Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
of findings published by climate change specialists. They might be said to possess
'interactional expertise', at a minimum, and possibly 'contributory expertise'. I will
define these terms later in the chapter.
7
For details, see
http://berkeleyearthorg/
.
8
Despite most STS scholars being social democrats politically speaking, some have
accused them of being no better than the most extreme libertarian or conservative
climate change sceptics. The reason is that they, like the latter, have been seen to call
the authority of mainstream science into question by highlighting its all-too-human
dimensions. Thus the 1990s 'science wars' in the United States (to which I referred
in
Chapter 3
) are seen by some as a left-wing attack on science coincident with a
right-wing attack led by commentators funded by big oil and tobacco firms.
9 P
hilosophers have long debated the proper relationship between 'facts' and 'values',
'evidence' and 'belief '. The debate is very complex indeed. I don't propose to sum-
marise it; suffice to say that I think it's rare that 'an issue can
only
be decided by
evidence' (Taverne, 2005: 280, emphasis added). This may be the case when address-
ing 'how to?' questions, like the fuselage and engine design necessary to reduce an
aircraft's fuel consumption by 15 per cent. For questions where people perceive val-
ues or feelings to be at stake, however, evidence is rarely enough to compel a change
of belief or associated action. For instance, 'proving' that GM foods pose fewer health
risks than non-GM foods might not sway the convictions of a Greenpeace activist.
10
Some argue that mainstream climate scientists have foolishly played politics too. For
example, leading American scientist James Hansen has actively campaigned for the
end of coal, oil and gas as main energy sources in the United States; however, unlike
many climate change sceptics, Hansen's political advocacy is overt. It's a personal
decision, based on his view of how best to act in the face of current scientific evidence.
To suggest that he is 'politicising science' is to misunderstand his personal choice to
be a political advocate based
on
science not by
manipulating
science.
11
I draw here on research conducted by geographer Sarah Whatmore and others
(Whatmore and Landström, 2011; Lane
et al.
, 2011).
12
Lay participation in science is not, of course, necessarily a panacea for epistemic
dependence. As Jason Chilvers (2009) reminds us, many ostensibly inclusive discus-
sions of science can
reinscribe
existing power inequalities, merely rendering them more
legitimate because they are glossed with a patina of public participation.
13
It's worth noting here that what constitutes 'citizen science' is a matter of some
debate. For instance, people interested in species conservation now routinely provide
information about local sightings of various insects, birds, etc., but providing such
information to conservation professionals is not exactly participating meaningfully in
'science'.
14
This country-wide 'debate' involved a cross section of the public being given a
range of 'factual' and interpretive-evaluative information about GM foods, and then
debating the environmental, health and wider ethical implications.
15
The same can, of course, be said of other prominent representational institutions, like
the news media and wider mass media.
16
For instance, state agencies can fund research designed to meet specific national
'strategies' and 'interests', while private companies will have product development,
new consumer markets and ultimately profit in mind.
17
Fuller's arguments are intended to go beyond science and extend to other important
makers or disseminators of information, like the news media and wider mass media.
18
Put differently, republicans are doubtful that the public sphere and civil society
will be 'strong' simply by virtue of the spontaneous actions of citizens. Instead, the
'framework conditions' for such strength must be designed in from the outset.
19
In one of the most famous topics about science ever published, the American histo-
rian Thomas Kuhn (1962) euphemised the tendency towards communitarianism in
science with his famous term 'paradigm'.
20
A sample of these and other ideas can be found in part three of Fuller's brilliant but
very difficult book
The governance of science
(2000).
