Roundtables | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

The dubious joy of misperceptions

Andreas Persbo — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 08:48:21 -0500

Roundtable Topic: Iran and the bomb: The legal standards of the IAEA

Aristotle is sometimes credited with saying, "the law is reason, free from passion." If this is true, our Roundtable may not have been one of law. Some arguments seem to have been motivated by passion, and not by reason.

Don't erase the terms of the CSA

Christopher A. Ford — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 09:09:00 -0500

Roundtable Topic: Iran and the bomb: The legal standards of the IAEA

Daniel Joyner seems to be having as much trouble reading my earlier essays in this Roundtable as he does Iran's Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement (CSA). He somehow understands my interpretation of the agreement to mean that the IAEA has "unlimited authority to ensure that safeguards are applied on all fissionable material anywhere within the territory of Iran, by any means the agency considers necessary, no matter how intrusive … ." This assertion about my views suggests he never actually read my last essay, however, for in it I made quite the contrary claim.

Extending above and beyond

Daniel H. Joyner — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 09:05:39 -0500

Roundtable Topic: Iran and the bomb: The legal standards of the IAEA

Christopher Ford and I agree on one thing: The IAEA's Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement (CSA) needs to be read clearly. We differ, however, in that I am reading the CSA both clearly and fully as the text is actually written, and not as Ford and Andreas Persbo -- or perhaps the IAEA itself -- might wish that the agreement had been written.

Correct and complete is the norm

Andreas Persbo — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 09:33:07 -0500

Roundtable Topic: Iran and the bomb: The legal standards of the IAEA

No one is trying to argue that the present is the past. At the same time, it is fatuous to declare that history is irrelevant for contemporary policy choices, or for the interpretation of law. Law is decided by policy, and policy is often determined by experience. Iran has been found in non-compliance with its safeguards agreement, and this has colored the debate over the past decade.

"All" materials means all materials

Christopher A. Ford — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 09:09:23 -0500

Roundtable Topic: Iran and the bomb: The legal standards of the IAEA

In Round Two of this Roundtable, Professor Daniel Joyner discusses the IAEA's efforts to verify the absence of undeclared activities in Iran as an "additional and separate" legal standard imposed beyond Iran's Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement (CSA). He asserts that this "new" criterion is ultra vires. It is "irrelevant," he writes, whether there are undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran: It is enough merely that "all declared safeguarded nuclear material in Iran has not been diverted to non-peaceful use" (emphasis added).

The past is not the present

Daniel H. Joyner — Sun, 11 Nov 2012 22:31:49 -0500

Roundtable Topic: Iran and the bomb: The legal standards of the IAEA

A non-nuclear weapon state's noncompliance with its Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement (CSA) does not per se constitute treaty breach. This is a fine legal point, but an important one (pp. 87-93).

Agreements should be kept

Andreas Persbo — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 11:09:54 -0500

Roundtable Topic: Iran and the bomb: The legal standards of the IAEA

Earlier this year, I published a 17-page paper on nuclear safeguards commissioned by the EU non-proliferation consortium; that paper only scratches the surface of how safeguards work. Attempting to summarize the legalities of this complex system on a specific country will not be easy.

Standards properly applied

Christopher A. Ford — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 11:02:36 -0500

Roundtable Topic: Iran and the bomb: The legal standards of the IAEA

Ever since the first public revelations of Iran's nuclear program in 2002, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has struggled to verify and document Iran's degree of compliance with a range of legal obligations. Iran and its defenders have periodically contested the legal standards applied to Tehran, but these criticisms have so far been tendentious and insupportable.

Overstepping bounds

Daniel H. Joyner — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 10:17:58 -0500

Roundtable Topic: Iran and the bomb: The legal standards of the IAEA

The most recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) director general's report on the implementation of nuclear safeguards in Iran includes the following paragraph in the summary:

Glass houses of accuracy?

Randy Olson — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 19:14:06 -0500

Roundtable Topic: When politicians distort science

For my final essay in this Roundtable, I want to shift momentarily from the distortion of science in the public sphere to the distortion of science within the profession itself.

Politics is about acting alike, not thinking alike

Roger A. Pielke, Jr. — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:51:43 -0500

Roundtable Topic: When politicians distort science

I have enjoyed the exchange between Randy Olson and Robert Socolow on the need for effective communication of science, and not simply as a means of conferring content but as a two-way process that builds trust and legitimacy. In my final commentary in this exchange, I'd like to return to discussing Socolow's central claim that science is under attack and needs defending from the anti-science brigades.

Reliable, confirmable, universal, welcoming: Attributes of science that convey its power and uniqueness

Robert Socolow — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 21:52:27 -0500

Roundtable Topic: When politicians distort science

Randy Olson is right: "Superior" is a badly chosen word. Saying, as I did in Round Two, that science is a "superior way of knowing" contradicts my first-round essay, which argued that science is not just one of many belief systems, but a different way of knowing. To explain how science should not be defended, I invoked the scene on Mount Carmel staged by Elijah, where the God of the Jews sets a pile of wood on fire after Baal is unable to do so. I said: "Science is not just another point of view."

Arrogance as a way of alienating

Randy Olson — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 18:23:47 -0500

Roundtable Topic: When politicians distort science

Something unfortunate has happened here. I liked and agreed with both of my colleagues' first-round essays (Roger Pielke on the importance of fairness and honesty; Robert Socolow on science not being "just another point of view"). But I'm afraid Socolow has overturned the table with his second essay, starting (and ending) with his title.

Relativism gets us nowhere. Science is a superior way of knowing.

Robert Socolow — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 20:14:45 -0500

Roundtable Topic: When politicians distort science

In Round One of this Roundtable discussion, I drew the distinction between distortion of the substance of science and rejection of science as a way of knowing. I asserted that distortion is less dangerous than rejection. The scientific process itself sorts out distortions, often quickly. Rejection of science, on the other hand, lacks self-correcting mechanisms. Rejection is dangerous not just for science, but for civilization. I wrote: "Another age of darkness could lie ahead.

The non-defense of science

Randy Olson — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 21:20:18 -0400

Roundtable Topic: When politicians distort science

To ask for the proper scientific response to the political distortion of science is kind of like asking what sort of defense a team of dwarves should run in a basketball game against the Los Angeles Lakers. I suppose I could recommend that the dwarves run a zone defense, but it really doesn't matter because nothing they try is going to work. The dwarves' problems are fundamental and systemic, and until they are addressed at the large scale, nothing will succeed.

Paths to a sustainable-energy future: realistic risks and options

Sharon Squassoni — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 19:16:19 -0400

Roundtable Topic: Is nuclear energy different than other energy sources?

Enter with caution

Roger A. Pielke, Jr. — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 18:35:58 -0400

Roundtable Topic: When politicians distort science

Here we go again. The US presidential campaigns of 2004 and 2008 saw some in the scientific community seek to exert influence on the elections. In 2004, scientists mounted an aggressive effort to unseat George W. Bush, and four years later sought to raise the profile of science in the election by calling for a presidential debate on science. Neither effort bore much fruit.

Yes, science is being distorted. But, much more dangerous, it is being rejected.

Robert Socolow — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 08:29:50 -0400

Roundtable Topic: When politicians distort science

This roundtable explores "the proper scientific response to the political distortions of science." Indeed, distortions abound regarding both what science understands and how science is conducted. Of even greater concern, however, is the rejection of the scientific way of knowing -- or rather its relegation to the status of just one of many equally valid ways of knowing. If the scientific method loses its place as a privileged way of knowing, the consequences will be devastating.

Fact check: Nuclear energy has an important role in US energy policy -- with or without footnotes

Tony Pietrangelo — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 08:20:23 -0400

Roundtable Topic: Is nuclear energy different than other energy sources?

With all due respect to scientists and peer-reviewed journals, the notion espoused on the roundtable on September 22 that facts are only facts if uttered by a scientist or published in a peer-reviewed journal is foolish on its face. To help along those who might miss the real-world forest for the footnoted trees, here are a few references that may help:

What alternatives to nuclear energy?

Charles Forsberg — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:52:32 -0400

Roundtable Topic: Is nuclear energy different than other energy sources?

For those opposed to nuclear energy, the belief is that there are alternative energy sources -- a faith in alternatives, ironically, as strong as some of the early advocates for nuclear power in the 1950s. But no such options exist in a world that will soon have 10 billion people (see Forsberg, "Mutually Assured Energy Independence"). That fundamental reality dictates the need for nuclear energy.