DOCSLIB.ORG

Cli-Fi Cinema: an Epideictic Rhetoric of Blame

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cli-Fi Cinema: an Epideictic Rhetoric of Blame UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones 5-1-2017 Cli-Fi Cinema: An Epideictic Rhetoric of Blame Chloe Louise Powell University of Nevada, Las Vegas Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/thesesdissertations Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons, Film and Media Studies Commons, and the Rhetoric Commons Repository Citation Powell, Chloe Louise, "Cli-Fi Cinema: An Epideictic Rhetoric of Blame" (2017). UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones. 3026. http://dx.doi.org/10.34917/10986116 This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CLI-FI CINEMA: AN EPIDEICTIC RHETORIC OF BLAME By Chloe Louise Powell Bachelor of Arts - Communication Studies University of Nevada, Las Vegas 2015 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Arts - Communication Studies Department of Communication Studies Greenspun College of Urban Affairs The Graduate College University of Nevada, Las Vegas May 2017 Thesis Approval The Graduate College The University of Nevada, Las Vegas May 31, 2017 This thesis prepared by Chloe Louise Powell entitled Cli-Fi Cinema: An Epideictic Rhetoric of Blame is approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts - Communication Studies Department of Communication Studies Donovan Conley, Ph.D. Kathryn Hausbeck Korgan, Ph.D. Examination Committee Chair Graduate College Interim Dean David Henry, Ph.D. Examination Committee Member Emma Bloomfield, Ph.D. Examination Committee Member Denise Tillery, Ph.D. Graduate College Faculty Representative ii ABSTRACT Cli-Fi Cinema: An Epideictic Rhetoric of Blame by Chloe Louise Powell Dr. Donovan Conley, Examination Committee Chair Associate Professor of Communication Studies University of Nevada, Las Vegas This thesis analyzes the symbolic mechanisms of guilt-redemption as developed by Kenneth Burke within two climate fiction (cli-fi) films: The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008), and Interstellar (2014). In doing so, this thesis offers an account of: (1) each film’s role in providing their audience temporary assuagement of climate change related guilt, and (2) each film’s role in transmitting values and “attitudes” to build and strengthen communities. Because cli-fi films begin from a dystopic vision of a possible future, it fulfills the "blame" function of epideictic discourse to provoke and inspire the "ecological imagination." Through this provocation, the audience is provided the possibility of hope and redemption through the adoption of the film's values or “equipment.” As each film’s imagination of climate change plays out, their political attitudes are excavated to demonstrate how the texts perform and portray these values. Specifically, I argue that The Day the Earth Stood Still demonstrates an eco-Marxist orientation, while Interstellar maintains a neoliberal environmental orientation. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To all those who have helped me traverse the treacherous road up thesis mountain, I offer a most heartfelt, “thanks!” Alas, I can finally proclaim that I went “back to school, back to school” and proved to Mom that “I’m not a fool.” Mommy Dearest, I hope you know how instrumental you have been to my success throughout my academic journey; I think all the green teas, chardonnay, and Nutella have finally paid off. To Grandma “Peaches” Nancy, (since you are probably the only family member that will read this) thanks for the beautiful fruit bowls and telling Papa and I to stop debating political ideologies at the dinner table. To the rest my family – Brock, Papa, Dad, Jenna, and Greg – if you prove me wrong and you do read this, you have it here in writing that I will give you $10; but seriously, all the thanks, love y’all. To Aurora, Delilah, Esmeralda, Ten, Gypsy, Rusty, and Gem–even though as far as I can tell you have not yet mastered the ability to read–you are the keepers of my secrets, the anchors to my soul, you are my four-legged support systems, my fluffy little Xanax, your service and love will never be forgotten. I would also like to thank: my dynamic cohort, office mates, and patient friends; Black Phillip and his encouragement to live life deliciously; and the many Starbucks baristas who’ve offered me much needed words of encouragement and always ensured my cup ever-floweth with green tea. With immense gratitude, I would like to acknowledge and thank my marvelous committee members whose positivity and patience were fundamental in seeing this project through to its end. To Dr. Denise Tillery, I’ve deeply appreciated having you on my committee, your insights and expertise on the subject have been fruitful and refreshing. To Dr. David Henry, it was a pleasure to have you on my committee, and even though my thesis was outside of your usual interests in guiding projects about “dead, white, Greeks”–which is perhaps my favorite iv “Dr. Henry” quip from your lectures– our wealth of knowledge provided many useful resources and suggestions to round this project out. To Dr. Emma Bloomfield, all your advice, impromptu Burke “bashes,” and horror film chats have been a highlight along my thesis journey. I’m pleased to have been your “first” thesis committee advisees; here's to finally getting my "kitties in a row.” And last but never the least, to the individual without whom this project would have never come to fruition, and to whom will possess my eternal gratitude: Dr. Donovan Conley. Words cannot express how much your guidance, enduring patience, unwavering support, and constant inspiration has impacted my life. I know advising me has been no “small-sized” job, I thank you for faithfully remaining my academic muse through the years. You are someone I know I can always count on for entertaining my random ideas–scholarly or not; pep talks; reassurance and related forms of social support; appreciating my memes; strategically-delivered criticism; ignoring my movie suggestions and then later recommending them to me; quick check- ins that turn into two-hour conversations about black holes and rhetoric; and so many more things that would probably take me another twenty pages to account for. I came to grad school to refine my writing and critical faculties, and you have played a truly instrumental role in helping me to achieve that. You believed in me when I didn’t believe in myself; I owe you so much more than you’ll ever know, and I truly couldn’t have done any of this without you. All the thanks, of now and always. You’re my boy, Blue. v DEDICATION And here’s to you, Mrs. Robinson. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. iv DEDICATION ................................................................................................................... vi TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. vii CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION ................................................................................1 CHAPTER TWO CONCEPTUAL SETUP: EPIDEICTIC BURKEAN BLAME .........16 The Epideictic Genre .............................................................................................18 “Equipment for Living” – An Epideictic “Strategy” .............................................24 Burke’s Guilt-Redemption Cycle ..........................................................................32 Conclusion .............................................................................................................41 CHAPTER THREE THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL ........................................48 Part One: Epideictic Blame for the “Fallen” (Pollution) .......................................52 Part Two: Path to Purgation/Redemption ..............................................................57 Conclusion .............................................................................................................68 CHAPTER FOUR INTERSTELLAR ..............................................................................74 Part One: Epideictic Blame for the “Fallen” (Pollution) .......................................78 Part Two: Redemption- Praise- Solution(s) ...........................................................87 Conclusion ...........................................................................................................104 CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION ................................................................................111 Future Scholarship ...............................................................................................116 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................119
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Panels Seeking Participants
    Panels Seeking Participants • All paper proposals must be submitted via the Submittable (if you do not have an account, you will need to create one before submitting) website by December 15, 2018 at 11:59pm EST. Please DO NOT submit a paper directly to the panel organizer; however, prospective panelists are welcome to correspond with the organizer(s) about the panel and their abstract. • Only one paper proposal submission is allowed per person; participants can present only once during the conference (pre-conference workshops and chairing/organizing a panel are not counted as presenting). • All panel descriptions and direct links to their submission forms are listed below, and posted in Submittable. Links to each of the panels seeking panelists are also listed on the Panel Call for Papers page at https://www.asle.org/conference/biennial-conference/panel-calls-for-papers/ • There are separate forms in Submittable for each panel seeking participants, listed in alphabetical order, as well as an open individual paper submission form. • In cases in which the online submission requirement poses a significant difficulty, please contact us at [email protected]. • Proposals for a Traditional Panel (4 presenters) should be papers of approximately 15 minutes-max each, with an approximately 300 word abstract, unless a different length is requested in the specific panel call, in the form of an uploadable .pdf, .docx, or .doc file. Please include your name and contact information in this file. • Proposals for a Roundtable (5-6 presenters) should be papers of approximately 10 minute-max each, with an approximately 300 word abstract, unless a different length is requested in the specific panel call, in the form of an uploadable .pdf, .docx, or .doc file.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Fiction
    CLIMATE FICTION Instructor: Christopher A. Walker Course Number: EN/ES 337 Lecture: MW 2:30-3:45 in Miller 319 Office Hours: Mondays 4:00-6:00 (and by appointment) in Miller 216 Mailbox: Miller 216 Email: [email protected] Course Description Contemporary fiction is now investigating the possibilities and limits of story-telling in the era of global climate change. These works, referred to as “climate fiction” or “cli-fi,” explore humanity’s connection to- and impact upon Earth by asking questions such as: what will human and nonhuman communities look like after sea-level rise, desertification, and biodiversity loss remap our planet?; how might species evolve in response to ecological collapse?; what affects— melancholy, despair, hope—will eulogize a lost home-world? Reading cli-fi novels, short stories, poetry, and film, this course will situate our texts within the Environmental Humanities, an interdisciplinary field that combines scientific and cultural discourses about the environment with humanistic concerns for social justice. Working through the narrative conventions of the utopian, dystopian, and apocalyptic genres, we will ask how cli- fi not only narrates impending disaster on a global scale but also strives to imagine a more just future, one that combines environmentalism and social equality. These texts will be paired with excerpts from philosophical and ecocritical writings which will aid our development of the humanistic methodologies needed to analyze and appreciate this new genre. Course Materials Items with an asterisk (*) on reserve in Miller Library. Books to purchase: (Available at The Colby Bookstore) Margaret Atwood, Oryx and Crake (ISBN 978-0-385-72167-7) (2003) * J.
    [Show full text]
  • The Butterfly Phenomena: a Study of Climate Change on Barbara Kingsolver’S Flight Behaviour
    © 2018 JETIR October 2018, Volume 5, Issue 10 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162) The Butterfly phenomena: A Study of Climate Change on Barbara Kingsolver’s Flight Behaviour. Rejani G.S Research Scholar (Ph.D) (Reg.No.18113154012020) S.T Hindu College ,Nagercoil Affiliated to Manonmanium Sundaranar University, Abhishekapatti.Tirunelveli. Abstract Barbara Kingsolver’s Flight Behaviour is a clarion call for the forestalled eco-apocalypse, climate change or global warming .Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, Maggie Gees The Ice People, Jeanette Winterson’s The Stone Gods and many other novels in the same vein are futuristic. Even though there is always imagination in fiction, Flight Behaviour does not focus on the aftermath of any global disaster. Rather it reflects the actuality of climate change and Monarch butterfly migration. It also focuses on the story of a young woman trying to change her life, and a deeply humane account of working people responding to the local effects of the global climate crisis. Kingsolver has carved a career from examining social issues in her novels, from economic inequality to environmentalism. Flight Behaviour portrays the inducement and consequences of climate change that forms the butterfly effect. The paper throws light on the enormous consequence of climate change and the ignorance of reality. Keywords - Climate change, Butterfly phenomenon , Futuristic, Global Warming and Environmentalism. Climate change is the defining challenge of our age. The science is clear, climate change is happening, the impact is real. The time to act is now. -Ban Ki-Moon Climate novel is an emerging literary genre that has caught much attention and popularity in recent years.
    [Show full text]
  • Alexis Wright's Carpentaria and the Swan Book
    Exchanges: The Interdisciplinary Research Journal Climate Fiction and the Crisis of Imagination: Alexis Wright’s Carpentaria and The Swan Book Chiara Xausa Department of Interpreting and Translation, University of Bologna, Italy Correspondence: [email protected] Peer review: This article has been subject to a Abstract double-blind peer review process This article analyses the representation of environmental crisis and climate crisis in Carpentaria (2006) and The Swan Book (2013) by Indigenous Australian writer Alexis Wright. Building upon the groundbreaking work of environmental humanities scholars such as Heise (2008), Clark (2015), Copyright notice: This Trexler (2015) and Ghosh (2016), who have emphasised the main article is issued under the challenges faced by authors of climate fiction, it considers the novels as an terms of the Creative Commons Attribution entry point to address the climate-related crisis of culture – while License, which permits acknowledging the problematic aspects of reading Indigenous texts as use and redistribution of antidotes to the 'great derangement’ – and the danger of a singular the work provided that the original author and Anthropocene narrative that silences the ‘unevenly universal’ (Nixon, 2011) source are credited. responsibilities and vulnerabilities to environmental harm. Exploring You must give themes such as environmental racism, ecological imperialism, and the slow appropriate credit violence of climate change, it suggests that Alexis Wright’s novels are of (author attribution), utmost importance for global conversations about the Anthropocene and provide a link to the license, and indicate if its literary representations, as they bring the unevenness of environmental changes were made. You and climate crisis to visibility.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Participation in a Techno-Scientific Controversy
    PARTICIPATORY GOVERNANCE AND INSTITUTIONAL INNOVATION Participatory Governance and Institutional Innovation [PAGANINI] Contract No. CIT2-CT-2004-505791 . Deliverable Number 16 Work Package 6 _ GM Food THE ROLE OF PARTICIPATION IN A TECHNO-SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY Larry Reynolds and Bronislaw Szerszynski with Maria Kousis and Yannis Volakakis 6th EU Framework Programme for Research and Technology Participatory Governance and Institutional Innovation [PAGANINI] Contract No. CIT2-CT-2004-505791 . Deliverable Number 16 WORK PACKAGE 6 _ GM FOOD THE ROLE OF PARTICIPATION IN A TECHNO-SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY Larry Reynolds and Bronislaw Szerszynski with Maria Kousis and Yannis Volakakis 1 The Paganini Project Focussing on selected key areas of the 6th EU Framework Programme for Research and Technology, PAGANINI investigates the ways in which participatory practices contribute to problem solving in a number of highly contentious fields of EU governance. PAGANINI looks at a particular dynamic cluster of policy areas concerned with what we call “the politics of life”: medicine, health, food, energy, and environment. Under “politics of life” we refer to dimensions of life that are only to a limited extent under human control - or where the public has good reasons to suspect that there are serious limitations to socio-political control and steering. At the same time, “politics of life” areas are strongly connected to normative, moral and value-based factors, such as a sense of responsibility towards the non-human nature, future generations and/or one‟s
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change: How Do We Know We're Not Wrong? Naomi Oreskes
    Changing Planet: Past, Present, Future Lecture 4 – Climate Change: How Do We Know We’re Not Wrong? Naomi Oreskes, PhD 1. Start of Lecture Four (0:16) [ANNOUNCER:] From the Howard Hughes Medical Institute...The 2012 Holiday Lectures on Science. This year's lectures: "Changing Planet: Past, Present, Future," will be given by Dr. Andrew Knoll, Professor of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University; Dr. Naomi Oreskes, Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego; and Dr. Daniel Schrag, Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University. The fourth lecture is titled: Climate Change: How Do We Know We're Not Wrong? And now, a brief video to introduce our lecturer Dr. Naomi Oreskes. 2. Profile of Dr. Naomi Oreskes (1:14) [DR. ORESKES:] One thing that's really important for all people to understand is that the whole notion of certainty is mistaken, and it's something that climate skeptics and deniers and the opponents of evolution really exploit. Many of us think that scientific knowledge is certain, so therefore if someone comes along and points out the uncertainties in a certain scientific body of knowledge, we think that undermines the science, we think that means that there's a problem in the science, and so part of my message is to say that that view of science is incorrect, that the reality of science is that it's always uncertain because if we're actually doing research, it means that we're asking questions, and if we're asking questions, then by definition we're asking questions about things we don't already know about, so uncertainty is part of the lifeblood of science, it's something we need to embrace and realize it's a good thing, not a bad thing.
    [Show full text]
  • Rhetoric for Becoming Otherwise
    The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of the Liberal Arts RHETORIC FOR BECOMING OTHERWISE: LIFE, LITERATURE, GENEALOGY, FLIGHT A Dissertation in English by Abram D. Anders © 2009 Abram D. Anders Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy August 2009 ii The dissertation of Abram D. Anders was reviewed and approved* by the following: Richard M. Doyle Professor of English and Science, Technology and Society Dissertation Advisor Chair of Committee Jeffrey T. Nealon Liberal Arts Research Professor of English Xiaoye You Assistant Professor of English and Asian Studies Robert A. Yarber, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Art Robert R. Edwards Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of English and Comparative Literature Department of English Graduate Director *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School. iii ABSTRACT Rhetoric for Becoming Otherwise begins with the Isocratean premise that thought, speech, writing are best understood as bridges between the already said of language and the emerging circumstances that are the occasions for their production. This argument is rehearsed across a variety of domains and instances following Isocrates exhortation that the rhetorician or practitioner of philosophia can only model the movement of discourse without expecting to provide any “true knowledge” or “absolute theory” for how to encounter the problematics of an endlessly deferred present. As a matter of rhetoric, becoming otherwise is the continually renewed task of creating something new from the resources of language and for the demands of an ever deferred present—Presocratics versus Classicists (Chapter 1). As a matter of health, becoming otherwise is the necessity of overcoming limitation and suffering in order to achieve new norms of health and pursue the ever changing opportunities of a self‐developing capacity for producing new capacities—Normativity versus Normalization (Chapter 2).
    [Show full text]
  • “Hard-Won” Consensus Brent Ranalli
    Ranalli • Climate SCienCe, ChaRaCteR, and the “haRd-Won” ConSenSuS Brent Ranalli Climate Science, Character, and the “Hard-Won” Consensus ABSTRACT: What makes a consensus among scientists credible and convincing? This paper introduces the notion of a “hard-won” consensus and uses examples from recent debates over climate change science to show that this heuristic stan- dard for evaluating the quality of a consensus is widely shared. The extent to which a consensus is “hard won” can be understood to depend on the personal qualities of the participating experts; the article demonstrates the continuing util- ity of the norms of modern science introduced by Robert K. Merton by showing that individuals on both sides of the climate science debate rely intuitively on Mertonian ideas—interpreted in terms of character—to frame their arguments. INTRodUCTIoN he late Michael Crichton, science fiction writer and climate con- trarian, once remarked: “Whenever you hear the consensus of Tscientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results” (Crichton 2003). Reproducibility of results and other methodological criteria are indeed the proper basis for scientific judgments. But Crichton is wrong to say that consensus is irrel- evant. Consensus among scientists serves to certify facts for the lay public.1 Those on the periphery of the scientific enterprise (i.e., policy makers and the public), who don’t have the time or the expertise or the equipment to check results for themselves, necessarily rely on the testimony of those at the center.
    [Show full text]
  • The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Matters
    BSTXXX10.1177/0270467617707079Bulletin of Science, Technology & SocietyPowell 707079research-article2017 Article Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 2016, Vol. 36(3) 157 –163 The Consensus on Anthropogenic © The Author(s) 2017 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Global Warming Matters DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467617707079 10.1177/0270467617707079 journals.sagepub.com/home/bst James Lawrence Powell1 Abstract Skuce et al., responding to Powell, title their article, “Does It Matter if the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Is 97% or 99.99%?” I argue that the extent of the consensus does matter, most of all because scholars have shown that the stronger the public believe the consensus to be, the more they support the action on global warming that human society so desperately needs. Moreover, anyone who knows that scientists once thought that the continents are fixed in place, or that the craters of the Moon are volcanic, or that the Earth cannot be more than 100 million years old, understands that a small minority has sometimes turned out to be right. But it is hard to think of a case in the modern era in which scientists have been virtually unanimous and wrong. Moreover, as I show, the consensus among publishing scientists is demonstrably not 97%. Instead, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015 combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%. Keywords global warming, climate change, consensus, peer review, history of science Introduction Consensus Skuce et al. (2016, henceforth S16), responding to Powell What does consensus in science mean and how can it best be (2016), ask, “Does it matter if the consensus on anthropo- measured? The Oxford English Dictionary (2016) defines genic global warming is 97% or 99.99%?” consensus as “Agreement in opinion; the collective unani- Of course it matters.
    [Show full text]
  • Perceptions of Science in America
    PERCEPTIONS OF SCIENCE IN AMERICA A REPORT FROM THE PUBLIC FACE OF SCIENCE INITIATIVE THE PUBLIC FACE OF SCIENCE PERCEPTIONS OF SCIENCE IN AMERICA american academy of arts & sciences Cambridge, Massachusetts © 2018 by the American Academy of Arts & Sciences All rights reserved. isbn: 0-87724-120-1 This publication is available online at http://www.publicfaceofscience.org. The views expressed in this publication are those held by the contributors and are not necessarily those of the Officers and Members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Please direct inquiries to: American Academy of Arts & Sciences 136 Irving Street Cambridge ma 02138-1996 Telephone: 617-576-5000 Fax: 617-576-5050 Email: [email protected] Web: www.amacad.org CONTENTS Preface v Top Three Takeaways vii Introduction 1 SECTION 1: General Perceptions of Science 4 Confidence in Scientific Leaders Remains Relatively Stable 4 A Majority of Americans Views Scientific Research as Beneficial . 6 . But Many are Concerned about the Pace of Change 7 Americans Express Strong Support for Public Investment in Research 8 Americans Support an Active Role for Science and Scientists in Public Life 10 Scientists Should Play a Major Role in Shaping Public Policy 11 Discussion and Research Considerations 12 SECTION 2: Demographic Influences on General Views of Science 14 Confidence in Scientific Leaders Varies Based on Demographics and Other Factors 14 Higher Educational Attainment Correlates with Positive Perceptions of Science 16 Trust in Scientists Varies Based on Education and Politics 18 Discussion and Research Considerations 20 SECTION 3: Case Studies of Perceptions on Specific Science Topics 22 There is No Single Anti-Science Population .
    [Show full text]
  • Nanoscience, Nanoscientists, and Controversy1
    Chapter 12 Nanoscience, Nanoscientists, and Controversy1 Jason Scott Robert 12.1 Introduction Contemporary life sciences and biotechnology research is controversial. Whether the topic is embryos, evolution, genetics, neuroimaging, pharmaceutical discovery, synthetic biology, or xenotransplantation, the research is subject to public, political, legal, regulatory, clinical, and/or scientific controversy. In some cases, the controversy may not be worth engaging, given the credibility (or, rather, lack thereof) of those who would object. Often, though, those who would object must be taken seriously— and even where the objectors lack credibility, any response to them must itself be serious. These are basic elements of civility in a pluralistic society, and yet they are widely ignored when science and scientists are the subjects of controversy. As a scholar of the life sciences in society, I have tended to pay less attention to the question of generally whether research in chemistry, math, physics, or engineering is as widely deemed to be controversial as is research in biology and biotechnology— except, of course, where that research is oriented toward or undertaken in concert with the life sciences (as with engineering in relation to stem cell biology, or chemistry in relation to directed molecular evolution). But with advances in nanos- cale science and engineering (NSE) research, it is hard to miss the fact that NSE is an exemplar of research in the natural and physical sciences that is controversial both in relation to the life sciences (as expected) but also in its own right. Whether because of the spatial or financial scale of the research, or because of the prospects for immense changes—good and bad—in science, industry, medicine, and society, or for a combination of these or other reasons, NSE research is paradigmatically controversial.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Decision-Making Under Scientific Controversy, Expertise, and the Precautionary Principle Olivier Godard
    Social Decision-Making under Scientific Controversy, Expertise, and the Precautionary Principle Olivier Godard To cite this version: Olivier Godard. Social Decision-Making under Scientific Controversy, Expertise, and the Precaution- ary Principle. C. Joerges, K.-H. Ladeur and E. Vos. Integrating scientific expertise into regulatory decisionmaking - National experiences and European innovations., Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft„ pp.39- 73, 1997. halshs-00624027 HAL Id: halshs-00624027 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00624027 Submitted on 15 Sep 2011 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Published in C. Joerges, K.-H. Ladeur and E. Vos (eds.), Integrating scientific expertise into regulatory decision- making - National experiences and European innovations. Baden-Baden, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 1997, pp. 39-73. Social Decision-Making under Scientific Controversy, Expertise, and the Precautionary Principle Olivier GODARD * Abstract Integrating scientific inputs into the regulatory process is generally attributed to experts. But, environmental issues are often characterised by an all-pervasive uncertainty and scientific and social controversies which make the experts' task difficult. This paper presents the concept of social decision-making under scientific controversy and comes to an examination of the implicit but decisive roles expected from expertise in those contexts.
    [Show full text]