The scandal on the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) Energy Scenario's

The lack of quality control and good scientific practice in policy-oriented modelling was already stressed by Keepin and Wynne (1984). In that time the IIASA produced highly influential energy policy scenario's, used by governments all over the world for energy planning. In these days there was a vehement controversy on nuclear energy in many countries and the IIASA scenario's sketched a optimistic picture of the future of so called nuclear breeding reactors.

A young scientist, Bill Keepin, joined the institute and he started working with IIASA's energy models of IIASA's Energy Systems Program Group. These energy models formed the scientific basis of IIASA's energy policy scenario's as presented in the influential study "Energy in a finite world, Paths to a sustainable future" by of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis."
 
Keepin did a critical analysis of the models used, applying tools such as sensitivity analysis, and found that the energy projections - and with that the policy message of the scenario's - were highly sensitive to a number of model assumptions that were not based on hard science but on not much more than informal educated guesses by the modelling team.
 
Their findings on energy modelling from several decades ago are still very topical and highly relevant. Keepin and Wynne (1984) analysed the energy models of IIASA and found that despite the appearance of analytical rigour, IIASA’s widely acclaimed global energy projections were highly unstable and based on informal guesswork.
According to Keepin and Wynne, this was partly due to inadequate peer review and quality control, which raised questions about political bias in scientific analysis. They concluded amongst other things: "First, many crucial components of the scenarios are generated informally and supplied as inputs to the formal computer models, which then reproduce these projections with only minor alterations. Thus, the models have not analytically "discovered" feasible energy futures. Indeed, despite the appearance of analytic sophistication and rigor, the models serve primarily as a static accounting framework of the analysts." and "One important lesson is that the most exquisite formal analytic modelling still embodies informal assumptions (often about sociopolitical values and institutional behaviour) that affect what technical outcomes are conceivable. Peer review of formal models can expose these assumptions for external debate and evaluation. Indeed, rather than attempting to identify objective policy truths, perhaps a more realistic role for policy modelling is to explore origins and consequences of different social and institutional assumptions. Such an approach would embrace (rather than deny) the interpenetration of science and politics in policy analysis.".
 
References
W. Häfele et al, (1982).Energy in a finite world, Paths to a sustainable future, report by the Energy Systems Program Group of the International Institute of Applied Systems Anslysis.
 
B. Keepin (1984) A technical appraisal of the IIASA energy scenarios, Policy Sciences, 17 (3) 199-276.
 
B. Keepin and B. Wynne, (1984) Technical Analysis of IIASA energy scenarios, in: Nature, 312, p. 691-695.