Canceling Science and Monetizing Outrage

If we maintain the fantasy of a puritan separation of science and business then innovation will dry up and die. There will be no one left to block and tackle for science or help us navigate the valley of death that lies between a scientific discovery and a cure, product, or better policy. The negative epistemic valence being cast by digital and mainstream media is polluting the commons of scientific communication, hindering the public's ability to distinguish fact from fiction. The implications for health, climate, democracy, and human welfare are tremendous.

*This article was originally appeared at: https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2022/12/canceling-science-and-monetizing-outrage.html 

Background

In a recent article in the New York Times the intersection between business and science are at the center of debate regarding ongoing climate research by Dr. Frank Mitloehner at UC Davis. This parallels a prior article from some years ago about  Dr. Kevin Folta and his work as it relates to agricultural biotechnology and science communication and outreach.

In the article, it seems to assert that Mitloehner's industry connections and collaboration are compromising his integrity and research as it relates to the relationship between livestock and GHG emissions.

Below are some of the most critical comments from the article:

“Industry funding does not necessarily compromise research, but it does inevitably have a slant on the directions with which you ask questions and the tendency to interpret those results in a way that may favor industry,” said Matthew Hayek, an assistant professor in environmental studies at New York University.

“Almost everything that I’ve seen from Dr. Mitloehner’s communications has downplayed every impact of livestock,” he said. “His communications are discordant from the scientific consensus, and the evidence that he has brought to bear against that consensus has not been, in my eyes, sufficient to challenge it.”

Communicating the Science

Assertions are made, but no evidence is offered in relation to how Mitloehner's research is compromised or in what ways his work contrasts with any scientific consensus. But it certainly puts his communications about his research on the chopping block. This is a big risk of doing science communication and outreach, as I have discussed before here.  In attempting to simplify complex scientific ideas for a broader audience, communicators are at risk for getting called out for any particular nuance they failed to include. It also creates enough space for any critic to write an entire thesis about why you are wrong. As I stated previously:

"Usually this is about how they didn't capture every particular nuance of the theory, failed to include a statement about certain critical assumptions, or over simplified the complex thing they were trying to explain in simple terms to begin with. This kind of negative social harassment seems to be par for the course when attempting to communicate on social media ... A culture that is toxic toward effective science communication becomes an impediment to science itself and leaves a void waiting be filled by science deniers, activists, policy makers, decision makers, and special interests."

One example called out in the NYT article was the production of a video called Rethinking Methane:

The article states: 

“The message of the five-minute video is that, because methane is a relatively short-lived greenhouse gas (once it’s in the atmosphere, it becomes less potent as the years go by), cattle would not cause additional warming as long as their numbers did not grow.”

“The argument leans on a method developed by scientists that aims to better account for the global-warming effects of short-lived greenhouse gases like methane. However, the use of that method by an industry “as a way of justifying high current emissions is very inappropriate” 

When considering sources of GHG emissions, understanding the way methane behaves is fundamental to understanding climate change, and personal and policy decisions related to mitigating future warming.  Understanding this can help direct attention to those areas where we can make the biggest difference in terms impacting climate change. As discussed in Allen et al. (2018):

"While shorter-term goals for emission rates of individual gases and broader metrics encompassing emissions’ co-impacts remain potentially useful in defining how cumulative contributions will be achieved, summarising commitments using a metric that accurately reflects their contributions to future warming would provide greater transparency in the implications of global climate agreements as well as enabling fairer and more effective design of domestic policies and measures."

But instead of diving into the meat (pun intended) of the science, the second statement about this video makes an assertion about using this science to justify high current emissions. 

Is that what Dr. Mitloehner is doing in his many communications, or is it actually the case that when we estimate the impact of climate change he thinks we should be using metrics that do a better job capturing the dynamics of different GHGs?  If his science really led him to dismiss the 'current high emissions' related to methane then why would he be spending time and energy researching and communicating about ways to reduce GHG emissions related to methane via feed additives and other management practices? 

And when we talk about current high emissions related to livestock what do we mean - compared to what?  The article states:

"scientific research has long shown that agriculture is also a major source of planet-warming emissions, ranking below the leading causes — the burning of coal, gas and oil — but still producing almost 15 percent of global emissions, the United Nations estimates."

That is a nice factoid, but it conflates all global emissions from agriculture with livestock emissions. It also makes kind of an ecological fallacy if we attribute that global number to the specific GHG emissions related to livestock of a specific country, particularly when the audience here is U.S. consumers who mostly eat beef produced in the U.S. (where in fact the the contribution to total global GHG emissions is less than 1/2 of 1%.)

The fact about global numbers is relevant to Mitloehner's work only in the sense that his research could have much greater impact in developing countries where GHG emissions may be 10X greater (EPA GHG Emissions Inventory, Rotz et al, 2018). As stated in a recent article in Foreign Policy: 

"Generalizations about animal agriculture hide great regional differences and often lead to diet guidelines promoting shifts away from animal products that are not feasible for the world’s poor....A nuanced approach to livestock was endorsed in the latest mitigation report of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).....there is great room for improvement in the efficiency of livestock production systems across developing countries" 

But these nuances are lost in the NYT article along with recognition that there are multiple margins to consider when thinking about the tradeoffs related to food production and consumption. Policy should consider the numerous choices consumers and producers make in a modern and global economy in relation to nutrition, energy, and climate.  

Parallels with the Past

When reflecting on this NYT article and the prior article focused on Dr. Kevin Folta I see at least three parallels:

1) An appeal to the nirvana fallacy of a perfect separation between science and business. While this is not explicitly stated, both stories paint a picture of malfeasance and industry influence connected with the work of these scientists, without providing evidence that that their research or findings are biased or conflict with any major consensus. They simply imply that any industry connection is questionable, Guilt by association alone.

2) Establishing some theatre of doubt around the integrity and character of these scientists in the mind of readers, the next step involves a kind of ad hominem reasoning suggesting that because of these industry connections and questionable integrity of the researchers, anything they claim must be false or misleading or contradictory to the mainstream scientific consensus.

Having established the first two parallels, the public is then set up to make a third mistake in reasoning:

3) Argument by intimidation. The implication here is that anyone that references or leans on the work of these scientists must also have questionable integrity or character. This can be invoked as a way to bypass debate and avoid discussing the actual science or evidence supporting the claims one may be making. I'm not saying that the NYT article does this explicitly, but this article pollutes the science communication environment in a way that makes this more likely to happen..

This leads me to ask - why would mainstream media follow this kind of recipe when producing stories?

Changing Business Models for Modern Media

In Jonathan Rauch's book, the Constitution of Knowledge, he discusses how in the old days of print media economies of scale supported the production of real news or reality based content. But new business models have been built on information, not knowledge and are geared toward monetizing eyeballs and clicks. This new business model favors "professionals in the arts of manipulative outrage: the kinds of actors who were more skilled at capturing attention not persuasion and who were more interested in dissemination than communication."

Rauch observes: "By the early 2020s high quality news was struggling to stay in business, while opinion, outrage, derivative boilerplate, and digital exhaust (personal data generated by internet users) enjoyed a thriving commercial market."

Quoting one digital media pundit: "you can't sell news for what it costs to make."

As mainstream media has adopted social and digital media strategies it may not be surprising to see patterns like those above emerge.

 In 2020 former President Barak Obama said in The Atlantic: 

"if we do not have the capacity to distinguish what's true from what's false, then by definition the marketplace of ideas doesn't work. And by definition our democracy doesn't work. We are entering into an epistemological crisis." 

Communicating science is challenging enough. The battle with misinformation and disinformation did not begin or end with the COVID pandemic. It doesn't help when major media outlets would rather cash in on eyeballs and outrage, rather than communicate science.

Related Readings and Resources

Allen, M.R., Shine, K.P., Fuglestvedt, J.S. et al. A solution to the misrepresentations of CO2-equivalent emissions of short-lived climate pollutants under ambitious mitigation. npj Clim Atmos Sci 1, 16 (2018) doi:10.1038/s41612-018-0026-8

C. Alan Rotz et al. Environmental footprints of beef cattle production in the United States, Agricultural Systems (2018). DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2018.11.005 

Facts, Figures, or Fiction: Unwarranted Criticisms of the Biden Administration's Failure to Target Methane Emissions from Livestock. https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2021/12/facts-figures-or-fiction-unfair.html  

The Ethics of Dietary Nudges and Behavior Change Focused on Climate and Sustainability. https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2022/10/the-ethics-of-dietary-nudges-and.html

Will Eating Less U.S. Beef Save the Rainforests? http://realclearagriculture.blogspot.com/2020/01/will-eating-less-us-beef-save.html

Food Desert Mirage (redux)

A recent story in Eater resurfaces a tired argument about the observed correlation between certain retail stores and food deserts and nutritional equity. In this particular story, it is asserted that there is a direct correlation between their presence and food deserts. The policy proposal is to limit and regulate the expansion of dollar stores and similar retailers in these areas. This policy is biased from a couple different perspectives, one is that good intentions don't constitute an identification strategy.  It is hard work to move from correlation to causation, and as noted below, the nuance involved in generating meaningful insights that lead to meaningful policies don't generate the kinds of sensational headlines that media and special interests often seek. That leads to the second bias, as Daniel Kahneman states in Thinking Fast and Slow, System 1 likes to find quick answers to difficult questions by substituting easier questions and creating coherence where there is none. Policy advocates here have substituted an easier correlational question for a much more difficult causal question that builds a coherent story about food deserts, inequity, and Dollar stores. 

The more difficult question is, if you build a new supermarket in a food desert, will low income households go there to buy healthier food? Are Dollar Stores cornering the market in poor neighborhoods reducing options for healthy food choices? Is there a causal relationship between Dollar Stores and food inequity?

There is a misconception, a mirage if you will, related to the relationship between proximity of super markets that sell healthy foods and actual consumption and health effects. As discussed in this New Food Economy article 'Is it time to retire the term food desert':

"The idea that supermarkets enter into food deserts and all of a sudden provide access to healthy food is a little bit of a misconception"

Public Health literature provides evidence that households in lower income neighborhoods tend to eat less healthy food. These neighborhoods are often characterized as being food deserts due to the lack of access to healthy groceries for a given geography. Policy and discussion involving food deserts is often colored by an implicit or assumed causal relationship between food deserts (lack of supply of healthy food options) and nutrition and health outcomes. Failure to better understand this causal relationship can lead to potentially bad policy decisions. According to this City Journal article 'Unjust Deserts'  some communities have essentially banned or greatly restricted Dollar General from operating their stores which provide a variety of low priced products. However, some research questions a relationship between food choices and the presence or absence of a Dollar General store.

In a Health Economics Review article (Drichoutis, 2015), using a combination of difference-in-difference and propensity score matched analysis authors looked at the relationship between BMI in children and the proximity of Dollar General Stores and failed to find a relationship.

The authors conclude:

"Combatting the ill effects of a bad diet involves educating people to change their eating habits. That’s a more complicated project than banning dollar stores. Subsidizing the purchase of fresh fruits and vegetables through the federal food-stamp program and working harder to encourage kids to eat better—as Michelle Obama tried to do with her Let’s Move! campaign—are among the economists’ suggestions for improving the nation’s diet. That’s not the kind of thing that generates sensational headlines. But it makes a lot more sense than banning dollar stores."

A paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research this past year took a very exhaustive look at the relationship between food deserts, poverty, and nutrition. "THE GEOGRAPHY OF POVERTY AND NUTRITION: FOOD DESERTS AND FOOD CHOICES ACROSS THE UNITED STATES." Working Paper 24094 (http://www.nber.org/papers/w24094).

This paper helps provide a very rigorous empirical understanding of these relationships that can be leveraged for more effective policy and interventions to improve nutrition and health.

They used a very rich dataset consisting of:

1) Nielsen Homescan data - 60,000-household panel survey of grocery store purchases

2) Nielsen’s Retail Measurement Services (RMS) data - 35,000-store panel of UPC-level sales data (this covers 40% of all U.S. grocery store purchases)

3) Nielsen panelist survey data on nutrition knowledge

4) Entry and location data for 1,914 new supermarkets by zip code

Among the many findings uncovered in this data source was the following:

"over the full 2004-2015 sample, households with income above $70,000 purchase approximately one additional gram of fiber and 3.5 fewer grams of sugar per 1000 calories relative to households with income below $25,000."

Their data reflects what has been found in the public health literature in relation to low income households and nutritional health. In addition, household food purchase data was transformed using a modified version of the USDA's Healthy Eating Index (HEI) based on dietary recommendations. These various sources were brought together to give a very rich picture of household choice sets, retail environment, consumption patterns, and nutritional quality.

Using a regression based event study analysis and a structural demand model they examine the impact of supermarket entry on the nutritional quality of changes in food purchases. They also are able to separate the main drivers explaining the differences in the measured nutritional quality index (HEI) of food purchases between low and high income groups.

They model household and income group preferences using both constant elasticity of subsitution (CES) and Cobb-Douglass utility specifications. They apply this model to the rich data sources mentioned above using a Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) framework and use the model estimates to simulate policies that allow households of different incomes to be exposed to similar prices and product availability. (i.e. to make apples to apples comparisons and determine what's driving healthy vs. unhealthy food choices among low income households in food deserts vs. wealthier households).

Key Findings:

1) When new supermarkets open in what was formally a food desert, they find most of the changes in consumption are related to shifting purchases from more distant super markets to the new local super market. The change in the healthy eating index or substitutions away from unhealthy purchases from convenience and drug stores to more healthy food was minimal. This is because even in food deserts among low income households, willingness to travel was quite substantial and mitigated the lack of access to local healthy food.

" households in food deserts spend only slightly less in supermarkets. Households with income below $25,000 spend about 87 percent of their grocery dollars at supermarkets, while households with incomes above $70,000 spend 91 percent. For households in our “food deserts,” the supermarket expenditure share is only a fraction of a percentage point lower"

"one supermarket entry increases Health Index by no more than 0.036 standard deviations for low-income household"

They conclude that access to supply of healthy food or lack thereof explains only about 5% of the difference in the healthy eating index between low and high income households. Access does not appear to be driving the nutrition-income relationship.

2) Most of the differences in healthy vs unhealthy food choices by income group are driven by demand factors...i.e. preferences. When faced with the same choices and same prices, lower income households simply made purchases with a lower HEI.

"The lowest-income group is willing to pay $0.62 per day to consume the healthy bundle instead of the unhealthy bundle, while the highest-income group is willing to pay $1.18 per day."

They find that wealthier households value fruit three times the rate of lower income households and twice the rate for vegetables compared to lower income households.

Policy Implications

The authors reference studies by Montonen et al (2003) and Yang et al (2014):

"consuming one additional gram of fiber per 1000 calories is conditionally associated with a 9.4 percent decrease in type-2 diabetes" and consuming "3.5 fewer grams of sugar per 1000 calories is conditionally associated with a ten percent decrease in death rates from cardiovascular disease."

Improvements of the HEI definitely could be a driver for better health. However focusing on access may not be the greatest way to lever change. Certainly the correlations between income, food deserts, and healthy eating hold in this study and can be great flags to predict or identify which populations may need intervention. However, as this study points out the intervention should be based on theoretical and causal relationships that go beyond the supply of healthy foods and focus on aspects related to food preferences and demand. The authors conclude:

"For a policymaker who wants to help low-income families to eat more healthfully, the analyses in this paper suggest an opportunity for future research to explore the demand-side benefits of improving health education—if possible through elective interventions—rather than changing local supply."

References:

Drichoutis, A.C., Nayga, R.M., Rouse, H.L. et al. Food environment and childhood obesity: the effect of dollar stores. Health Econ Rev 5, 37 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-015-0074-2

NBER. "THE GEOGRAPHY OF POVERTY AND NUTRITION: FOOD DESERTS AND FOOD CHOICES ACROSS THE UNITED STATES." Working Paper 24094 (http://www.nber.org/papers/w24094)