Advertisement

Introduction

  • Martin Kowarsch
Chapter
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science book series (BSPS, volume 323)

Abstract

This chapter provides an overview of the book, with its essential relevance and approach (Sect. 1.1). The novelty and timeliness of this study are also highlighted (Sect. 1.2). Scientific assessments are valuable as tools to inform the public on complex policy issues such as climate change where so much is at stake for so many people. However, guidance is still lacking at the science-policy interface where there are perils lurking. These include the treatment of disputed normative implications in much of the social-science evaluation of policy options. Currently, taking account of this and other challenges, a central open question for many large-scale scientific assessments is whether and how to strengthen and extend social-science policy evaluation to appropriately inform public policy. This book develops a novel philosophical framework for the appropriate role of social-science expertise, particularly economics, in climate policy. The focus is on the integrated economic assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The work mainly adds to the existing body of literature by refining John Dewey’s pragmatist philosophy of scientific expertise in public policy, and systematically applying this philosophy to integrated economic assessments.

Keywords

Climate Policy Climate Change Mitigation Scientific Expertise Scientific Assessment Public Policy Process 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Beck, Silke. 2009. Das Klimaexperiment und der IPCC. Schnittstellen zwischen Wissenschaft und Politik in den internationalen Beziehungen. Marburg: Metropolis.Google Scholar
  2. Beck, Silke. 2011. Moving beyond the linear model of expertise? IPCC and the test of adaptation. Regional Environmental Change 11(2): 297–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernauer, Thomas, and Lena Schaffer. 2010. Climate change governance. CIS Working Paper 60. http://www.cis.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/gess/cis/cis-dam/Research/Working_Papers/WP_2010/2010_WP60_Bernauer_Schaffer.pdf. Accessed 13 Mar 2015.
  4. Biewald, Anne, and Martin Kowarsch (equal contributions), Hermann Lotze-Campen, and Dieter Gerten. 2015. Ethical aspects in the economic modeling of water policy options. Global Environmental Change 30: 80–91.Google Scholar
  5. Boehmer-Christiansen, Sonja. 1994a. Global climate protection policy: The limits of scientific advice. Part 1. Global Environmental Change 4(2): 140–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boehmer-Christiansen, Sonja. 1994b. Global climate protection policy: The limits of scientific advice. Part 2. Global Environmental Change 4(3): 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, Mark B. 2009. Science in democracy: Expertise, institutions, and representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, Matthew J. 2012. John Dewey’s logic of science. HOPOS 2(2): 258–306.Google Scholar
  9. Carraro, Carlo, Charles Kolstad, and Robert Stavins. 2015. Assessment and communication of the social science of climate change: Bridging research and policy. Memorandum from Workshop conducted 18–20 February 2015 in Berlin. http://www.mcc-berlin.net/fileadmin/data/pdf/climate_assessment_memorandum-1.pdf. Accessed 10 Apr 2015.
  10. Cartwright, Nancy, and Eleonora Montuschi (eds.). 2014. Philosophy of social science: A new introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cash, David W., William C. Clark, Frank Alcock, Nancy M. Dickson, Noelle Eckley, David H. Guston, Jill Jäger, and Ronald B. Mitchell. 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. PNAS 100(14): 8086–8091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Douglas, Heather E. 2009. Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  13. Farrell, Alexander E., and Jill Jäger (eds.). 2006. Assessments of regional and global environmental risks: Designing processes for the effective use of science in decisionmaking. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  14. Grundmann, Reiner, and Nico Stehr. 2011. Die Macht der Erkenntnis. Berlin: Suhrkamp. English edition: Stehr, Nico, and Reiner Grundmann. 2011. Experts: The knowledge and power of expertise. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Grunwald, Armin. 2008. Technik und Politikberatung. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  16. Habermas, Jürgen. 1968. Technik und Wissenschaft als Ideologie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. English edition: Habermas, Jürgen. 1971. Toward a rational society. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  17. Harvey, Fiona. 2011. Worst ever carbon emissions leave climate on the brink. The Guardian, May 29. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/29/carbon-emissions-nuclearpower. Accessed 13 Aug 2013.
  18. Hulme, Mike. 2009. Why we disagree about climate change: Understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hulme, Mike, and Martin Mahony. 2010. Climate change: What do we know about the IPCC? Progress in Physical Geography 34(5): 705–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. IAC. 2010. Climate change assessments: Review of the process and procedures of the IPCC. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/IAC_report/IAC%20Report.pdf. Accessed 13 Mar 2015.
  21. IPCC. Eds. Ottmar Edenhofer, Ramón Pichs- Madruga, Youba Sokona, Ellie Farahani, Susanne Kadner, Kristin Seyboth, and Anna Adler, et al. 2014. Climate change 2014 – Mitigation of climate change: Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Jasanoff, Sheila. 1990. The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kitcher, Philip. 2001. Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kitcher, Philip. 2011. Science in a democratic society. New York: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  25. Kowarsch, Martin. 2014. What are scientific assessments? MCC Working Paper. http://www.mcc-berlin.net/fileadmin/data/Publikationen_old/2-What_are_assessments_v20141124.pdf. Accessed 13 Mar 2015.
  26. Kowarsch, Martin. 2016. Policy assessments to enhance EU scientific advice. Nature Climate Change 6(1): 15–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lee, Hoesung. 2015. Turning the focus to solutions. Science 350(6264): 1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Maasen, Sabine, and Peter Weingart. 2005. What’s new in scientific advice to policy? In Democratization of expertise? Exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision-making, ed. Sabine Maasen and Peter Weingart, 1–19. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Mitchell, Ronald B., William C. Clark, David W. Cash, and Nancy M. Dickson (eds.). 2006. Global environmental assessments: Information and influence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. NRC (Committee on Analysis of Global Change Assessments, National Research Council). 2007. Analysis of global change assessments: Lessons learned. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  31. Parker, Wendy. 2014. Climate change. In Philosophy of social science: A new introduction, ed. Nancy Cartwright and Eleonora Montuschi, 31–37. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. PBL. 2008. Lessons from global environmental assessments. http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/2008/Lessons-from-global-environmental-assessments. Accessed 13 Mar 2015.
  33. Pielke Jr., Roger A. 2007. The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pielke Jr., Roger A. 2010. Major change is needed if the IPCC hopes to survive. Yale Environment 360. http://www.odlt.org/dcd/docs/roger_pielke_harsh_critique_of_IPCC.pdf. Accessed 13 Mar 2015.
  35. Pintér, László. 2002. Making global integrated environmental assessment and reporting matter. http://www.iisd.org/pdf/pinter_thesis.pdf. Accessed 13 Mar 2015.
  36. Ramanathan, Veerabhadran, and Yuan Feng. 2008. On avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system: Formidable challenges ahead. PNAS 105(38): 14245–14250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rayner, Steve. 2003. Democracy in the age of assessment: Reflections on the roles of expertise and democracy in public-sector decision making. Science and Public Policy 30(3): 163–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Richardson, Katherine, Will Steffen, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Joseph Alcamo, Terry Barker, Daniel M. Kammen, Rik Leemans, et al. 2009. Synthesis report. Climate change. Global risks, challenges & decisions. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  39. Risjord, Mark. 2014. Philosophy of social science: A contemporary introduction. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Rothman, Dale S., Caroline van Bers, Jan Bakkes, and Claudia Pahl-Wostl. 2009. How to make global assessments more effective: Lessons from the assessment community. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 1: 214–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sarewitz, Daniel. 2011. Looking for quality in all the wrong places, or: The technological origins of quality in scientific policy advice. In The politics of scientific advice: Institutional design for quality assurance, ed. Justus Lentsch and Peter Weingart, 54–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schellnhuber, Hans Joachim. 2008. Global warming: Stop worrying, start panicking? Commentary. PNAS 105(38): 14239–14240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Skodvin, Tora. 2000. Structure and agent in the scientific diplomacy of climate change: An empirical case study of science-policy interaction in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Smith, Joel, Stephen Schneider, Michael Oppenheimer, Gary Yohe, William Hare, Michael D. Mastrandrea, Anand Patwardhan, et al. 2009. Assessing dangerous climate change through an update of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “reasons for concern.”. PNAS 106(11): 4133–4137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tol, Richard S.J. 2011. Regulating knowledge monopolies: The case of the IPCC. Climatic Change 108(4): 827–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. UN. 1992. United nations framework convention on climate change. http://www.un-documents.net/unfccc.htm. Accessed 13 Mar 2015.
  47. UNEP, and UNESCO (Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission). 2009. An assessment of assessments. Findings of the group of experts. http://www.unep.org/dewa/ProductsandServices/Publications/Publications-2009/AnAssessmentofAssessments/tabid/104486/Default.aspx. Accessed 13 Mar 2015.
  48. UNFCCC. 2009. The Copenhagen Accord. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/cop15/eng/l07.pdf. Accessed 13 Mar 2015.
  49. Victor, David. 2015. Climate change: Embed the social sciences in climate policy. Comment. Nature 520: 27–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Watson, Robert T. 2005. Turning science into policy: Challenges and experiences from the science-policy interface. Philosophical Transaction Royal Society London Biological Science 360: 471–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Watson, Robert T. 2010. The IPCC needs to change, but the science remains sound. Yale Environment 360. http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2245. Accessed 13 Mar 2015.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Kowarsch
    • 1
  1. 1.Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC)BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations