ESPM 169 - Knowledge Politics I: Science and PolicyOctober 14, 2003LogisticsGroup exercise - report-back on ThursdayHow many people in class are natural scientists? Social scientists? Humanities?Science PolicyScientists Policymakers International Science International Politics1. Why are we concerned about knowledge politics? a. Knowledge politics is defined broadly as the use of knowledge for political ends.- knowledge: broadly, "how things work" - today we're looking at scientific knowledge in the "western" sense: search for cause and effect, universality - Thursday: "local", or "indigenous" knowledgeb. 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- importance of science in legitimizing policy decisions - interrelationship configured in different ways: three extremes - "scientific consensus  political action" ("speaking truth to power") OR science is inherently political - what we choose to study or "science should be separated from politics" (Freyfogle article for today)→ 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?1→ Science is necessary but not sufficient3. 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:Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentaliste. Politicization of science: when pursuit of interests are served by lack of knowledge among opponents.f. Communication: very important feature in science-policy relationship - how do scientists communicate results to lay-people? How do they communicate with each other? 25. Theoretical perspectives on Scientific Influence in IEP fall between the extremes mentioned earliera. 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 authority), both in nationaladministrations and international organizations.iv. Propositions:- Crises cause search for new information- Once identified and mobilized, epistemic communities are potent actors- Rough technical consensus is principal claim to authority- Access to international and domestic authorities contributes to influence over policy formulation and enforcement- Scientific advice most effective when provided through domestic channels- Consolidated bureaucratic power reinforces their influence- Expanded domestic support reinforces bureaucratic power- Not all environmental problems require scientific input (e.g. clear winners and losers in environmental catastrophes)- Process of cooperation is reversible when knowledge base collapsesv. Criticisms:- Uncritical view of science itself, and situates scientists outside of politics- Where does scientific consensus itself emerge - CC cf. ozone- How much consensus is necessaryb. Science studies (sociology of scientific knowledge, science and technology studies) –Bruno Latour, Sheila Jasanoff, etc.3i. Knowledge never moves freely – knowledge is embedded in social and material context, which needs to be examined (cf. hard versus soft, Western versus indigenous knowledge) Scientific knowledge is essentially contested and its interpretation depends on context - e.g. multiple challenges to scientific reports, everyone produces their own science- often, in the domestic context, resolved through the legal system complexity of international problems: multiple causes, any one of which could be privileged - e.g. flooding in Bangladesh - deforestation or weather? importance of public trust and credibility - e.g. hazardous waste facility siting, nuclear waste and Yucca Mountain - perceptions of risk Precautionary Principle vs. Sound Science at the international levelii. Science and policy are co-produced – policy influences the production of knowledge, while the knowledge simultaneously supports and justifies that policy, people believe