For further remarks on Sunstein and CBA, you can see my review of “Risk and Reason” published in Nature (under the title “Counting the Costs”), and also my article “Climate Change as a Catastrophe in Slow Motion,” published in the Chicago Journal of International Law. Reprints of both are available in the publications section of my web site.

There are signs that Sunstein is moving towards a more nuanced view, but from what I have seen of the in-press book inaptly named “Climate Justice,” I do not see that this has been anything other than window-dressing.

Raymond T. Pierrehumbert
Louis Block Professor in the Geophysical Sciences
The University of Chicago

1. *Of course* the head of OIRA is going to believe in aligning regulations so as to extract sizable benefits while minimizing needless costs, and will see science and economics as useful tools to make these determinations. Opposing Sunstein on the grounds that Obama should have picked an “intuitive precautionist” squanders the opportunity to make a much more important point– that *within* the community of CBA proponents there are vast differences in orientation. Much of my research over the past 25 years has made the case that current methods of quantitative risk assessment often lead to *underestimation* of risk, and that current methods in regulatory economics often lead to serious overestimation of cost. This is contrary to the conventional non-wisdom, but if I am correct, then Gavin Andresen’s hypothetical about a policy whose costs “clearly outweigh its benefits” would be far less common an occurrence than Sunstein would ever contemplate. By contrast, my long-time colleague John Graham would tend to view an EPA/FDA/OSHA regulatory analysis with a very different set of concerns and expectations (that risks are exaggerated and costs are understated)– I think that is a mistaken view, but one that I think Sunstein has bought into hook, line, and sinker.

2. The problem with Sunstein’s elitism, one that Chris was too kind to highlight, is the possibility that he writes in this area with feigned expertise, and perhaps doesn’t even know which “experts” to look to for guidance. My complete review of “Risk and Reason” (see hyperlink within the original post) points out a litany of errors that, in my opinion, follow naturally when a non-scientist makes scientific conclusions, relying exclusively on the drivel of other non-scientists. I am worried about the influence of money and power on science, but much more about the influence of ignorance on science. Sunstein’s intellect is indeed “formidable” (and I would add “incredibly broad”), but just as I would caution anyone relying on me for the definitive word on constitutional law, I would caution anyone relying on him for the definitive word on chemical carcinogenesis. With enough training and practice, either of us might make an excellent brain surgeon, but woe unto the patient who’d let either of us operate on him with our current level of skill.

What Sunstein should be asked during confirmation hearings is how he will deal with managing conflicts of interest among scientists involved in the regulatory process. He also should be asked about his thoughts on how we can generate more objective analyses when the data is largely from regulated industries. Therein lies the answer to how we can construct a more objective and therefore more constructive version of cost-benefit analysis than what we’ve seen over the past several decades.

As somebody who enjoys your work and also admires Professor Sunstein’s work, I am a bit surprised by your commentary. As the post by Gavin Andresen suggests, your own work would appear to support the value of objective and careful analysis. Sunstein is rightly viewed (in the academic community and elsewhere) as someone who employs his formidable intellect in the service of Enlightenment values.

Arti Rai
Elvin R. Latty Professor of Law
Duke Law School

If the public is scientifically illiterate (and given the percentage of the population that rejects evolution, I’d say that is true), then how could it possibly make sense to bow to public opinion if the data clearly shows that a policy’s costs outweigh its benefits?

Are you suggesting that environmental policy is somehow different? Or would you suggest that, for example, intelligent design be taught in classrooms in the South (which, proponents will tell you, it touted by the “experts” who tout “science” over the objections of the allegedly irrational public).