REVIEWS

Roy O. Greep, Majorie A. Koblinsky, and Frederick S. Jaffe, Reproduction and Human Welfare: A Challenge to Research. Cambridge, Mass., and London: MIT Press, 1976, pp. xx + 622, $16.95. RapM Review General Appraisal Accuracy of information Scope Clarity of writing Comparative value of book

* Excellent Good Good Good

This book is the report of a project initiated and sponsored by the Ford Foundation to study the present state of knowledge - morphological, physiological, and biochemical - about male and female human reproduction, and also to see what resources are being given over to advance our knowledge. As such it does an admirable job. It describes in great detail what we know about the female and male reproductive systems; there are full discussions about current contraceptive technologies; and there are many suggestions about the way or ways in which research in contraception might develop in the future. Furthermore, there is full information on the money being spent on contraception and its future development. The only reservations I have are not about this project and book as such, but about the title and (indirectly) about the direct relevance of this book to the interests of readers of this journal. The book is not really very concerned with the broader implications of reproduction and contraception for the quality of life - for instance, whether certain sex ratios are desirable, whether certain kinds of offspring are undesirable, and whether certain parent/child ratios should be striven for. Rather contraception is basically taken to be a good thing, and the discussion proceeds from there. As the discussion proceeds it is excellent, but readers of this journal will be the first to protest that there is more to 'Human Welfare' than medical mechanics. University o f Guelph Ontario, Canada

MICHAEL RUSE

Social Indicators Research 8 (1980) 115. 0303-8300/80/0081-0115 $00.10 Copyright 9 1980 by D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht, Holland, and Boston, U.S.A.

REVIEWS Stephen R. L. Clark, The Moral Status o f Animals. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977. This book is one of a growing number of books in which the writer is concerned with the morality of man's use of animals. In this case, as in the case of Animal Liberation by Peter Singer, the author opposes such practices as meateating, hunting, factory farming and most uses of animals for experimentation. The tone of the book is one of moral outrage against the practices in question. The book may also be described as an extended sermon, the aim of which is to convert the reader to the author's point of view, namely zoophily) My impression is that the argumentation in favor of the zoophile position is more completely formulated here than it is in Animal Liberation. Unlike Singer, Clark rejects utilitarianism as a moral foundation for his viewpoint. 2 He holds that animals may have a right to their kind of lives - just as men do. But that even if animals have no fights, we have no right to kill them for f o o d ) However, he claims, even if we accept the minimal principle that we ought not to cause unnecessary pain, we must discontinue killing animals for food. 4 He claims that eating meat and (most) research on animals is not necessary for human life. s Clark uses a variety of arguments in support of his views. He appeals to the notion of justice (chapter II) and utility (chapter III). Chapter IV (called 'Devices of the Heathen') is an attempt to rebut a range of arguments that carnivores and those in favor of factory farming, scientific experimentation on animals, etc., have used in favor of their views. Many of Clark's criticisms are telling. But, in places, he appears to miss the point through a failure to consider his opponent's views in sufficient depth. For example, his arguments concerning necessary pains (chapter III) are largely undermined by a failure to consider what the carnivore means by 'necessary pain'. Those who say that unnecessary pain must be avoided do not mean simply that avoidable pain must be avoided. Yet this apparently is what Clark takes them to mean. Clark is not above using argumentum ad hominem where he thinks this may be persuasive. For example, in considering the necessity of eating meat, he suggests that carnivores are being hypocritical when they refer to Eskimos. 6 He says that "the health of Eskimos might be better served by supplying plant-food". This example might have been usefully considered at greater length. Is Clark serious in saying that we should export plant-food to the Eskimos rather than Sociallndicators Research 8 (1980) 117-119. 0303-8300/80/0081-0117500.30 Copyright 9 1980 by D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht, Holland, and Boston, U.S.A.

118

REVIEWS

accept their continuing to provide food for themselves in traditional ways? Such a policy would certainly be controversial. Further, we may ask, whether Clark is saying that it is permissible for Eskimos to eat meat? If it is permissible for them, then why is it not permissible for the rest of us carnivores? After all, it is not 'necessary' for the Eskimos to eat meat; they could emigrate to more hospitable climes. Clark resorts to other fallacious appeals also and there are more places where his arguments should have been pushed to greater depth. The case for vegetarianism is, I believe, more controversial than he allows. Clark also considers (in chapter V) the question of the rationality of animals and of its relation to our obligations to animals. He concludes that animals are rational and so are worthy of moral consideration. He also argues against the Kantian view that only law-makers are to be treated as ends in themselves. In the final chapters of this book, Clark contends that meat-eating survives largely to serve symbolic needs. In particular, this practice survives because of men's wish to see themselves as masters. Further, he contends that this practice and the practice of using animals for scientific research deaden man's moral sensitivity and that our lives would be better if we came to think of ourselves as part of a larger community including (perhaps) mammals, vertebrates and still other creatures. 7 There is more to the book. There are criticisms of Stoicism, Thomism, Cartesianism. There are criticisms of views of scientists such as Claude Bernard and Jacques Monod who tried to justify using animals for scientific research. The style of the book is occasionally moving. The book is full of quotations of poetic and other expressions of views - both those with which Clark is sympathetic and those with which he disagrees. Personally, I found the roundabout ways in which Clark approaches the issues often annoying. Perhaps that merely reflects my preference for concise statements and arguments. My guess is that these stylistic aspects combined with the fallacious appeals will serve primarily to irritate those among his readers whom Clark hoped to convert. In consequence, the likelihood of converting them may have been reduced.

University of Guelph Guelph, Ontario

HUGH LEHMAN

REVIEWS

119

NOTES I Clark, Stephen R. L., The Moral Status o f Animals (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1977), p. 3. Ibid., 22. 3 Ibid., 28. 4 Ibid., 45. s Ibid.,18. 6 1bid., 44. Ibid., 133,140.

REVIEWS

Y. Elkana, J. Lederberg, R.K. Merton, A. Thackray and H. Zuckerman (eds.), Toward a Metric o f Science: The Advent o f Science Indicators. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1978, 354 pages. Rapid Review General Appraisal Accuracy of information Scope Clarity of Writing Comparative value of book

** Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent

This book represents the results of a conference on science indicators held at Stanford, California in 1974. It should not have taken four years to produce, but progress in this field has not been so spectacular as to make the papers out of date. It is, however, occasionally disturbing to find repeated references to Science Indicators 1972 (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. I973) knowing that Science Indicators 1976 is already out and that some of the objections to the early volume are not applicable to the later volume. The participants in the conference included 26 well-known scholars. The authors of the papers often tried to provide brief state-of-the-art reviews and to offer some suggestions for further research. I will briefly indicate the main themes of the 12 papers. A. Thackray offers a historical sketch of the origins of quantitative studies of science from Charles Babbage's Reflections on the Decline o f Science in England (1830). Following this, O.D. Duncan considers some relations between science indicators and social indicators. His criticism of Science Indicators 1972 applies to the 1976 version as well, i.e., that we are short on reliable and valid output and quality-of-output indicators. Several authors address these problems in greater detail in the volume. G. Holton focuses almost immediately on quality-of-output indicators, considering the special weight of some scientific events, Nobel prizes and unemployment problems. Holton is the only author who seems to be aware of some of the literature in philosophy of science that is directly relevant to problems of measuring the growth of science. Indeed, the absence of a specialist in philosophy of science is a noticeable omission in the volume. D. de Solla Price's paper is the most comprehensive of the lot. He comes Social Indicators Research 8 (1980) 121-122. 0303-8300/80/0081-0121500.20 Copyright 9 1980 by D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht, Holland, and Boston, U.S.A.

122

REVIEWS

very close to identifying the literature of science with science itself (not, however, as close as he has come in other publications). His objections to the lumping of research and development statistics together are worthwhile. His discussions of bibliometrics and the search for law-like relationships in the scientific enterprise are also good. M. Kochen presents an analysis of several models of scientific output that seemed a bit detached from reality and logically messy. This was followed by an instructive paper by W. Kurskal dealing with statistical problems of Science Indicators 1972, and a very short paper by Z. Griliches on measuring returns on research. The papers by E. Garfield, M. V. Malin and H. Small on citation analysis and S. Cole, J. R. Cole and L. Dietrich on survey research on cognitive aspects of science are excellent reviews full of thought-provoking ideas. Finally, there is a speculative paper on indicators of the growth of scientific knowledge by J. Ziman, and a political analysis of the uses and abuses of indicators written by Y. Ezrahi. For anyone interested in science indicators, this is a necessary item on one's reading list.

University of Guelph Guelph, Ontario

ALEX C. MICHALOS

REVIEWS William Ascher, Forecasting." An Appraisal for Policy-Makers and Planners. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978, 239 pages, $15.00 (hard

cover). Rapid Review General appraisal Accuracy of information Scope Clarity of writing Comparative value of book

Highly recommended Good to excellent Good Good to excellent Good to excellent

William Ascher has produced an outstanding review, synthesis, and appraisal of past forecasting efforts, their accuracy, their impact, and their future prospects for improvement. He has categorized and analyzed dozens of forecasts in each of five general fields of forecasting: population dynamics, the economy, energy production and consumption, transportation, and growth of technology. These particular fields were chosen specifically because they contain sufficient numbers of forecasts to allow generalizations about which contexts, methods, and goals have resulted in greater than average accuracy. Forecasting has been written for consumers of forecasts (which can include segments of the public interested and informed about social conditions). This is an easily readable book - a tribute to the author's writing abilities - and requires no technical expertise on the part of the reader, neither in forecasting methodology nor in the trends being forecast. The intention is to teach the reader how to evaluate a forecast - how to spot its weaknesses, assess the relative difficulty of making projections of a certain aspect of society, and predict the probable accuracy of the forecast. Ascher does not achieve this end entirely, since a thorough evaluation of a forecast requires details about the forecaster, his assumptions, his biases, and his methodology that are not usually available to the consumer; however, this book is an exceptionally comprehensive appraisal of the capabilities and fallabilities of predicting the future. Accuracy is used as the primary criterion for appraisal of past efforts. Consequently, only forecasts with target years up through 1975 are included in the review, since the true values for the projected variables are now known. Alternative criteria (e.g., comprehensibility, persuasiveness, usefulness, authoritativeness, provocativeness, importance) are discussed and are assessed for SocialIndicators Research 8 (1980) 123-126. 0303-8300/80/0081-0123500.40 Copyright 9 1980 by D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht, Holland, and Boston, U.S.A.

124

REVIEWS

some prominent forecasting efforts. However, since these qualities are not solely a function of the forecast itself but of its audience as well, they are much more difficult to assess accurately. In defense of using accuracy to evaluate forecasts, Ascher presents arguments for assuming that the selffulfilling or self-defeating tendency of predictions is exaggerated, at least in the contexts he reviews. Throughout the book and in most of its 67 figures and 10 tables, the primary concern is identifying the correlates of accuracy. The dimensions most often examined are aspects of the methodology, the use of judgment, the institutional source, the year in which the forecast was made, and the remoteness of the target date. One chapter is devoted to discussing the impact of expert forecasters, specifically the role their forecasts play in decisionmaking and the reasons they are often ignored. Impacts in the corporate setting and in the governmental setting are compared, and several general-audience forecasting efforts are described. The difficulties of producing impact in the governmental setting are contrasted with the greater responsiveness to forecasts of individuals in the corporate setting. Two major reasons for these difficulties are the lack of goal consensus in a government agency (presumably a corporation has maximizing profits as its main goal) and the tendency of government officials to have personal or political reasons to ignore or attack a forecast even though they may privately believe it to be accurate. Ascher presents a list of factors influencing the impact of specific forecasting efforts, and he describes how a forecast should be performed, presented, and publicized if the object is to have as much impact as possible. The perspective in this chapter adds greatly to the scope of the book, and without it, Forecasting would not appeal to as general an audience. Separate chapters are devoted to population forecasting, economic forecasting, energy forecasting, transportation forecasting, and technological forecasting. Each chapter presents the history of the forecasting efforts in the area, the timing and reasons for transitions between types of methodo. logies, the sources of various core assumptions and their persistence in spite of contrary evidence, and the major institutional sources for projections in past decades. The hurried reader could choose to skip the one or two of these chapters that are of least interest to him or her without losing the continuity of the book. I recommend that the chapters on population forecasting and economic forecasting be read, however; the former because of its relatively long history, the instructive mistakes in the area, and its interrelatedness to

REVIEWS

125

almost all other forecasting fields, and the latter because economic forecasts are so frequently and prominently reported to the public. Most of the figures in these chapters are plots of the percentage of error of forecasts (or some other measure of accuracy) as a function of the year in which they were made. These figures are usually one of two kinds differing in the types of forecasts included: either all the forecasts are of comparable length (e.g., 15 years) with varying target dates, or all the forecasts have the same target date (e.g., 1975) and were made varying numbers of years in advance. The institutional source and the methodology used are indicated by the plotted symbols. By studying a series of such figures, one can easily assess the accuracy of different institutional sources, methods, decades, target dates, and lengths of forecast. Although these graphs add greatly to the enjoyment of reading Forecasting, they could be improved by the more consistent and mnemonic use of symbols. Three important and somewhat surprising conclusions are drawn from the recent history of forecasting. First, the core assumptions incorporated into a forecasting model are far more crucial for the accuracy of the projection than is the methodology used. Ascher introduces the concept of 'assumption drag' the reliance on old core assumptions - as being the cause of some of the most spectacular forecasting failures. On numerous occasions, forecasters have continued to rely on assumptions for years after the evidence belied their validity. Second, expert judgment usually does as well as and often better than the most sophisticated methods available. Any method that does not incorporate judgment (i.e., is mechanically applied to past trends and structural relations without the results being modified by 'intuition') is likely to make less accurate forecasts than the same method incorporating expert judgment as part of the process. And third, forecasting accuracy has on the whole been poor, especially forecasts more than five years into the future; and accuracy has been no better in recent years than earlier in the century. The presumed advantages of sophisticated methodologies simply have not materialized. Ascher concludes the book with some speculation on future trends and developments in forecasting. First, he predicts that future developments in forecast methodology will be influenced by modeling of structural relationships between the forecasted trend and other factors. "Mathematical modeling stands as the 'great hope' for forecasting in almost every area" (p. 210). Second, he predicts that the most important area of specialization -

126 in forecasting will be the development o f methods designed to be highly sensitive to potential surprise outcomes, even i f they are n o t the most likely outcomes. Third, he recommends that methodology for normative forecasting be further developed. Normative forecasting refers to the use o f structural models to work backward from desired 'end-states' (such as some level of y o u t h employment) to the policies required to bring them about. Finally, Ascher suggests that the use o f social indicators may improve the quality o f sociopolitical forecasting, although he cautions that the development o f appropriate social indicators requires better data sources and that better models are needed to explain and predict the level o f social indicators. The second promising mode of sociopolitical forecasting is the projection of aggregate measures of social interaction or conditions, which are often called 'social indicators'. Social indicators are summary measures, usually of society-wide phenomena, such as the distribution of wealth, levels of satisfaction or alienation, consumption patterns, and broad aspects of the 'political climate'. Efforts devoted to developing social indicators have focused on the need for universally applicable measures, precisely because of existing difficulties in comparing and differentiating social contexts. Thus, social indicators are analogous to the functional capabilities projected in technological forecasting, in that social indicators standardize the outcomes of diverse social structures just as functional capabilities standardize the performance of diverse inventions. Wher~ a social indicator is projected, the problem of deciding whether the actual result is very much different from the forecast is eliminated as long as the indicator can be measured. (p. 207) Social indicators researchers should feel encouraged that Ascher has noted the potential o f structural modeling and social indicators for the future o f forecasting. We have often listed forecasting as one o f the legitimate uses o f social indicators, although this claim has been more talk than action. I recommend to researchers who are developing explicit social indicator models that they read this b o o k to learn from the mistakes and successes o f forecasters from other disciplines and that they consider applying their models to the task o f forecasting, especially normative forecasting.

American Institutes ]'or Research

KEVIN J. GILMARTIN