ESPM 169 - Knowledge Politics I: Science and PolicyOctober 10, 2002Logisticsa. Return papers (if desired, will go over some aspects in sections)b. This Friday sectionc. Section readingd. Group exercise1. Why are we concerned about knowledge politics? a. Knowledge politics is defined broadly as the use of knowledge for political ends.b. Uncertainty in environmental politics, particularly at global levelsi. About workings of ecosystemsii. About nature of influence of humansiii. About means to address environmental problemsc. Uncertainty increases exponentially into the futured. Interdependence of science and policy: policy-makers need scientific knowledge, scientists benefit from policy-derived programs - ‘research thrives on ignorance and uncertainty’→ Science is one dimension of knowledge→ Scientists are usually involved in international environmental politics because they may hold important answers. BUT, how are these answers generated, translated, and inserted into IEP?→ Science is necessary but not sufficient2. How knowledge politics fits into the IEP puzzlea. International cooperationi. Influence at different policy cycles (agenda setting, negotiation, implementation, monitoring)ii. Influence on determinants of success: - KHL’s 3Cs: especially concern- Young’s six determinants: especially simplicity of issuesb. Nature of biodiversityi. Role of important scientists - EO Wilson, Thomas Lovejoy, ii. Certainty in habitat loss versus uncertainty in species loss – focus on biodiversity hotspots1c. Evolution of conventioni. Increasing emphasis on biotechnology (are scientists driving the framing process?)d. Power politicsi. Who holds scientific key to using biodiversityii. What role for indigenous technical knowledge (ITK)e. October 18/21 Section readings: Jasanoff/Haas3. What counts as science and who are the scientists?a. Science has evolved in a close, important and yet ambivalent relationship with industrialization. Culture of science – scientific method, science is distinguished from ordinary knowledge on the basis of consensus. BUT, Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions outlining changes in underlying paradigm – ‘normal science’i. BUT, bias toward what counts as science and who counts as a scientist!b. Scientists work in public, private, and non-governmental realms, and in basic or applied science. Balance varies across countries. They work at national and international levels.c. The situation in which scientists work has a large effect on their ability to influence policy.4. Sources of scientists’ influencea. Presumed integrity and competence through professional socialization and self-corrective pluralism in the scientific community. Opposite to interest-driven political dynamics.b. Ability to reduce uncertainty is power (power in a more comprehensive sense that includes knowledge-based power).c. Scientific globalization: universality of scientific language, international conferences, communications technology allows transboundary collaboration and cooperation, often cutting across political differences (IIASA – International Instituted for Applied Systems Analysis in Vienna as a conduit for East West dialogueduring Cold War).d. Challenges to scientific integrity and competence:i. Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalistii. Steven Milloy’s Junk Science Judo2iii. Michaels and Balling’s Satanic Gasese. Politicization of science: when pursuit of interests are served by lack of knowledge among opponents.f. Question to class: as potential future scientists with knowledge that can be useful to solving environmental problems, how do you see your responsibility in communicating research results to policy makers? 5. Determinants of scientific influence in international environmental policya. Overall factors: nature of the problem, problem-solving capacityb. Institutional environment: how does the organization of the science-policy dialogueaffect the role of science in policy and the role of politics in science? Importance of “knowledge brokers.”c. The role of science can vary from simple acknowledgement of the relevance of scientific knowledge by policy-makers, to acceptance of substantive conclusions, to actual guidance of policy by science.d. Explanatory factors1:i. Autonomy and integrity- Selection and funding of scientists involved (by IGO or countries or NGOs)- Criteria of selection for scientific participants (scholarly merit versus political appointment)- Operational autonomy (setting their own agenca)- Main function (production of new knowledge, coordination, translation into policy implications)- Unity and homogeneity (own coordinating mechanism, scientists versus administrators)ii. Responsiveness and involvement- Functional differentiation: who produces knowledge and who advises on policy implications?- Formal links to decision-making body (two-way communication)iii. Other variables:- State of knowledge: the less knowledge, the less influence- Political malignancy (feasibility of ‘cures’): the more malign, the more conclusive the evidence needs to be1 From Arild Underdal, “Science and politics: the anatomy of an uneasy relationship” in Steinar Andresen, Tora Skodvin, Arild Underdal, and Jørgen Wettestad, Science and politics in international environmental regimes: between integrity and involvement (2000).3- Public salience: the more salient, the higher the demand for knowledge6. Theoretical perspectivesa. Epistemic communities – Peter Haasi. Examination of different international environmental negotiations: Mediterranean Action Plan, Ozone (1974 Rowland and Molina UC Irvine; 1985 study by the British Antarctic Survey finds ozone hole), Climate change (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)ii. International cooperation in environmental issues has been achieved not underthe leadership of powerful states, but through the influence of epistemic communities: “transnational networks of knowledge-based communities that are both politically empowered through their claims to exercise authoritative knowledge and motivated by shared causal and principled beliefs” – both a positive and a normative statement.- Principles values regarding the enhancement of collective welfare- Validity of cause-and-effect relationships- Truth tests (scientific method)- Common policy enterpriseiii. They are goal seeking actors, with influence following from consolidation of bureaucratic power (budgets, staffing, enforcement