is that scientists train for a very long time to be in the position where they can comment authoritatively on a particular area. Politicians cannot hope to understand the underlying science in such depth and become intimidated. The only solution is for the politician to either find a reliable scientist and to trust her, or to ignore the science completely. Sadly, it is often the latter case which occurs – politicians are not so hot on personal trust.

Unfortunately there are problems with the first approach too. For most politicians to trust a scientist is the same as saying find a scientist with whom you agree, and then the politician has already chosen a scientific advisor that is biased to the politicians view and hence unreliable as an independent source of advice.

It has been said that politics considers science to be either august and reputable or something to be dismissed because it’s done by a bunch of boffins. What we need is a more balanced approach where politicians and scientists make a good team, analysing the facts and probing their broader political implications in order to make the best decisions. This is a view that attenuates political constraints and personal beliefs, while accepting that a perfectly scientific solution is often not sufficiently pragmatic to work in the modern world.

A naïve friend of mine once said that the government should implement an independent body of scientists covering the entire scope of policy making. This scientific civil service would then attach its members to ministers and decision makers as some sort of scientific body-guard. The idea is quite ludicrous, but we need some sort of solution. We are entering a world of Big Data, and there is scope in it for some Big Mistakes unless the analysis is carried out correctly and implications are well understood.

I would say that we already have a scientific civil service. Each and every university academic is part of it. It is our job to inform the policy makers in a clear and concise manner, which they can understand. The list which follows, and which I hope is not too cynical, makes some basic observations that I hope will allow scientists to understand their audience a little better. I urge them to communicate more with their government representatives in order that the importance of science is aired where it matters. There is, in fact, nothing stopping any academic writing a short letter to their MP advising them on the important aspects of their research area that are currently relevant. I would imagine that most MPs would welcome the extra free expert advice!

1.     MPs and Ministers do not read scientific papers. Neither do scientists if the statistics are correct (look at the citation rate for many papers). It is a big world, with big problems and everyone’s time is at a premium. I doubt whether our parliamentary representatives would have the time to read about the current issues of the day even if they knew where quickly to look. It is up to us to deliver short and balanced notes that are easy to digest and that are relevant to the day’s scientific discussion.

2.     Academic science is an under-used resource. They are highly trained and full of ideas – the government should use them. However, it would be useful if they talked more and were understandable when they did.

3.     However, UK Government and Parliament is served by a high quality scientific civil service. The UK has probably the best and certainly the most independent science advice system in the world. Each ministerial department has a chief scientific adviser that reports to the Government Chief Scientific Adviser (who reports to the PM) but also to a Private Secretary, who is in direct contact with the minister. These advisers are experts in their fields. There is a Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology to give advice to Parliament and extra science advisers attached to the House of Commons Library.

4.     In politics passion trumps reason. No it doesn’t – they exist together. The reason will make something work, but the passion is necessary to ensure that whoever backs it can sell it to others. Politicians to other politicians, and indeed scientists to other scientists. Maybe there is not much difference between them after all.

5.     All politicians are primarily concerned with holding power. And wouldn’t you be. One needs to be in power to be able to get something done, to make a difference, to change things for the better. It is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Sometimes political people are more concerned with the means than the end. ‘Pragmatic’ is the polite term and who is to say that there is not a place for ‘polite’ in ‘politics’. Some are more concerned with the end rather than the means. The polite word this time is ‘dreamer’. Somewhere in between there lies a successful politician: one who knows about people, who is a pragmatic dreamer.

6.     Political reputations are not built on standing up for something whether you believe it or not.  Real life is not an empty debate. All successful politicians have a dream and try to fulfil it. Political success and political reputations are built upon standing up for something you believe in whether others believe it or not. As scientists we should seek out those who are driven by the same passions as they will be more open to expert advice.

7.     Finding political solutions is difficult. The fact of the matter is that improving the lives of the people of our country is difficult. It is never possible to start from square one as any new policy has to be implemented on the back of existing policies and procedures, some of which do not work well at all. This is a truism because if what we have works, what would be the point of replacing it. However, it means that policy implementations are dirty even if they are based on nice clean elegant science.

8.     Social structures are complex. Policies have to work in our existing social structures, and these are incredibly complex. The result is that no policy will improve everyone’s life across the board. Science represents only the seed to making an improvement, but there are the complexities of the social structure and implementation timescales to be taken account of too. Now consider that one small incontrovertible scientific fact, if given too much weight, could jam a whole policy, when ignoring it could make the policy work well on average for most people. Is it any wonder that politicians are wary of scientific facts. True wisdom might lie in the ability to judge which have to be taken account of and which are best ignored.

9.     All evidence can be interpreted. When advising anyone, scientists should be aware that no matter how clear they are, their advice will change as it passes up, down, sideways and diagonally to others. My advice is to ensure that. as a scientist, you do not make a judgement that you are not qualified to give, it is fully justified, it is submitted in writing and you keep a copy safely.

10.  Most of the electorate believe what they know without knowing why they believe it. While I believe it is true that most people have an opinion without supporting it with rigorous delving into the evidence, I have enormous faith in the common sense of the British people: The jury system works with such an engine. Most of the electorate believe what they know without knowing why they believe it – but just think what we could all achieve if we all knew why. Here is a challenge for Michael Gove.

11.  Pragmatism drives policy, compromise implements it. The science that forms the solid foundation to many policies is often hidden by its implementation. That is not necessarily a bad thing – science is the uncomfortable but beautifully formed designer shoe, the implemented policy is the comfy pair that have been worn in. I chose the latter to walk the world in.

12.  Both scientists and politicians live in a world of imagination, one to understand the world and the other to understand the people. Scientists and politicians have more in common than either of them think. They also have more in common with the general public than either of them think, and the sooner they start behaving more like one of the general public rather than something special the better for everyone. I feel that I do more good having a chat in the pub than in a lecture hall – it is rather more congenial too!