Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
Acidii cation (EPOCA), the German programme
BIOACID and the UK Ocean Acidii cation Research
Programme] are funded it is likely that this com-
munity will contribute a greater body of evidence in
the 5th Assessment Report due after 2012.
The relatively recent and emerging understand-
ing of the nature of ocean acidii cation and its poten-
tial consequences means that it has not achieved the
'pull-through' to policymakers that its nature might
warrant. For example, the risk to marine ecosystems
received little attention in the COP15 negotiations at
Copenhagen. Scientists working on ocean acidii ca-
tion must therefore embrace the challenging task of
communicating their science openly and under-
standably to policy- and decision-makers.
tional structure (depicted in the lower part of Fig.
13.5) by communicating directly and clearly to poli-
cymakers through expert groups and committees
and the formation of a Reference User Group (RUG)
of stakeholders. The pitfalls are numerous as one
tries to communicate complex science to non-spe-
cialists (as indicated on the left of Fig. 13.5) and this
should be avoided.
Communication is a two-way process which only
works when the recipient understands what is
being communicated. Confusion can occur when
there is a lack of clarity in understanding between
two groups or individuals. For instance, policymak-
ers often use the word 'target' in relation to CO
2
emissions reductions; a 'target' is something to aim
at, in the recognition that one might hit it or shoot
below it or above it. However, a scientist might use
the word 'threshold' to describe a point beyond
which changes take place and so perhaps should be
avoided. There could be instances when 'target' and
'threshold' are incorrectly taken to be the same
13.5.2 Communicating complex science to
policymakers
One can circumvent the hierarchical method of dis-
semination that can occur in a complex organiza-
Strategy: Information flow to policymakers
National
EU
International
a multi-pronged approach
INFORMATION
FLOW
POLICY
ECONOMICS
SCIENCE
ENVIRONMENT
Government
Departments/Agencies
Misconstrued
Misinterpreted
Reference User Group
National &
International
Expert Groups
Pressure & Lobby
Groups e.g. NGOs
Generalization
Quality loss
Media, Public
and WWW
Loss of context
Government Scientific
Advisor
Probabilities
become facts
Directors of Research
Councils
Directors of Research
Centres
Laboratory Directors
Research Scientists
Figure 13.5
Schematic illustration of methods of information l ow to policymakers (Turley 1999).
