The Political Impact of Technical Expertise Author(S): Dorothy Nelkin Source: Social Studies of Science, Vol
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Political Impact of Technical Expertise Author(s): Dorothy Nelkin Source: Social Studies of Science, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Feb., 1975), pp. 35-54 Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/284554 . Accessed: 20/10/2014 20:36 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Studies of Science. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 128.173.127.127 on Mon, 20 Oct 2014 20:36:22 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SocialStudies of Science, 5 (1975), 35-54 The PoliticalImpact of TechnicalExpertise Dorothy Nelkin Technologiesof speedand power - airports,power generating facilities, highways,dams - are oftena focus of bitteropposition. As these technologiesbecome increasinglycontroversial, scientists, whose expertiseforms the basis of technicaldecisions, find themselves involved in publicdisputes. This 'public'role of sciencehas generatedconcern bothwithin the profession and beyond;for a scientist'sinvolvement in controversialissues may violatethe normsof scientificresearch, but have considerableimpact on the politicalprocess. As scientistsare calledupon to addressa widerrange of controversial policy questions,l 'problemsof politicalchoice [may] becomeburied in debateamong expertsover highly technical alternatives'.2 This paperwill discusssome of the implicationsof the increasing involvementof scientistsin controversialareas. What is the role of expertsin public disputes?How are theyused by variousparties to a controversy,and how do scientistsbehave once involved? Finally, what is theirimpact on thepolitical dynamics of suchdisputes? Author's address: Department of Urban Planning and Development, Cornell University,614 Clark Hall, Ithaca, New York 14850, USA. 1 See discussion of the increased demands for expert decision-makingin Garry Brewer,Politicians, Bureaucratsand the Consultant (New York: Basic Books, 1973). Also, Dean Schooler, Jr.,(in Science, Scientistsand Public Policy [London and New York: The Free Press, 1971]) suggeststhat in the past, scientificinfluence has concentratedin governmententrepreneurial areas such as space exploration,or in policy areas defined in termsof national security.The participationand influenceof scientistshas traditionallybeen ratherminimal in policy areas withredistributive implications, e.g. social policy,transportation, and other issues subject to social conflictand competingpolitical interests.As the public seeks technical solutions to social problems,and as scientiststhemselves become engagedin controversialpublic issues,this pattern is changing. 2 Harvey Brooks, 'ScientificConcepts and CulturalChange', Daedalus, 94 (Winter1965), 68. 35 This content downloaded from 128.173.127.127 on Mon, 20 Oct 2014 20:36:22 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 36 DorothyNelkin THE ROLE OF EXPERTS Scientistsplay an ambivalentrole in controversialpolicy areas. They are bothindispensible and suspect.Their technical knowledge is widely regardedas a sourceof power. The capacity of science to authorizeand certifyfacts and picturesof reality [is] a potentsource of politicalinfluence.3 Yet expertsare resentedand feared.While the relianceon expertsis growing,we see a revivalof Jacksonianhostility toward expertise, and of the beliefthat common sense is an adequatesubstitute for technical knowledge.4 The authorityof expertiserests on assumptionsabout scientific rationality;interpretations and predictionsmade by scientistsare judged to be rationalbecause they are based on 'objective' data gatheredthrough rational procedures, and evaluatedby the scientific communitythrough a rigorouscontrol process. Science, therefore, is widelyregarded as a meansby whichto de-politicizepublic issues. The increasinguse of expertiseis often associatedwith the 'end of ideology';politics, it is claimed,will become less important as scientists areable to defineconstraints and provide rational policy choices.5 Policy makersfind that it is efficientand comfortableto define decisionsas technicalrather than political. Technical decisions are made by definingobjectives, considering available knowledge, and analyzing the most effectiveways of reachingthese objectives.Debate over technicalalternatives need not weighconflicting interests, but only the relativeeffectiveness of variousapproaches for resolving an immediate problem.Thus, scientificknowledge is used as a 'rational'basis for substantiveplanning, and as a meansof defendingthe legitimacyof specificdecisions. Indeed, the viabilityof bureaucraciesdepend so 3 Yaron Ezrahi, 'The Political Resources of American Science', Science Studies, 1 (1971), 121. See also Don K. Price, Governmentand Science (New York: New York UniversityPress, 1954). 4 For a discussionof the historicaltradition of resentmentof experts-inthe United States see RichardHofstadter, Anti-intellectualism in AmericanLife (New York: Knopf, 1962). 5 See Robert Lane, 'The Decline of Politics and Ideology in a Knowledgeable Society', American Sociological Review, 31 (October 1966), 649-62, and Daniel Bell, The End of Ideology (Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1960). This content downloaded from 128.173.127.127 on Mon, 20 Oct 2014 20:36:22 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PoliticalImpact of TechnicalExpertise 37 much on the controland monopolyof knowledgein a specificarea, that this may become a dominantobjective.6 Recent technological disputes,however, suggest that access to knowledgeand expertisehas itselfbecome a sourceof conflict,as variousgroups realize its growing implicationsfor political choice. The past decade has been remarkablefor the developmentof 'advocacypolitics';7 consumer advocates, planning advocates, health care advocatesand environmentaladvocates have mobilizedaround diverseissues. Key slogansare 'accountability','participation', and 'demystification'.These groups share common concernswith the 'misuseof expertise',the 'political use' of scientistsand professionals, and the implicationsof expertdecision making for public action. Table 1 presentssome statements of theseconcerns by variousgroups: radical scientistswho have organizedto develop 'science for the people'; consumeradvocates concerned with corporate accountability; advocacy plannerswho assistcommunities in expressingtheir local needs; and environmentalists and health professionalswho demand 'demystificationof medicine'. Their criticismreflects a dilemma.The complexityof public decisionsseems to requirehighly specialized and esotericknowledge, and thosewho controlthis knowledge have considerablepower. Yet democraticideology suggests that people must be able to influence policydecisions that affect their lives. This dilemmahas provokeda numberof proposalsfor better distribution of technicalinformation; expertise,it is argued,is a politicalresource and mustbe availableto communitiesas well as to corporations,utilities or developers.8The 6 See discussionin Michel Crozier, The Stalled Society (New York: Viking Press, 1973), Chapter 3. A vividexample of the'importanceof this tendencyto monopolize knowledge occurred duringthe 'energycrisis' with the realization that the large oil companies had nearlyexclusive knowledge on the state of oil reserves. 7 I am using this term to describe a phenomenon that Orion White and Gideon Sjoberg call 'mobilization politics', in 'The EmergingNew Politics in America',M. D. Hancock and Gideon Sjoberg (eds.), Politics in the Post Welfare State (New York: Columbia UniversityPress, 1972), 23. 8 Note forexample the systemof 'scientificadvocacy' proposedby JohnW. Gofman and ArthurR. Tamplin,Poisoned Power (Emmaus,Penn.: Rodale Press, 1971). A similarsystem is suggestedby Donald Geesaman and Dean Abrahamson in 'Forensic Science - A Proposal', Science and Public Affairs(Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists),29 (March 1973), 17. Thomas Reiner has proposed a system of communitytechnical services in 'The Planner as a Value Technician: Two Classes of Utopian Constructsand Their Impact on Planning',in H. Wentworth This content downloaded from 128.173.127.127 on Mon, 20 Oct 2014 20:36:22 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 38 DorothyNelkin 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 - Q 0 0 - 0 0 A .z +..- (4.4 > ts 'O 0. 41 0 0 0. -Q0 I.. 0 0 o m 0 0 S. Q 0 0 > 0 10 r +..- 0 0 0 bo ce 0 O E 0 0 - C- 0 'b-0 =1 w05 laU 0 -;a> > CA x Z > 0 u M 0 0 ce m $-.6 0A q) 0 w >' = - w s.4 0 bo 1 > +_1 0 > bo O ) """'= 0 0 O 0 uM bo U O 0 0 0 0 ce -6 O 0 =1 ce CA 0 ce 0 0 0 > U 0 > m mu ce 0 0 > 0 ce 0 U O 0 u 0 0 ce ce =1 ce 0 0 0 cc ceZ bo ce ce 0 - 0 = 0 't C- 0 - M ce C-4 Ei =1 0 0 U 0 0 bo 0 .5 - O 'tj =1 0 O '--4 I.. r. +.' - 0 0 -- 0 EL ce 0 lt 0. t ce 0 ce 0 ce q) s.. r. O bo r. 0 '- '= ce 0 0 .0 M ce +-I 0 ce O > 1 ce r. 0 ce 0 COA ce u 0 lt 0 0 ce .0 0 ce 0 m ce 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 r. 0 0 ce 0 7a ce 0 > ce 1-. O u = +-Ice = -+-I0 t3 .6 I.. m .4 0 0 - Q 0 +_1r. Z; r. 0 0 1.4 w - 0 0 ce 0 ce 0 ce 0 0 : 0 x - 0 0 0 0 -W 0 C4 ':z O O : lt c- +-, 0 0 +_1 Q. CA 0. =1 +- gL This content downloaded from 128.173.127.127 on Mon, 20 Oct 2014 20:36:22 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions -z-'u-liticalImpact of TechnicalExpertise 39 0 0 ce 0 0 0. 41 o0 0 0 00 m 0 = 0 w : >G r. " C'sO '... 4) 0 0 ci CA 0 .0 0 ce 7; t4 4) 0 +- 'M.0 4) 0 : .0 r. 0 0 'o ce 4)6., C'S 0 0 05 0 00 ce 0 . m Cj ce C." 0 ce ce 4) ci C's 0 4) 4) 0 0 04 0 ce E 4.o C's ce z ce 00 ce ce 0 cj s. r" 0 O. -4. 4) CA =1 Ac" > ct 4)00 q - ci -Z ce14 ce ci C-,Sr. s. =1 .- 0 lw 0. ce 0 .- .,= ce ce = 0 7EL >, oo 00 C's CJ W ce 00 0 C'S ce >, C's 0 0 0 0 ce 0 --V C'3 0.