Role Of Science In Policy Research Articles

Otto Neurath’s Relevance for Science Policy Debates

Debates about the role of science in policy making have highlighted the uneasy relationship between knowledge and decision making. Recent high-profile examples include climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic. On the one hand there is an intertwinement between facts and values. On the other hand, there is a tension between the acknowledgement of scientific uncertainty and the justification of political action. This sometimes finds political solutions that are perceived as unsound and unsatisfactory. Some perceive the policies as too weak, some as too strong. Both appeal to fundamental values such as health, wealth, security, freedom, equality, or solidarity. In this article I will argue that we need a more open debate about these issues and a deeper understanding of what is at issue in science policy debates. I shall do so by referring to a Neurathian framework. Neurath’s legacy survives mainly in the history and philosophy of science but is largely forgotten in policy studies and sociology. This needs rectifying, especially in light of the fact that he anticipated central insights that have been attributed to later authors such as Fleck and Kuhn.The paper has the following structure. I first provide some historical and intellectual context by looking at the Vienna Circle and some biographical background about Neurath’s views, and his political engagement. I then examine his epistemology, especially his view of science and the social sciences, leading to his anti-foundationalism. Finally, I turn to the public policy literature which has produced results that partly overlap with, and partly contradict Neurath’s views.

SCIENTISM, ONLINE SPIRITUALITY, AND (MIS)READING EVOLUTION

SCIENTISM, ONLINE SPIRITUALITY, AND (MIS)READING EVOLUTION

Time for a Reboot in Congress.

The article presents information related to Republican Representative Lamar Smith, head of the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology who will retire from the U.S. Congress in 2018. It highlights Smith's sponsorship of a legislation that would have undermined the role of science in policy making. It is stated that Smith was given the unusual ability to issue subpoenas unilaterally in 2015.

Reply to comment by Pepin et al. 2017.

We commend Pepin et al . [[1][1]] for initiating a conversation about the role of science in policy generally and a specific discussion of our recent findings published earlier in the pages of this journal [[2][2]]. Our study assessed whether liberalizing culling of wolves changed wolf population

Unravelling science-policy interactions in environmental risk governance of the Baltic Sea: comparing fisheries and eutrophication

Interactions between scientific assessments and management decision-making are key determinants for the efficiency of environmental risk governance. This applies particularly to marine ecosystems like the Baltic Sea, where fisheries and eutrophication pose serious threats connected to environmental, social and economic aspects of sustainability. Using contemporary science-policy theory, this paper investigates structures, challenges and prospects of science-policy interfaces connected to fisheries and eutrophication governance in the Baltic Sea. We analyse and compare the two cases with respect to two aspects: first the design and organisational structures of the institutional frameworks and second the management of uncertainties and stakeholder disagreements in the two risk cases. The analyses reveal how conventional natural science-based policy-making is insufficient for the requirements of complex environmental governance arenas like fisheries and eutrophication. Both cases show a high, almost exclusive, dependence on science-based advice regarding the organisational and institutional structures of their science-policy interfaces. They also expose remarkable differences with respect to stakeholder disagreements about the interplay between science, other knowledge and policy decisions. In the eutrophication case, consensual science-based advice shaped policy decisions in a comparatively uncomplicated manner. In fisheries by contrast, stakeholder disagreements and different interpretations of scientific uncertainties created serious confusions about the basic role of science in policy. We identify and discuss factors contributing to the observed differences in the science-policy interplay of fisheries and eutrophication management. Our results highlight a misleading conceptual understanding of science-policy interfaces between the normative idea of objective, science-based policy-making and the political challenges of dealing with the social aspects of uncertainty and stakeholder disagreements in environmental risk governance.

Scientific Credibility, Disagreement, and Error Costs in 17 Biotechnology Policy Subsystems

One of the original objectives of the advocacy coalition framework (ACF) was to shed light on the role of science in policymaking. The ACF depicts subsystem scientists as political actors just like any other. Unfortunately, science has never become a major theme of research within the framework and, as a consequence, its role in policymaking remains under‐theorized, leaving ample room for interpretation. This article seeks to explore the validity of three propositions about the role of science in policy. The first two are derived from the ACF: (i) the capacity of scientists to provide credible advice is affected by the harshness of the political debates dividing the policy subsystem; and (ii) agreement among scientists is just as common as among other groupings of policy actors. The third is derived from an “error costs” argument: (iii) Disagreements among scientists are even more pronounced than disagreements among other policy actors. Using the results of a survey of policy actors in 17 biotechnology subsystems, this article finds support for the first and third propositions. Indeed, scientists' participation in political divisions might even be underestimated by the ACF. The article concludes with attempts to clarify the role of scientists within the ACF, including discussions of ambiguity regarding the role of professional forums and of scientists in between‐coalition learning within policy subsystems.

Strategic approaches and assessment techniques—Potential for knowledge brokerage towards sustainability

The role of science in policy and decision-making has been an issue of intensive debate over the past decade. The concept of knowledge brokerage has been developing in this context contemplating issues of communication, interaction, sharing of knowledge, contribution to common understandings, as well as to effective and efficient action. For environmental and sustainability policy and decision-making the discussion has addressed more the essence of the issue rather than the techniques that can be used to enable knowledge brokerage. This paper aims to contribute to covering this apparent gap in current discussion by selecting and examining empirical cases from Portugal and the United Kingdom that can help to explore how certain environmental and sustainability assessment approaches can contribute, if well applied, to strengthen the science–policy link. The cases show that strategic assessment approaches and techniques have the potential to promote knowledge brokerage, but a conscious effort will be required to design in genuine opportunities to facilitate knowledge exchange and transfer as part of assessment processes.

A science–policy interface in the global south: the politics of carbon sinks and science in Brazil

The IPCC and other global environmental assessment processes stress the need for national scientific participation to ensure decision makers’ trust in the associated scientific conclusions and political agendas. The underpinning assumption is that the relationship between scientists and decision makers at the national level is characterized by trust and interpretive synergy. Drawing on ethnographic research in Brazil, this article challenges that assumption through a case study of the policy uptake of divergent scientific interpretations as to whether or not the Amazon is a net carbon sink. It shows that the carbon sink issue became a site for struggles between important Brazilian scientists and decision-makers with central authority over the definition of the country’s official position in international climate negotiations. In a geopolitically charged scientific controversy involving scientific evidence bearing on the Kyoto Protocol, Brazilian decision makers studied revealed critical distance from national scientists advancing evidence that the Amazon is a net carbon sink. As such, the decision-makers’ interpretations were at odds also with dominant framings in the Brazilian media and closer to those of American scientists involved in carbon cycle research in the Amazon. Seeking to explain this disconnect, the paper discusses the divergent policy preferences of key scientists and decision-makers involved, and the correlations of these preferences with interpretations of the available scientific evidence. It identifies the continued impact of a national political tradition of limited participation in decision making and suggests that this tradition—while increasingly challenged by countervailing democratizing trends—is reinforced by key Brazilian decision makers’ constructions of science as a medium through which rich countries maintain political advantage. Reflecting this, key Brazilian decision-makers justified rejecting national scientists’ interpretations of the Amazon as a significant overall carbon sink by suggesting that the scientists’ scientific training and associated foreign interactions bias them in favor of foreign interests, compromising their ability to accurately identify national interests. The paper situates its analysis in terms of theories of the science–policy interface and argues for greater attention to the role of culturally and politically laden understandings of science and the role of science in policy and geopolitics.

Obama strengthens the role of science in policy

Obama strengthens the role of science in policy

Meeting the Challenges of Policy‐Relevant Science: Bridging Theory and Practice

Ongoing public debate about the role of science in policy making signifies the importance of advancing theory and practice in the field. Indeed, assumptions about the science–policy nexus hold direct implications for how this interface is managed. A useful lens on contemporary themes is offered by the experience of a federal environmental science program that launched an ambitious effort to enhance capacity for policy relevance while protecting a commitment to sound, impartial scientific inquiry. This was achieved by developing an explicit conceptual model and implementing corresponding strategies that addressed critical gaps in capacity for policy‐relevant research, analysis, and communication while supporting existing capacities. This article describes and evaluates the capacity‐building effort from the dual perspectives of deepening an understanding of successful practice in the field and advancing a conceptual understanding of the science–policy nexus. It illustrates the challenges facing practitioners and the need for greater interaction between theory and practice.

Precaution in public: the social perception of the role of science and values in policy making

This article presents the results of a study of public perception recently completed in Spain which questioned citizens about their views on the precautionary principle, the role of science in policy making, as well as their level of trust in science. The results show that Spanish citizens, by a significant margin, consider that scientists may be influenced by economic interests, that values play a key role in policy making, and that policy should be guided by precaution. Two groups were identified, one with a moderate and the other one with a more stringent interpretation of precaution. The results indicate that public policies that do not sufficiently take into account precaution and exclude values from decision making are likely to encounter resistance among many citizens.

The Role of Science in Policy: The Climate Change Debate in the United States

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Additional informationNotes on contributorsEugene B. SkolnikoffEugene B. Skolnikoff is an emeritus professor of political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, Massachusetts. This article was written in conjunction with MIT's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. The author may be contacted at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 (telephone: 617-253-3140; e-mail: ebskol@mit.edu).

The treatment of traffic in the Dutch environmental outlooks: the role of science in policy making and policy evaluation

The Dutch National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection publishes Environmental Outlooks in which 25-year projections are made. These Outlooks quantifying the environmental problems, form the scientific basis for Dutch environmental policy. Traffic and transport is one of the main sectors causing environmental problems. The emissions and energy use of all relevant categories (road traffic, non-road traffic) are based on model simulations with models. This paper describes the main models used. If present policy is implemented only a minority of the environmental targets will be met. If a sustainable transport system for the Netherlands means a large reducton in CO 2 emissions and energy use after 2010 a stronger emphasis on both technical and non-technical measures (such as land-use planning combined with public transport improvements) for the period until 2010 is needed than proposed in the Second Transport Structure Plan, unless a sustainable energy source becomes available.