Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
Criteria for determining the roles of science
in policy, politics and public affairs
Tornado Politics
Abortion Politics
Is the decision context characterised by
both values consensus and low uncertainty?
yes
no
Directly
connected to
policy?
Reduce
scope of policy
choice?
yes
no
yes
no
Science
arbiter
Pure
scientist
Issue
advocate
Honest
broker
Figure 8.1 Possible roles for scientists and their representations in modern societies
Roger Pielke (2007) identifies four available roles for scientists. As individuals they would play these
roles variably over time, depending on the situation. The 'pure scientist' provides information with
no concern for its utility in politics or public life. The 'science arbiter', by contrast, presents the full
suite of evidence potentially relevant to the available policy options. They also help decision-makers
identify the best option in light of agreed values and possible resource constraints. In the context
of 'abortion politics' situations, the 'issue advocate' makes arguments for just one course of action
that follows from available scientific findings. Here science and politics are connected overtly and
organically: the scientists must justify a particular 'is-ought' connection. Finally, the 'honest broker'
presents information about the pros and cons of all available policy choices, without advocating
for any one. These options may embody a wide range of value positions. Note that Pielke is not
making any assumptions about whether or not citizens get a say in what scientists do research on
(an 'upstream' consideration) or how they do it (a 'mid-stream' consideration). Instead, his focus is
on how scientists relate to 'downstream' issues of what practical actions follow for citizens and their
political representatives from science's insights.
'good science' as a weapon. A key lesson for politicians and publics resulting
from the two 'gates' is that they need to better understand what 'post-normal
science' can - and cannot - do. The real issue is not that a few leading scien-
tists 'played politics', but that others have used climate science to avoid the
difficult work of persuading the rest of us that their interests are our interests.
Arguably, the most profound questions about global climate change
today are non-scientific ones. For instance, do we really need a binding global
agreement like the Kyoto Protocol or should we aim for a plethora of
local/regional/national solutions? To answer a question like this we need the
widest possible range of ideas, plans and arguments across the full spectrum
of extant communicative genres - art, literature, newspapers, current affairs
magazines, cinema and so on. Ideally, we should approach them with an atti-
tude of positive scepticism, rather than the negative scepticism (cynicism) of
many climate change contrarians. Ultimately, we need to recognise that dif-
ficult decisions about how to respond to climate change, and also other
biophysical 'realities', oblige us to first debate options. More than most
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search