Statistics and Science Policy
Karen Kafadar
Shortly after being appointed the ASA’s Executive Director in 2007, Ron Wasserstein said, “Statisticians complain that no one ever listens to us. We need to be saying something!”
As one of his first tasks at the ASA, Ron followed through on the 2006 board motion that arose from 2006 ASA President Sallie Keller’s initiative on science policy: to hire a director of science policy. Shortly after, Steve Pierson joined the ASA and found multiple areas in which we all know statistics should be involved. But he discovered our legislators, policy experts, and decision-makers often do not know statistics should be involved. So, he set about identifying those key individuals and has continued to do so, despite changing administrations. At no time since then has his role been more critical than it is today.
At each meeting of the ASA Board of Directors, Steve and his science policy fellow, Daniel Elchert, provide a report of their activities, and the list of their efforts is extensive. I mention here a few times they have kept statistics in the science limelight.
Census 2020
The Washington Post published an opinion by Ron (March 13, 2019) strongly objecting to the decision by the secretary of commerce to add a question to the decennial census asking whether the respondent is a US citizen.
Although this question is on the American Community Survey (sent to a sample of about 300,000 households each month), its inclusion on the federally mandated decennial census without adequate field testing could grossly affect either the response rate or the accuracy of answers on all questions, or possibly both. In addition, the ASA released an official statement strongly advising against the inclusion of the question on the grounds of inadequate testing, and future ASA President (2021) Rob Santos was quoted in Science (July 11, 2019) speaking out against adding the question. Several sessions at last month’s JSM also focused on the effects of low response rate and/or mistrust in the confidentiality of census responses.
In the case against the Department of Commerce brought by the State of New York, the words “statistician” and “statistics” appear 11 times in the oral argument to the Supreme Court on April 23, 2019. Although the court seemingly made its decision (to disallow the question) on other grounds (administration’s case was not compelling), the ASA’s silence on this issue might have been interpreted as supporting inadequate research on a topic as important as the decennial census.
USDA Economic Research Service
The Economic Research Service (ERS) is one of the 13 principal federal statistical agencies and, with the National Agricultural Statistics Service, is a critical research arm of the US Department of Agriculture. Its mission is to provide objective and reliable analyses on issues regarding the farm, rural economy, food safety and nutrition, natural resources, trade and international agriculture, and environment. Its work depends heavily on accessibility to data from the other agencies in Washington, DC. Yet, for somewhat mysterious reasons, the current administration decided to relocate the ERS 1,000 miles away—without congressional approval—and proposed to cut its funding by almost half. Again, the ASA leadership thought its silence would be viewed as support for the decision and joined 170 agricultural, food, and science organizations in opposing the move. Ron also prepared an opinion piece for The Kansas City Star, where ERS will be relocated.
You may be wondering what criteria the ASA uses to determine whether it should publicly comment on an issue. Several years ago, the board identified the following five criteria that would inspire the ASA to comment:
1. Does the issue impact the statistics profession or the ASA itself?
2. Does this issue impact the quality or integrity of science or the ability to inform public policy?
3. Does the issue provide an opportunity to educate the public about statistics or the statistical aspects involved in this issue?
4. In our judgment, would our members expect us to be involved in the issue?
5. Does the issue relate to possible infringement on scientific freedom or human/civil rights?
The ASA Board of Directors considers these questions in deciding whether to speak on any policy matter. Sometimes the answers are clear, but sometimes much less so. Are there issues on which, in your opinion, the ASA should comment?
National Center for Education Statistics
The ASA also has advocated on behalf of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), another of the 13 principal federal statistical agencies whose mission is to collect and analyze data related to education (at all levels) in the US. Its staff size has been so severely limited that it relies increasingly on contractors. The ASA joined the American Educational Research Association and Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics in supporting increased resources for NCES, as the data sets it makes public on a timely basis provide valuable information for assessing educational progress and trends in the US.
Count on Stats
Count on Stats is a public relations campaign to build public confidence and trust in government statistics. In recent months, it has focused on ensuring no attack on federal statistical agencies goes unanswered. With ASA staff, it has advocated for a rigorous 2020 Census and the value and necessity of the ERS, distributed weekly social media features, and provided general agency support though congressional outreach. This advocacy contributed to outcomes such as heightened media attention on statistical agencies, including publications in The Washington Post, Des Moines Register, and The Kansas City Star.
Forensic Science
The ASA issued two statements on the importance of statistical research in strengthening forensic science: an endorsement of the National Academies’ 2009 report, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward (April 17, 2010), and recommendations for the use of statistical statements used in expressing the strength (or lack thereof) of forensic evidence (January 2, 2019). Thanks to Steve’s efforts to keep this item front and center on Congress’ radar, federal funds were made available to the National Institute for Standards and Technology to fund the Center of Excellence in Forensic Science, which led to the largest concentration of statisticians conducting research in forensic science (CSAFE: forensicstats.org) and the ASA Ad-Hoc Advisory Committee on Statistics in Forensic Science.
Letters of Support
The ASA also supported the Protecting American Votes and Elections Act (PAVE) to enhance federal election security and mandate risk-limiting audits and a bill to restore the Department of Justice Science Advisory Board.
We Still Have Work to Do
Sallie reminded us that “statistical sciences through the ASA leadership has become part of the voice of science policy.” As a result, statisticians today are now “more visible at the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, making the case that statisticians improve scientific research.”
We have seen the respect our work has attracted from people such as DJ Patil, 2015 chief data scientist, and the University of Virginia’s Teresa Sullivan. By raising the visibility of statisticians’ contributions to questions of scientific research and policy, we create respect for our own profession. Please let us know in what areas you think the ASA’s advocacy can help you—either for your own work or for the betterment of society—at spierson@amstat.org. Steve, Daniel, and I look forward to hearing from you!
Editor’s Note: Daniel Elchert and Steve Pierson contributed to this column.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading...
