Lessons from Post‐Normal Science for Climate Science‐Sceptic Debates
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Advanced Review Lessons from post-normal science for climate science-sceptic debates John R. Turnpenny∗ Climate change is a particularly good example of an issue for which the definition of problems, and attempts to resolve them, contain key roles for scientific research, alongside institutions, ideology, and individual beliefs. This can lead to rich empirical questions as to the relative balance of these influences. However, the most visible discussion about the role of scientific knowledge is often a heated and simplistic debate about the details of the science itself. Post-normal science (PNS) is one way to think about the role of science and expertise more generally in addressing problems like climate change. PNS, it is argued, by extending the group of actors feeding expertise of different types into knowledge-making and decision processes, can provide a richer and more in-depth perspective and an extended function of quality control over the process of inquiry. This review introduces the concept of PNS, and some of the responses to it from various quarters. These responses offer valuable insights into the way that scientific expertise is perceived, such as perceptions about why science is used and what science should do, focusing in particular on ‘climate science-sceptic’ debates. By introducing insights from science studies, political science, policy analysis, and human geography alongside PNS, the paper offers potential ways out of such debates, and also ways that PNS may develop in the future. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. How to cite this article: WIREs Clim Change 2012, 3:397–407. doi: 10.1002/wcc.184 INTRODUCTION and includes the effects of institutions, ideology, and individual perceptions and beliefs. Understanding The word is half his that speaks, half his that hears it what roles expertise plays in addressing different [Montaigne] aspects of climate change is an important empirical question. e hear much about the complexity and But instead of enlightening debate and improved Wintractability of certain problems. Climate understanding, the role of expertise is often under- change is particularly notable in this regard: it is stood simplistically, focusing on the details of the prominent on the political agenda, it creates deeply geophysical science underpinning the climate change divisive reactions, and scientific knowledge plays a problem definition (‘climate science’). The internet is particularly important role in defining and addressing alive with argument,1–5 fueled by controversies about the problems surrounding human influence on climate. the hacking of emails from the Climatic Research Unit Different expertise is marshalled at different times at the University of East Anglia in November 2009 and for different purposes and to inform different ideas allegations of scientific malpractice, the 2006 film ‘An about what the problem is and what ought to be Inconvenient Truth,’ and about the so-called ‘hockey done about it. We also know that while expertise stick’ graph (see Box 1 for a summary of the contro- is important, how societies respond to problems is versy). There are also more formal conferences and based on much more than conventional expertise, meetings dedicated to such subjects, like the Interna- tional Conferences on Climate Change, the sixth of ∗Correspondence to: [email protected] which, in summer 2011, was dedicated to ‘Restor- 6 School of Political, Social and International Studies, University of ing the Scientific Method.’ In response to what may East Anglia, Norwich, UK be termed the ‘climate science-sceptic debate,’ in this Volume 3, September/October 2012 © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 397 Advanced Review wires.wiley.com/climatechange brief review, I examine how the concept of post- WHAT IS PNS? normal science (PNS) might help us move on from PNS is a concept which has developed and changed these sorts of debates. PNS is one potential way to over many years, and has been described, used, think about expertise when faced by complex prob- and theorized in multiple ways. While PNS’ origins lems, since it explicitly reflects the multiple actors and may be traced all the way back to a response to multiple types of expertise present. The paper serves Thomas Kuhn’s (1962) concept of ‘normal science,’10 as a review of/introduction to PNS—what it is and criticizing the misuse and misdirection of science for where it came from. It also attempts to take PNS for- economic and other powerful interests,11 PNS in its ward by examining the extent to which the ‘climate familiar form was born during the 1980s, along science-sceptic’ debates reflect or contradict the differ- with concern about highly complex and potentially ent elements of PNS. By relating PNS to scholarship risky issues such as climate change and acid rain. In from science studies, political science, policy analysis, cases where facts are uncertain, values in dispute, and human geography, I suggest ways that PNS may stakes high, and decisions urgent, Funtowicz and developinthefuture. Ravetz12 posited that more was needed than simply The paper proceeds as follows. In the next communicating the results of conventional science section, I introduce the concept of PNS, and review to the awaiting and trusting public. To this end, the different research surrounding it, building on my they suggested distinguishing the characteristics of earlier work with Irene Lorenzoni and Mavis Jones.7 complex issues according to two dimensions: systems I focus particularly on the criticisms of PNS, and uncertainties (i.e., the complexities of the system how these reveal particular insights about the way under consideration, including technical, scientific, that scientific expertise is perceived. In the following managerial aspects) and decision stakes (potential section I apply these insights to the ‘climate science- costs and benefits to concerned parties).12 sceptic’ debate to see what can be learned about it, Representing these dimensions as orthogonal before concluding with how research might respond axes, they delineated three ‘modes of inquiry’ for and move the agenda on. addressing issues, depending on the levels of each dimension. Through such a rating system for the BOX 1 tractability of different issues, different paradigms and methods can be called upon in addressing these. When issues are characterized as high on either dimension, WHAT IS THE ‘HOCKEY STICK’? Funtowicz and Ravetz suggested that an appropriate In the late 1990s, Michael Mann and his col- mode of inquiry is a ‘post-normal science’ where ‘tra- leagues published a graph showing a recon- ditional’ experts are complemented by an ‘extended struction of Northern Hemisphere temperatures peer community’ (EPC) of those affected by or with since 1000 AD.8 This was derived from proxy special knowledge of the issue. Through creative sources like ice cores, tree rings and sediments as dialogue,13 the EPC can contribute ‘extended facts’ well as direct instrumental records. Crucially, it (e.g., lay knowledge, understanding, and unpublished showed a sharp rise in temperature since 1900, materials) to provide a richer and more in-depth per- as compared to relatively little change over the spective and an extended function of quality control preceding centuries, leading the shape to be over the process of inquiry.14–17 What has been the dubbed ‘the hockey stick.’ The process of this response to the challenge of PNS? Very broadly, there reconstruction, which includes complex statisti- have been two: one generally supportive, taking the cal techniques and analytical procedures, was concept and applying and developing it further, and criticized by sceptical voices for the assumptions the other critical for a range of different reasons. involved in deriving temperature from proxy sources, and the statistical techniques, among other aspects. These critiques, and the subse- Broadly Supportive Perspectives on PNS quent rebuttals from the original scientists, have The concept of PNS has been used to frame investiga- appeared at the highest level of U.S. politics. The tion of a wide range of different issues: environmen- criticisms of the ‘hockey stick’ graph are analyzed 15,18 19,20 9 tal pollution, genetically modified organisms, in detail by Demeritt ; for our purposes it is suffi- 21 22 cient to note that many of the critics have strong nature conservation, and atmospheric science. political and ideological motivations, and that Climate change has figured prominently in discus- 21–29 27 much of the debate is focused on the minute sion around PNS, and vice versa, Hulme, for details of analytical techniques. example, noting the wide peer community surround- ing climate change research. PNS has also been used 398 © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Volume 3, September/October 2012 WIREs Climate Change Climate science-sceptic debates to frame discussions about the process of science scientific method,’’ and asserts that ‘‘abandoning the more generally30–32 and propose practical ways of scientific method led to the ‘Climategate’ scandal.’’ doing science differently, such as the application The expressed desire for ‘reclaiming science,’ or the of the NUSAP concept for analyzing different sorts often-invoked phrase ‘sound science’—not just limited of uncertainties—both qualitative and quantitative to responses to PNS9—forms a strong base for this (numeral, unit, spread, assessment, pedigree)—within type of criticism. Shaw45 notes activists using expert any given problem.33,34 There has recently been research results to reinforce