Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
so, these dramatic interventions by scientists are relatively rare, compared to the
more mundane everyday use of science in society. Assessment regimes depend on
the application of scientifi c research at the project and strategic levels to the pre-
diction of the potential impacts of human activities on natural systems over
extended periods. The policy process and legal system demand a great deal from
science and in most instances, these demands violate the principles of credible
scientifi c prediction.
3
The most common mistake is to confuse scientifi c explanation and scientifi c
prediction. While scientists are often in a position to explain what is occurring at
a particular point in time in, for instance, an aquatic ecosystem, they cannot scien-
tifi cally predict what will occur if the system conditions are changed. Such prediction
is only possible in a closed system where external perturbations can be controlled.
In most instances, the science used in environmental assessment is not the 'normal
science' of the traditional physics laboratory or ecological experiment, but a form
of professional consultancy. In these cases of professional consultancy or 'post-
normal science', values and framing assumptions, exert a signifi cant infl uence over
the results.
4
Andrew Stirling (1999) warns that while there is a stunning array of
hybrid techniques including risk assessment, cost-benefi t analysis and multi-criteria
analysis, 'a proliferation of candidate understandings is not necessarily a sign of
imminent enlightenment . . . many of the analytic approaches aspire to develop a
nice, clean 'analytical fi x' for the messy (and intrinsically political) business of
decision-making on sustainability'. These techniques are not scientifi c in the con-
ventional sense of the word; rather they are hybrid approaches that represent an
'uneasy marriage' between science and policy.
5
To put it bluntly, the mere fact that
a scientist is speaking or contributing to an environmental assessment does not make
the fi ndings scientifi c.
In broad terms, the sources of uncertainty regarding environmental decision
making are the result of
6
:
1. the resilience of ecosystems and the fact that it is rarely possible to identify
where their thresholds lie;
2. the uncertainty regarding the value of changes to ecosystems, both at the intrin-
sic level and with regards the functions and service they supply to human
systems; and
3. the uncertainty regarding the future supply of ecosystem functions.
It is misleading to suggest that the problems related to the role of science in the
policy process simply represent a crisis of overconfi dence (Jasanoff and Wynne,
1998). In many instances, the political struggle for power and infl uence is insepa-
rable from the science.
7
Science becomes an instrument in the pursuit of power, and
decisions informed by interests and values are given a polished veneer of objectivity
through the selective framing of studies and through the partial revelation of
fi ndings. The myth that is perpetuated in this process is that science involves
the production of certain truth, whereas in practice, scientifi c research often
generates greater complexity by highlighting more precisely the limits of our
knowledge.
Scientifi c practice is a systematic and rigorous analysis of the natural world, but
the legitimacy of a given policy intervention or environmental assessment requires
science to be embedded in a much broader process. Ultimately the challenge is that
