Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
its representations are used by actors outside science. I argued that, in many
situations, existing procedures of scientific self-governance have sufficient
potential to ensure the integrity of these representations. However, in other
situations it is, I argued, appropriate that actors lacking scientific creden-
tials play a role in the creation of scientific knowledge. For the most part,
though, lay involvement in science is best focussed 'upstream' and 'down-
stream', rather than 'mid-stream'. In the former case, external measures to
ensure public involvement have been necessary since the 1970s. However,
because these are often
ad hoc
, I concluded the chapter with some reflec-
tions on how to ensure systematic public engagement with the wider body
of science at any given moment in a society's history. These suggestions
for change were predicated on the normative arguments contained in a
republican political philosophy. These arguments are, I readily admit, rather
idealistic. They don't suggest an end to the epistemic dependence that's
an existential fact of twenty-first-century life, but they do suggest new pos-
sibilities for redressing the potentially acute imbalances between scientific
experts and lay consumers of scientific knowledge. What would it mean
to reform current regulations so that
all
the major institutions producing
information, knowledge and signs were governed according to republican
principles? Now
there's
a question.
ENDNOTES
1
Indeed, at the time of writing, the huge independent inquiry into malpractice
in the UK press issued its report. The Leveson Inquiry in 2012 constituted a
wide-ranging review of the infringements of personal privacy that became regular
practice for tabloid journalists in the early 2000s. Its final report made a series of
recommendations for new governance arrangements underpinned by law.
2
For details, see
http://climatecongress.ku.dk/pdf/synthesisreport.
3
An instructive contrast here is with the tabloid press in the United Kingdom leading
up to the Leveson Inquiry into journalism and newspaper regulation in 2012. Because
of widespread malpractice among tabloid journalists and their sources, the official
Inquiry recommended important reforms to the manner of press regulation in the
United Kingdom.
4
An interesting example of what I mean relates to the Royal Society, Britain's most
prestigious representative body for scientists. In 2007, it published 'Climate change
controversies: a simple guide'. This guide took strong issue with claims made by
various climate change sceptics, drawing on the research of the many non-sceptical
scientists cited in the IPCC assessment reports. However, 43 Royal Society Fel-
lows subsequently complained about the over-certain - even strident - tone of the
guide. They considered the style insufficiently guarded and asked that uncertainty
and counter-evidence be foregrounded. The Society recanted and published a revised
guide in late 2010.
5
Monkton, a British hereditary peer and former politician, is one of several climate
change sceptics who lack expertise in climate science but who nonetheless write and
speak volubly about the 'myth' of anthropogenic global warming.
6
As I said late in
Chapter 7,
there are a group of highly educated climate change scep-
tics who are not trained in any of the fields germane to understanding past, present
or future climate change (e.g. dendrochronology). Despite this lack of training, they
have been able to self-educate and use their prior education to offer credible analysis
