Abstract
Under what conditions does science influence environmental policy? International Relations (IR) scholars, such as Peter M Haas, have argued that to gain political influence, science should not connect to policy before scientific consensus has been reached. We take this suggestion as a point of departure for investigating how science is and should be connected to policy in international environmental governance. Using insights from the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS), the contribution of IR is critically discussed, both to present its limitations and, primarily, to further develop the understanding of scientific consensus within IR and the need for separation and connections between science and policy. The organization and performance of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), including the various assessments made by scholars from IR and STS, is used as an illustrative case. From the discussion of IR and STS and the role of the IPCC in climate policy, we conclude that the focus within STS on contextual and informal factors could shed light on how science and technology are understood by IR scholars, who focus more on the formal organizational design of the interplay between science and policy.
Highlights
Access to the published version may require subscription
Within the field of international relations (IR), scholars argue that “[t]he more autonomous and independent science is from policy, the greater its potential influence.”1 These scholars believe that science and policy should only unite after consensus has been reached among scientific experts
According to STS, the delegation of policy-making authority to a small group of experts cannot be properly understood unless we focus on the contexts and broader networks in which these expert groups act
Summary
Despite widespread agreement on the importance of science for policy-making, there are still diverging understandings of how, when, and under what conditions science influences policy, and on how the interplay between science and policy should be best organized. Together with Casey Stevens, has analyzed more than thirty existing international environmental regimes that involve scientific bodies in order to determine what conditions enable scientific knowledge and epistemic communities to influence policy-making.. Together with Casey Stevens, has analyzed more than thirty existing international environmental regimes that involve scientific bodies in order to determine what conditions enable scientific knowledge and epistemic communities to influence policy-making.11 They find that the maintenance and support of scientific bodies within multilateral environmental governance arrangements are necessary but not sufficient conditions for science to be able to speak truth. Haas and Stevens mention climate change, biodiversity, and fisheries as examples of processes that have not granted autonomy to expert groups, thereby undermining science’s ability to speak truth to power.20 They devote particular attention to the IPCC, which they assess as an example of a failed attempt by science to influence policy. Haas 1992b, 3. 18. Haas 1990, 1997. 19. Haas and Stevens 2011, 129. 20. Haas and Stevens 2011, 141
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
