Advertisement

Fundamental Perils for Scientific Assessments

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

Abstract

There are some fundamental perils for the role of the sciences in policy, which also affect economic assessments. Based on a discussion of these perils, this chapter identifies the key challenge of bridging scientific expertise and public policy. Section 3.1 provides the background for this by describing that in practice, neither scientific knowledge production nor political decision-making follow simple rationalistic and functionalist ideals. Rather, multiple (often conflicting) motives are involved in, for instance, scientific assessment-making. Yet, scientific assessments can have some desirable influence on policy-making processes if certain requirements are met. Section 3.2 introduces the fundamental problems and perils of scientific policy advice. One of the most challenging issues is the treatment of value judgements, particularly in policy assessments; this issue endangers sound science, policy-relevance and political legitimacy. Section 3.3 provides some examples in terms of existing criticism of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and, finally, Sect. 3.4 identifies the trade-offs between the general norms for scientific expertise in public policy as being the key challenge of scientific expertise in policy. The framework for the IPCC envisaged in this book has to successfully respond to this key challenge.

Keywords

Climate Policy General Norm Climate Scientist Scientific Expertise Scientific Assessment 
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. Aldred, Jonathan. 2009. Ethics and climate change cost-benefit analysis: Stern and after. New Political Economy 14(4): 469–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antilla, Liisa. 2010. Self-censorship and science: A geographical review of media coverage of climate tipping points. Public Understanding of Science 19(2): 240–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bammé, Arno. 2004. Science wars. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
  4. Bammé, Arno. 2009. Science and technology studies. Marburg: Metropolis.Google Scholar
  5. Beck, Silke. 2009. Das Klimaexperiment und der IPCC. Schnittstellen zwischen Wissenschaft und Politik in den internationalen Beziehungen. Marburg: Metropolis.Google Scholar
  6. Blum, Sonja, and Klaus Schubert. 2009. Politikfeldanalyse. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  7. Bolin, Bert. 2007. A history of the science and politics of climate change: The role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Booker, Christopher, and Richard North. 2009, December 9. Questions over business deals of UN climate change guru Dr Rajendra Pachauri. The Daily Telegraph.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, Mark B. 2009. Science in democracy: Expertise, institutions, and representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brysse, Keynyn, Naomi Oreskes, Jessica O’Reilly, and Michael Oppenheimer. 2012. Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama? Global Environmental Change 23: 327–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carraro, Carlo, Chales 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.
  12. 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
  13. Dasgupta, Partha. 2007. Commentary: The Stern Review’s economics of climate change. National Institute Economic Review 199: 4–7.Google Scholar
  14. DeCanio, Stephen J. 2003. Economic models of climate change. A critique. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Douglas, Heather E. 2009. Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  16. Dunn, William. 1994. Public policy analysis: An introduction, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  17. Edenhofer, Ottmar. 2006. Die Kopernikanische Wende. http://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/edenh/publications-1/Boell_06.pdf. Accessed 13 Aug 2014.
  18. Edenhofer, Ottmar. 2011. Different views ensure IPCC balance. Commentary. Nature Climate Change1: 229–230.Google Scholar
  19. Edenhofer, Ottmar, and Jan Minx. 2014. Mapmakers and navigators, facts and values. Policy forum: Climate policy. Science 345(6192): 37f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Elzinga, Aant. 1996. Shaping worldwide consensus. The orchestration of global change research. In Internationalism and science, ed. Aant Elzinga and Catharina Landström, 223–255. London: Taylor Graham.Google Scholar
  21. Freudenburg, William R., and Violetta Muselli. 2010. Global warming estimates, media expectations, and the asymmetry of scientific challenge. Global Environmental Change 20(3): 483–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Funtowicz, Silvio O., and Jerome R. Ravetz. 1991. A new scientific methodology for global environmental issues. In Ecological economics: The science and management of sustainability, ed. Robert Costanza, 137–152. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gormley Jr., William T. 2007. Public policy analysis: Ideas and impacts. Annual Review of Political Science 10: 297–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Grunwald, Armin. 2008. Technik und Politikberatung. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  26. Haas, Peter. 1992. Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization 46: 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Habermas, Jürgen. 1968. Technik und Wissenschaft als Ideologie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. English edition: Habermas, Jürgen. 1971. Toward a rational society. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hickmann, Thomas. 2014. Science–policy interaction in international environmental politics: An analysis of the ozone regime and the climate regime. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies 16: 21–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hof, Andries F., Michel G.J. den Elzen, and Detlef P. van Vuuren. 2008. Analysing the costs and benefits of climate policy: Value judgements and scientific uncertainties. Global Enviromental Change 18(3): 412–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Howlett, Michael, and M. Ramesh. 2009. Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Hulme, Mike. 2009. Why we disagree about climate change: Understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.
  33. IISD. 2014. Summary of the twelfth session of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the thirty-ninth session of the IPCC: 7–12 April 2014. Earth Negotiations Bulletin 12(597), http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb12597e.pdf. Accessed 30 Mar 2015.
  34. IPCC. eds. Bert Metz, Ogunlade Davidson, Peter Bosch, Rutu Dave, and Leo Meyer. 2007. Climate change 2007: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. IPCC. eds. Ottmar Edenhofer, Ramón P. Madruga, Youba Sokona, Kristin Seyboth, Patrick Matschoss, Susanne Kadner, and Timm Zwickel, et al. 2011. Renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation: Special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. IPCC. eds. Christopher B. Field, Vicente Barros, Thomas F. Stocker, Dahe Qin, David J. Dokken, Kristie L. Ebi, and Michael D. Mastrandrea et al. 2012. Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. A special report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Jasanoff, Sheila. 1990. The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Joerges, Bernward, and Helga Nowotny (eds.). 2003. Social studies of science and technology: Looking back, ahead. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  40. Keller, Ann. 2009. Science in environmental policy: The politics of objective advice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kleinewefers, Henner. 2008. Einführung in die Wohlfahrtsökonomie. Theorie; Anwendung; Kritik. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
  42. 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.
  43. Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  44. Kuruvilla, Shyama, and Philipp Dorstewitz. 2010. There is no ‘point’ in decision-making: A model of transactive rationality for public policy and administration. Policy Sciences 43(3): 263–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Latour, Bruno. 1999. On recalling ANT. In Actor network theory and after, ed. John Law and John Hassard, 15–25. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  46. Lenton, Timothy, Hermann Held, Elmar Kriegler, Jim Hall, Wolfgang Lucht, Stefan Rahmstorf, and Hans Joachim Schellnhuber. 2008. Tipping elements in the earth’s climate system. PNAS 105(6): 1786–1793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Luhmann, Hans-Jochen. 2010. Auf welche Wissenschaft beruft sich die Politik beim Zwei-Grad-Ziel? GAIA 19: 175–177.Google Scholar
  48. 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
  49. Mann, Michael E. 2012. The hockey stick and the climate wars: Dispatches from the front lines. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Merton, Robert K. 1942. Science and technology in a democratic order. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology 1: 115–126.Google Scholar
  51. 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
  52. Nerlich, Brigitte. 2010. ‘Climategate’: Paradoxical metaphors and political paralysis. Environmental Values 19(4): 419–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nordhaus, William D. 2007. A review of the Stern Review on the economics of climate change. Journal of Economic Literature 45(3): 686–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Oreskes, Naomi, and Erik M. Conway. 2010. Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
  55. PBL. 2010. Assessing an IPCC assessment. An analysis of statements on projected regional impacts in the 2007 report. Report by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.Google Scholar
  56. Pielke Jr., Roger A. 2007. The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pooley, Eric. 2009. How much would you pay to save the planet? The American Press and the Economics of Climate Change. Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy. Discussion Paper Series. http://shorensteincenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/d49_pooley.pdf. Accessed 13 Aug 2014.
  58. Pooley, Eric. 2010. The climate war: True believers, power brokers, and the fight to save the earth. New York: Hyperion.Google Scholar
  59. Powell, James L. 2010. Inquisition of climate science. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Rahmstorf, Stefan. 2010. Neue Qualität des Surrealen. zeozwei 2: 14–15.Google Scholar
  61. Russell, Sir Muir, Geoffrey Boulton, Peter Clarke, David Eyton, and James Norton. 2010. The independent climate change email review. http://www.cce-review.org/. Accessed 13 Aug 2014.
  62. Sabatier, Paul A. (ed.). 2007. Theories of the policy process, 2nd ed. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  63. Sabatier, Paul A., and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith. 1999. The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In Theories of the policy process, ed. Paul A. Sabatier, 117–166. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  64. Samuelson, Paul A., and William D. Nordhaus. 2010. Economics. International, 19th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  65. Sarewitz, Daniel. 2004. How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science & Policy 7(5): 385–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Scharpf, Fritz W. 1997. Games real actors play: Actor-centered institutionalism in policy research. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  67. Schneider, Stephen H. 1997. Integrated assessment modeling of global climate change: Transparent rational tool for policy making or opaque screen hiding value-laden assumptions? Environmental Modeling and Assessment 2(4): 229–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Shulock, Nancy. 1999. The paradox of policy analysis: If it is not used, why do we produce so much of it? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 18(2): 226–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sismondo, Sergio. 2010. An introduction to science and technology studies, 2nd ed. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  70. Skodvin, Tora. 1999. Science-policy interaction in the global greenhouse. Institutional design and institutional performance in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). CICERO Working Paper 1999:3. http://www.cicero.uio.no/media/188.pdf. Accessed 13 Aug 2014.
  71. Stern, Nicolas. 2007. The economics of climate change. The Stern Review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tavoni, Massimo, and Richard S.J. Tol. 2010. Counting only the hits? The risk of underestimating the costs of stringent climate policy. A letter. Climatic Change 100(3–4): 769–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. UNFCCC. 2009. The Copenhagen Accord. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/cop15/eng/l07.pdf. Accessed 13 Aug 2014.
  74. UNFCCC. 2015a. Streamlined and consolidated text. Durban platform for enhanced action. http://unfccc.int/files/bodies/awg/application/pdf/adp2-9_i3_11jun2015t1630_np.pdf. Accessed 17 Jun 2015.
  75. UNFCCC. 2015b. Letter from the Secretariat of UNFCCC. Submitted by the IPCC Secretariat. http://www.ipcc.ch/apps/eventmanager/documents/27/180220150448-Doc.%2022%20-%20Letter%20from%20Secretariat%20UNFCCC.pdf.
  76. Victor, David G. 2015. Climate change: Embed the social sciences in climate policy. Comment. Nature 520: 27–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Weber, Max. 1972. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie. 5th ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. English edition: Weber, Max. 1978. Economy and society (trans. and ed. Roth, G., and C. Wittich. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  78. Weber, Max. 2006. Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus. 2nd ed. Ed. Dirk Kaesler. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
  79. Weber, Max. 2014. Wissenschaft als Beruf. Berlin: Europäischer Literaturverlag.Google Scholar
  80. Weinberg, Alvin M. 1972. Science and trans-science. Minerva 10(2): 209–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Weingart, Peter, Anita Engels, and Petra Pansegrau. 2007. Von der Hypothese zur Katastrophe: Der anthropogene Klimawandel im Diskurs zwischen Wissenschaft, Politik und Massenmedien, 2nd ed. Opladen: Budrich.Google Scholar
  82. Weston, Samuel. 1994. Toward a better understanding of the positive/normative distinction in economics. Economics and Philosophy 10(1): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wible, Brad. 2014. IPCC lessons from Berlin. Policy forum: Climate policy. Science 345(6192): 34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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