Lessons from the Laureates for Economics, Agriculture, and the Environment
David Zilberman, professor, agriculture and resource economics | September 6, 2019
One immediate benefit of winning the Wolf Prize was receiving an
invitation to the World Laureates Sanya Forum in China. This meeting
hosted 21 Nobel Prize, Fields Medal, Turing Award, and/or Wolf Prize
laureates, as well as leading Chinese scientists. Sanya is China’s
Hawaii, with tropical weather, beautiful beaches and splendid resorts,
where we enjoyed outstanding seafood, clear skies, and luxurious rooms
with individual swimming pools. After the conference, I toured the
impressive Guanyin statue, which is in the middle of the beautiful
Nanshan Buddhist temple in Sanya. The Guanyin statue is slightly taller
than our Statue of Liberty and it has three sides representing peace,
wisdom, and mercy.
The conference commemorated the launch of a global center for marine
science and technology. Each of the laureates gave a presentation
addressing the state of their discipline, which I found to be very
educational. We had representatives of major disciplines such as
medicine, chemistry, physics, computer science, mathematics and
agriculture. It was apparent that while science is diverse, its branches
share basic features. It is useful to distinguish between basic science
(aiming to understand the world) and applied science (aiming to solve
problems). Another important distinction is between theoretical and
empirical/experimental research. Both basic and applied research can be
both theoretical and empirical. In the last century, it has become
useful to distinguish between small science (small in terms of scale,
Galileo dropping objects from the Leaning Tower of Pisa showing they
have the same acceleration and improving the understanding of gravity)
versus big science (large scale projects that may be financed by
national governments. Big science started with
Ernest Lawrence at Berkeleyand led to the
Large Hadron Colliderat
CERN). From the presentations, it became clear to me that scientific
disciplines evolve over time as old theories are discarded and new
disciplines emerge. There is a co-evolution between experiments and
theories. Sometimes, new empirical evidence induces development of new
theories, while in other cases, theories devised by geniuses inspire
empirical efforts to validate them. As theories become more
sophisticated and our knowledge of the universe increases, the proof of
theories, especially in physics, requires larger and larger scale
science and the only way to do this effectively is to open science to
global collaboration.
All branches of science emphasize the discovery of new algorithms,
and development of procedures to make scientific research more efficient
and precise. Mathematics, which is a form of art is providing the tools
and mechanisms that enrich science. New mathematical findings and
techniques can lead to theories that push science further.
[1]Sometimes
unintentional byproducts of small and big science are transformational
technologies, such as lasers, LEDs, GPS, and antibiotics. The process of
discovery also evolved. In earlier periods, many discoveries were
serendipitous. With the development of research capabilities, medicine
and chemistry relied on brute force to identify valuable materials and
medicine. Currently, research in these areas increasingly relies on the
understanding of basic processes and a more efficient search for
solutions.
[2]
This framework applies to my disciplines of agricultural economics
and environmental science. Developments in economics have been fueled by
advances in mathematics. Adam Smith used logical and philosophical
arguments to identify conditions under which the “invisible hand” of
markets leads to efficient allocations. David Ricardo used basic algebra
to establish the theory of comparative advantage. In the 19
thcentury,
calculus was crucial in developing the basic models of supply and
demand, as well as those of tradeoffs and duopoly. In the 20
thcentury,
Keynes developed macroeconomic theories to explain unemployment and
inflation. Von Neumann and John Nash introduced game theory, which is
mostly a mathematical construct, and drastically changed the way we
understand social and economic interactions. Developments in statistics
and computers led to the introduction of econometrics, which has
strengthened our empirical capacity to assess both economic theory and
policy. Looking ahead, I expect that new insights from small science
experiments and findings using big data will lead to the creation of new
economic theories and understanding. These expected developments
will more fully illuminate the roles of heterogeneity, uncertainty,
and institutions in the economy and society
In my talk, I emphasized the importance of sustainable development,
which aims to improve human well-being while preserving and enhancing
our environment. The means to pursue this dual agenda are diverse. They
include policies and technologies to improve efficiency in resource
use, promote recycling, and reduce reliance on non-renewable resources.
The development of the bioeconomy is crucial for attaining sustainable
development. The bioeconomy consists of activities that utilize advanced
knowledge and biological resources to produce goods and services,
including food fuels and chemicals, throughout the economy. Regulations
that limit the application of genetic engineering, including
transgenics and CRISPR in agriculture and other natural resource
applications,
constrain the evolution of the bioeconomy.
The use of biotechnology will make it easier to reduce greenhouse gas
emission, adapt to climate change, address food security problems,
without increasing the human footprint(see
1,
2).
Of course, safety is essential, and regulations that balance benefits
and risks are indispensable, but taking the notion of “safety first” to
its limit is also dangerous. The only inevitable outcome in life is
death itself. The rejection of modern biotechnologies that aim to
replace brute force techniques for developing new crop varieties is
especially disturbing. They are generally more refined,
resource-efficient, and productive than traditional methods.
The widespread and ongoing denial of far-reaching scientific findings
was a significant concern among participants at the workshop, applying
with equal emphasis on biotechnology and climate change. In the
discussion, however, I found some differences. When it comes to climate
change, it’s clear that the Earth is going through climatic cycles that
are related to increased carbon in the atmosphere. I accept the
scientific consensus that human activity is an essential driver of
climate change and the conclusion that it is crucial to mitigate GHG
emissions as soon as possible. While the magnitude of human contribution
to climate change is uncertain, even the doubters should agree that
mitigation activities are worthwhile. The probabilities of major
environmental calamities in the future are increasing, and mitigation of
these risks is prudent.
When it comes to biotechnology, the evidence leaves very little room
for doubt about their social benefits. Thus far, applications of GMOs
has resulted in higher yields, lower toxic chemical use, higher incomes
to farmers, and lower greenhouse gas emission.(see
3,
4,
5). Some GMO traits (
Golden rice)can improve food quality and health. GMOs can also play a major role in
mitigating and adapting to climate change.
The evidence leaves very little room for doubt about the social benefit
of biotechnology even though there may be some applications that could
be mismanaged. Of course, this is why screening of new technologies is
very important. The bottom line is that people who rely on scientific
evidence for decision-making should respect the quality of evidence on
both risks and rewards to society.
I find it inconsistent toaccept scientific evidence about climate change and not GMOs and vice versa.
This workshop reaffirmed my appreciation of multidisciplinary
engagement and the unity of science despite its diversity. As
economists, we have shown many times that the high social rate of return
for research directly contributes to human welfare, but this was a rare
opportunity to see and feel it. I also realize that, as our
technological capacity increases and the global economy grows, we face
greater common risks. More than ever, we need a unified global front to
deal with the challenges of the future.
