DOCSLIB.ORG

Making Sense of Science for Policy Under Conditions of Complexity and Uncertainty

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Making Sense of Science for Policy Under Conditions of Complexity and Uncertainty Science Advice for Policy by European Academies MAKING SENSE OF SCIENCE FOR POLICY UNDER CONDITIONS OF COMPLEXITY AND UNCERTAINTY Evidence Review Report No. 6 This Evidence Review Report has been produced under the auspices of the SAPEA Consortium, as a deliverable under Grant Agreement 737432 “Science Advice for Policy by European Academies” (SAPEA) that was signed by the Consortium and the European Commission on 22 November 2016. The text of this work is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited. The licence is available at: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0. Images are not covered by this licence. A list of the experts who contributed to the report is available in Annex 7. In accordance with Article 35, paragraph 1 of the aforementioned Grant Agreement, the Consortium identified all relevant interests of the experts requested to contribute to the Evidence Review Report, assessed whether an interest constituted a conflict of interests, and took — where relevant — measures to exclude that an interest could compromise or be reasonably perceived as compromising the impartiality or objectivity of the report. Further information about SAPEA’s working processes are available at www.sapea.info/guidelines. The information, facts and opinions set out in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Commission. The SAPEA Consortium is not responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained in this report by anyone, including the European Union institutions and bodies or any person acting on their behalf. This report can be viewed online at: www.sapea.info/making-sense-of-science ISBN - 978-3-9820301-3-5 DOI 10.26356/MASOS SAPEA, Science Advice for Policy by European Academies. (2019). Making sense of science for policy under conditions of complexity and uncertainty. Berlin: SAPEA. https://doi.org/10.26356/MASOS PUBLISHER CONTACT SAPEA SAPEA Communications Office c/o acatech 13 Rue d’Egmont Pariser Platz 4a Brussels 1000 | Belgium 10117 Berlin | Germany [email protected] Making sense of science for policy under conditions of complexity and uncertainty Informs the European Commission Group of Chief Scientific Advisors’ Scientific Opinion 7 (forthcoming) 1 Version history Version Date Summary of changes 2019.1.0 09 July 2019 First published version 2019.1.1 01 August 2019 First printed version. Corrected minor typos 2 About SAPEA SAPEA (Science Advice for Policy by European Academies) brings together outstanding expertise in engineering, humanities, medicine, natural and social sciences from over 100 academies, young academies and learned societies across Europe. SAPEA is part of the European Commission’s Scientific Advice Mechanism. Together with the Group of Chief Scientific Advisors, we provide independent scientific advice to European Commissioners to support their decision-making. We also work to strengthen connections between Europe’s academies and Academy Networks, and to stimulate debate in Europe about the role of evidence in policymaking. The Evidence Review Report informs the GCSA’s Scientific Opinion on the topic (forthcoming), which will be available here: http://ec.europa.eu/research/sam/index.cfm?pg=science Funded through the EU’s Horizon 2020 programme, the SAPEA consortium comprises Academia Europaea (AE), All European Academies (ALLEA), the European Academies’ Science Advisory Council (EASAC), the European Council of Academies of Applied Sciences, Technologies and Engineering (Euro-CASE), and the Federation of European Academies of Medicine (FEAM). For further information about SAPEA, visit www.sapea.info 3 Table of Contents 3 ABOUT SAPEA 7 FOREWORD 10 PREFACE 12 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 18 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 21 CHAPTER 2: SCIENCE AS A SOURCE OF ADVICE FOR POLICYMAKING 21 2.1 The purpose of science for policymaking 25 2.2 The relevance of scientific expertise for policymaking 27 2.3 Complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity: three conditions of scientific knowledge 27 2.3.1 Complexity 29 2.3.2 Scientific uncertainty 34 2.3.3 Socio-political ambiguity 36 CHAPTER 3: WHAT CAN SCIENCE OFFER TO POLICYMAKING? THE POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTION OF SCIENCE, EVIDENCE AND KNOWLEDGE 36 3.1 Science advice in contemporary societies 37 3.2 Conditions: science as a form of knowledge 41 3.3 Scientific evidence: what constitutes ‘good’ evidence 45 3.4 Plurality of knowledge beyond scientific information and evidence 46 3.5 Dealing with normative issues and assumptions: knowledge, interests and values 48 3.6 Process: science as advice to policy 50 3.7 Challenges: dissent, ignorance and uncertainty 54 CHAPTER 4: USING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IN POLICYMAKING CONTEXTS 54 4.1 The function of scientific evidence in policymaking 57 4.2 The needs of policymakers: a classification of functions of science for policymaking 58 4.2.1 Enlightenment 59 4.2.2 Orientation 59 4.2.3 Designing and evaluating strategies 60 4.2.4 Integration 60 4.2.5 Co-creation 61 4.3 Heuristics and frames in dealing with complex and uncertain information 61 4.3.1 Cognitive heuristics and biases 66 4.3.2 Technical and issue biases 69 4.3.3 The effects of framing 71 4.4 Communicating science and uncertainty 79 CHAPTER 5: THE POTENTIAL FOR IMPROVING THE USE OF SCIENTIFIC ADVICE FOR POLICYMAKING 79 5.1 Translating scientific evidence into policy-relevant science advice 83 5.2 Wicked problems, post-normal science and knowledge quality assessment 4 Table of Contents 86 5.3 Guidelines for integrating uncertainty into policy advice 87 5.3.1 The Guidance approach of the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency 88 5.3.2 Sensitivity auditing 89 5.3.3 NUSAP 90 5.4 Guidelines for taking potential social impact into account 93 5.5 Guidelines for integrating different types of knowledge into the policy process 96 5.6 Guidelines for integrating values in evidence-informed decision-making 99 5.7 Building a transdisciplinary approach for designing a working interface between expertise and policies 99 5.7.1 Emerging design principles for the ‘working interface’ 100 5.7.2 Trustworthiness 101 5.7.3 Independence 102 5.7.4 Transparency 103 5.7.5 Inclusiveness, accessibility and responsiveness 104 5.7.6 Deliberation 104 5.7.7 Rigour 105 5.7.8 Precaution 106 5.7.9 Responsibility 107 5.7.10 Democracy 108 5.7.11 Implications 108 5.8 Possibilities: the European landscape for science advice 111 5.9 The landscape of science advisory mechanisms 118 CHAPTER 6: LESSONS LEARNED 118 6.1 Basic insights from the report 124 6.2 Lessons for the organisation of scientific advice to policymaking on the European level 126 6.3 Science-policy-society interface within a European framework 130 CHAPTER 7: REFERENCES 158 ANNEX 1: ADDRESSING THE SCOPING QUESTIONS 167 ANNEX 2: BACKGROUND TO THE REPORT 169 ANNEX 3: LITERATURE SEARCH STRATEGY STATEMENT 171 ANNEX 4: GLOSSARY OF KEY DEFINITIONS AND TERMS 178 ANNEX 5: LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 180 ANNEX 6: LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES 181 ANNEX 7: WORKING GROUP MEMBERS 182 ANNEX 8: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 5 6 Foreword In the twenty-first century, we face extreme global challenges like climate change, population growth and widespread pollution, as well as contending with major change brought about by technological advances. As a result, science advice has consistently come to be regarded as a vital element in the overall evidence considered by policymakers. At the same time, policymakers are striving to make sense of scientific evidence that is most certainly complex, multifaceted and, quite often, at the very limits of what is known scientifically. It is against this backdrop that the European Group of Chief Scientific Advisers (GCSA) decided to address the question of how to provide good science advice to European Commission policymakers. SAPEA was delighted to be asked to undertake a comprehensive evidence review, which informs the Scientific Opinion of the GCSA. Both reports are published simultaneously. Making sense of science for policy under conditions of complexity and uncertainty is the sixth Evidence Review Report to be published by the SAPEA consortium, an integral part of the European Scientific Advice Mechanism. In drafting this report, SAPEA formed an outstanding working group of European experts from a variety of disciplines, backgrounds and countries. All were determined to bring together the many schools of thought on the topic, as well as their extensive practical experience in science advice, and to reach a position of consensus. Their success in this endeavour is reflected in this Evidence Review Report, which highlights the unique role played by science in effective policymaking. We are confident that the report and its summaries will be useful to policymakers in Europe, and beyond. We would like to thank everyone involved, and express our sincere gratitude to those who have contributed directly to the report, above all, the members of the Working Group and its excellent Chair, Professor Ortwin Renn. Professor Sierd Cloetingh Chair of the SAPEA Board, 2018-2019 President of Academia Europaea, 2014-2020 (Lead Academy for Making sense of science for policy under conditions of complexity and uncertainty) 7 8 Key to the report All terms underlined are defined in Annex 4. All abbreviations used are listed in Annex 5. 9 Preface Making sense of science for policy is an unusual title for an evidence review report. The term ‘sense-making’ is clearly related to interpretation and cannot be covered without reference to individual or social judgements. In short, what makes sense to one person may not make any sense at all to another. While there are, in each society, shared understandings of what certain phenomena mean, there is no universal arbiter who would be able to distinguish between ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ sense-making. What is more, the nature of what science can offer to policymakers depends on the basic understanding and shared concepts of mandate, validity, reliability and relevance of scientific statements in the respective policy arena.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Science, Technology, Policy Fellowship Program Step Into Our Community and Shape Science for Society!
    STeP Science, Technology, Policy Fellowship Program Step into our community and shape science for society! A LANDMARK PROGRAM OF THE INTER-AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH (IAI) 2021 IAI WHO WE ARE The Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI) is an intergovernmental organization supported by 19 countries in the Americas, dedicated to pursuing the principles of scientific excellence, international cooperation, capacity building, and the full and open exchange of scientific information to increase the understanding of global change phenomena and their social-economic implications. The IAI enables a well-informed, inclusive and sustainable America, which collaboratively meets the challenges posed by global change by supporting flexible science-based policies and actions. History of the IAI In 1992, 12 nations of the Americas came together in Montevideo, Uruguay to establish the IAI. The 12 governments, in the Declaration of Montevideo, called for the Institute to develop the best possible international coordination of scientific and economic research of global change in the Americas. Since then, 7 additional nations have acceded to the treaty, and the IAI has now 19 parties in the Americas. IAI INTER-AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, POLICY FELLOWSHIP The Science, Technology, Policy (STeP) Fellowship Program is an innovative landmark program of the IAI to enhance human and institutional capacities in IAI member countries and to support the provision of expert scientific advice to policy makers for the development of public policy relevant to global change. Fellows in the STeP program are placed at host government or private organizations to engage first-hand with policy and decision-makers and facilitate the uptake of scientific knowledge into policy processes.
    [Show full text]
  • Request for Information to Improve Federal Scientific Integrity Policies (86 FR 34064)
    July 27, 2021 Office of Science and Technology Policy Executive Office of the President Eisenhower Executive Office Building 1650 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, DC 20504 Submitted electronically to [email protected] Re: Request for Information to Improve Federal Scientific Integrity Policies (86 FR 34064) The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), Association of American Universities (AAU), Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU), and Council on Governmental Relations (COGR), collectively the “Associations,” appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to help improve the effectiveness of Federal scientific integrity policies in enhancing public trust in science. The Associations strongly support the efforts of the White House in addressing issues of federal scientific integrity and public trust in science. We further appreciate the swift issuance of the Presidential Memorandum on Restoring Trust in Government Through Scientific Integrity and Evidence-Based Policymaking and establishment of the Scientific Integrity Task Force. These actions seek to formalize and standardize scientific integrity through an all-of-government approach. Protecting the integrity of science and ensuring the use of evidence in policymaking should be a national priority across administrations. These efforts come at a critical time for the United States. Public trust in federal science has been shaken by anti-science rhetoric, lack of transparency, and questions about the integrity of science conducted and supported by the federal government. At the same time, building and maintaining trust in this science has never been more important as we confront continuing threats, including a global pandemic and climate change.
    [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]
  • Lessons from the History of UK Science Policy
    Lessons from the History of UK Science Policy August 2019 2 Science Policy History Foreword The British Academy is the UK’s national body for the humanities and social sciences. Our purpose is to deepen understanding of people, societies and cultures, enabling everyone to learn, progress and prosper. The Academy inspires, supports and promotes outstanding achievement and global advances in the humanities and social sciences. We are a fellowship of over 1000 of the most outstanding academics, an international community of leading experts focused on people, culture and societies, and are the voice for the humanities and social sciences.1 The British Academy aims to use insights from the past and the present to help shape the future, by influencing policy and affecting change in the UK and overseas. Given this, the Academy is well-placed to bring humanities and social science insight from the past into policymaking for the present and the future. One way to do this is in using historical insights to inform policymaking – ‘looking back to look forward’. To support these efforts, the Academy’s public policy team in collaboration with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, has undertaken a new programme of work on policy histories. The policy histories series develop historical analyses for individual policy areas. These analyses are used to provide: • a structured, rigorous and objective account of the history of a given policy area and the significance of key milestones in context, • an informed basis for analysis and insights from the timelines as well as dialogue and discussion about what history can tell us about the future.
    [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]
  • What Is a Science Diplomat?
    The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 15 (2020) 409-423 brill.com/hjd What Is a Science Diplomat? Lorenzo Melchor Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology (FECYT), Madrid, Spain; former FECYT Science Adviser in the Spanish Embassy in London, United Kingdom [email protected] Received: 22 May 2020; revised: 4 July 2020; accepted: 21 July 2020 Summary The COVID-19 crisis has shown how countries initially responded to a global chal- lenge on their own, instead of relying on a multilateral science diplomacy — based response. Although, science diplomacy has received great attention for the past de- cade, its meaning and the nature of the diverse practitioners involved remain elusive. Science diplomacy is a transboundary field sitting across national borders, policy frameworks and stakeholders of all natures and professional backgrounds. But what is a science diplomat? What science diplomacy roles formally exist? Who can become a science diplomat? What knowledge and skills are required? This practitioner’s essay proposes a typology of science diplomacy practitioners who bring science, technology, innovation, foreign policy and the international political system altogether closer in either institutionalised or non-institutionalised roles, and it also provides guidance for pursuing a career in science diplomacy. These science diplomats may promote na- tional competitiveness but also facilitate multilateral responses to global challenges. Keywords science diplomacy – science diplomat – science counsellor – science attaché – science adviser – science advice – science-policy interface – knowledge diplomacy – COVID-19 © Lorenzo Melchor, 2020 | doi:10.1163/1871191X-bja10026 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0Downloaded license. from Brill.com10/01/2021 11:43:18AM via free access 410 Melchor 1 Introduction1 The COVID-19 outbreak has caused a profound global public health and socio- economic crisis.
    [Show full text]
  • Advancing Science Communication.Pdf
    SCIENCETreise, Weigold COMMUNICATION / SCIENCE COMMUNICATORS Scholars of science communication have identified many issues that may help to explain why sci- ence communication is not as “effective” as it could be. This article presents results from an exploratory study that consisted of an open-ended survey of science writers, editors, and science communication researchers. Results suggest that practitioners share many issues of concern to scholars. Implications are that a clear agenda for science communication research now exists and that empirical research is needed to improve the practice of communicating science. Advancing Science Communication A Survey of Science Communicators DEBBIE TREISE MICHAEL F. WEIGOLD University of Florida The writings of science communication scholars suggest twodominant themes about science communication: it is important and it is not done well (Hartz and Chappell 1997; Nelkin 1995; Ziman 1992). This article explores the opinions of science communication practitioners with respect to the sec- ond of these themes, specifically, why science communication is often done poorly and how it can be improved. The opinions of these practitioners are important because science communicators serve as a crucial link between the activities of scientists and the public that supports such activities. To intro- duce our study, we first review opinions as to why science communication is important. We then examine the literature dealing with how well science communication is practiced. Authors’Note: We would like to acknowledge NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center for provid- ing the funds todothis research. We alsowant tothank Rick Borcheltforhis help with the collec - tion of data. Address correspondence to Debbie Treise, University of Florida, College of Journalism and Communications, P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Policy on Scientific Integrity
    وزارة اﻟﺘﻌﻠﯿﻢ MINISTRY OF EDUCATION ﺟـﺎﻣﻌﺔ اﻟﺪﻣـﺎم UNIVERSITY OF DAMMAM اﻟﻤﺠﻠﺲ اﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ THE SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL Policy on Scientific Integrity Part I Rules & Regulations Policy on Scientific Integrity 2 Table of Contents Article Pages # Introduction 4 Definition of Scientific Misconduct in Research & 4 Scientific Studies General Rules of Scientific Integrity 5 Prevention of Scientific Misconduct in Research & 10 Scientific Studies Violations of Scientific Integrity 11 Management of Possible Scientific Misconduct 13 Record Retention 14 Applicability 15 General Definitions 15 Acknowledgements 22 Appendices 22 NSTIP Rules of Scientific Integrity 22 3 Policy on Scientific Integrity 1. Introduction The University of Dammam (UOD) espouses to maintain the highest standards of research ethics and scientific integrity. To that end, UOD has developed a series of policies and associated initiatives to promote a culture of scientific integrity and research ethics in the conduct of all aspects of its research mission. This commitment includes programs to educate all institutional members of such standards and to monitor the conduct of all scientific endeavors. This Policy for Scientific Integrity consists of four parts. They are: Part I: Rules and Regulations Part II: Rules for Scientific Publications, Authorship and Copyrights Part III: Research Conflict of Commitment and Conflict of Interest Part IV: Procedures for Evaluation and Management of Scientific Misconduct and Research Conflict of Commitment & Conflict of Interest In their collective, these parts articulate the institutional guidelines for proper scientific conduct and provides a detailed description of the institution’s management of any potential aberration to that standard. 2. Definition of Misconduct in Scientific Research Integrity Misconduct in research and scientific studies means fabrication, falsification, and/or plagiarism, in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.
    [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]
  • Scientific Controversies: Authentic and Contrived [Post-Print]
    Trinity College Trinity College Digital Repository Faculty Scholarship 2017 Scientific Controversies: Authentic and Contrived [post-print] Mark P. Silverman Trinity College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/facpub Part of the Physical Sciences and Mathematics Commons Science & Education 26 (3) (2017) 397-405 DOI 10.1007/s11191-017-9886-2 The published article is available at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-017-9886-2 Scientific Controversies: Authentic and Contrived M P Silverman, G A Jarvis Professor of Physics Trinity College, Hartford CT 06106 USA Email: [email protected] Web: mpsilverman.com Review of David Harker (2015) Creating Scientific Controversies: Uncertainty and Bias in Science and Society, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK. ISBN: 9781107706903, 266 pages, price (PB): $28.99 (paperback) 1 Characteristics of Real Science and Real Scientific Controversy Science is more of a journey than a destination. And, as to be expected of any journey taken by diverse travellers to an unexplored place, there may arise disagreements over how to get there, what is seen, and what it all means. If the place is relatively unimportant and the number of travellers few, the discord rarely spreads far. But if the destination is important, the travellers are many, and the outcome of getting there (or not) is consequential, disagreements can escalate into a broadly sweeping controversy with a lot at stake. Some 25 years ago, I had the pleasure of contributing an invited paper (M P Silverman, 1992, “Raising Questions: Philosophical Significance of Controversy in Science”, Science & Education 1: 163-179) to the inaugural volume of this journal on the provocative topic of the significance of controversy in science.
    [Show full text]
  • Science Metrics Initiative
    Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences Science of Science and Innovation Policy: A Prospectus September, 2006 Introduction The Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE) at the National Science Foundation (NSF) aims to develop the knowledge, theories, data, tools, and human capital needed to cultivate a new Science of Science and Innovation Policy (SciSIP). Science and innovation policy discussions are frequently based upon past practice or data trends that may be out of date or have limited relevance to the current situation. Traditional models available for informing investment policies are often static, unidirectional and not developed for domain-specific applications. Past investments in basic scientific research have had an enormous impact on innovation, economic growth and societal well-being. However, there is modest capability of predicting how future investments will yield the most promising and important opportunities. SBE’s SciSIP activities will develop the foundations of an evidence-based platform from which policymakers and researchers may assess the impacts of the nation’s scientific and engineering enterprise, and improve their understanding of its dynamics and predict outcomes. Parallel research and data development will help answer pressing questions, such as: What are the critical elements of creativity and innovation? What are the likely futures of the technical workforce and what is its response to different forces of change? What is the impact of globalization on creativity and productivity in the science and engineering fields? Are there significantly different outcomes from federal and private investments in R&D and innovative activities? How does state support for public universities influence the national innovation system? Economic models offer guidance to Federal Reserve Board officials as they set interest rates, even when they encounter conflicting policy goals.
    [Show full text]