Role Of Science In Policy-making Research Articles

The Role of Science in the Policy Subsystem: An Application of the Advocacy Coalition Framework to Nanotechnology Regulation Policies

ABSTRACT One of the key objectives of the advocacy coalition framework (ACF) is to clarify the role of science in policymaking. As such, scientists can help inform science and technology policy decisions by providing information on the risks and benefits of a technology. There is also high demand for scientists to take an active role in policy debates, and policymakers often rely on scientific experts to help them make decisions on regulations. However, few empirical studies have focused on the establishment of coalitions and their impact on policy outputs, or on the role of scientists in these coalitions. This paper explores how the ACF can be applied to a policy subsystem by examining two nanotechnology regulation policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as cases. Drawing on 21 interviews with people involved in nanotechnology subsystems, this paper finds that there are two opposing advocacy groups in the nanotechnology policy subsystem, each with their own shared beliefs. The qualitative interview analysis suggests that the lineup of coalition members is stable over time, but the EPA exhibits less consistent positions. The interview data also show that despite many policy actors being involved in the nanotechnology policy process, there is a significant role for scientific information in the subsystem. The paper concludes with discussions of the role of science within the nanotechnology policy subsystem and the applicability of the ACF in various settings.

Contesting Covid: The ideological bases of partisan responses to the Covid‐19 pandemic

AbstractHow do political parties respond to external shocks? Using an original survey of political parties across Europe conducted in June 2020 and Chapel Hill Expert Survey (CHES) data on partisan ideological positioning, we argue that the pre‐existing ideological stances of Europe's political parties shaped their response to emerging Covid‐19 policy issues, including the tension between economic normalization and containment, legal versus voluntary enforcement and the role of science in policymaking. We find that party ideology powerfully predicts how parties, both in government and in opposition, responded to the pandemic.

In the light of equity and science: scientific expertise and climate justice after Paris

The Paris Agreement is built on a tension between the common goal of limiting warming to 1.5 °C and the differentiation that follows from the principle of equity. Scientific expertise is commonly seen as providing important means to overcome this tension, for example in the Agreement’s “global stocktake”, which is said to be undertaken “in the light of equity and the best available science”. This raises the question of how scholarly communities best can contribute to deliberations on equitable differentiation in the effort required to meet common temperature goals. To discuss this question, the paper looks to the literature within Science and Technology Studies on the role of science in policymaking, where disagreement exists over the merits of “heating up” controversies through politicization, versus “cooling down” issues by seeking consensus. It assesses two cases in which scientific expertise has engaged with questions of equitable effort-sharing in international climate politics: The “Bali Box” of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, and the “Civil Society Equity Review” undertaken prior to COP21 in Paris. Based on a comparison of the two cases, it is argued that scientific contributions should not shy away from highlighting conflicts in values and interests, and that “heating up” discussions about climate justice may be a valuable contribution to overcoming the tensions of the Paris Agreement.

The problem of the improbable disruptors: four views on the role of science in policy-making

The problem of the improbable disruptors: four views on the role of science in policy-making

The Problem of the Improbable Disruptors: Four Views on the Role of Science in Policy-Making

This is an essay on a pressing issue that is crucial to societal decision-making on an wide range of policy issues, from climate change to the war against terrorism: the politicization of science. It deals with the relation between science and policy-making in science-based regulation of chemical risk, but its purport is much broader. Specifically, I use a hypothetical case of a category of potentially hazardous chemical substances, called the Improbable Disruptors, to illustrate the various ways in which science can be influenced by special interests and explained to politicians, and how the metaphysical rules of science and the presentation of scientific information can be used to influence government policies and regulatory decisions.

Framings of science-policy interactions and their discursive and institutional effects: examples from conservation and environmental policy

The complex field of forest conservation, like many other areas of environmental policy and management, is considered to be in urgent need of sound scientific expertise. At the same time, the practice of linking scientific knowledge production to political and societal decision-making is a persistent challenge. Rather than attempting to illuminate the (problematic) interaction between science and policy-making in an empirical way, this study adopts a meta-perspective to investigate how the role of science in policy-making is discursively framed. To this end, seven established theoretical conceptualizations of science-policy interactions are presented. For each conceptualization, the underlying rationales are presented first. Then, the ensuing discursive and institutional effects—in the sense of proposed procedural and organizational measures—are discussed. Finally, the study reflects on the question of how practices of scientific policy advice could be shaped in a more productive way if—instead of taking single narrow framings for granted—the role of science in policy-making were perceived, discussed and enacted in a more frame-reflective way.

The Development of Scientific Cooperation under the Norway–Russia Fisheries Regime in the Barents Sea

Cooperation between Norwegian and Russian scientists on marine science in the Barents Sea dates back to the 1950s. Science, as well as the resource management it serves, has evolved dramatically since then. In terms of its substance, scientific foci and methods have increased substantially. Previously, research efforts targeted a few commercial fish species, whereas entire ecosystems and non–commercial as well as commercial species are addressed today. A further dimension of change is that of organization of science: While cooperation was initially sporadic, it has gradually become embedded in a wider framework of scientific collaboration and become more organized. This framework is included in the bilateral management of the living marine resources in the Barents Sea. The Norwegian–Russian Joint Fisheries Commission (JNRFC) and the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) work as the peer reviewers of science and providers of scientific advice to the authorities in Norway and the Russian Federation. This article discusses these issues with regard to developments in science, in international regimes and the role of science in policy-making.Keywords: Scientific cooperation Norway–Russian Federation, fisheries management, Barents SeaCitation: Arctic Review on Law and Politics, vol. 3, 2/2012 pp. 244–274. ISSN 1891-6252

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.

Science, policy, and the value-free ideal

The role of science in policymaking has gained unprecedented stature in the United States, raising questions about the place of science and scientific expertise in the democratic process. Some scientists have been given considerable epistemic authority in shaping policy on issues of great moral and cultural significance, and the politicizing of these issues has become highly contentious. Since World War II, most philosophers of science have purported the concept that science should be 'value-free'. In Science, Policy and the Value-Free Ideal, Heather E. Douglas argues that such an ideal is neither adequate nor desirable for science. She contends that the moral responsibilities of scientists require the consideration of values even at the heart of science. She lobbies for a new ideal in which values serve an essential function throughout scientific inquiry, but where the role values play is constrained at key points, thus protecting the integrity and objectivity of science. In this vein, Douglas outlines a system for the application of values to guide scientists through points of uncertainty fraught with moral valence. Following a philosophical analysis of the historical background of science advising and the value-free ideal, Douglas defines how values should - and should not - function in science. She discusses the distinctive direct and indirect roles for values in reasoning, and outlines seven senses of objectivity, showing how each can be employed to determine the reliability of scientific claims. Douglas then uses these philosophical insights to clarify the distinction between junk science and sound science to be used in policymaking. In conclusion, she calls for greater openness on the values utilized in policymaking, and more public participation in the policymaking process, by suggesting various models for effective use of both the public and experts in key risk assessments.

‘Whose science?’ Precaution and power-play in European marine environmental decision-making

Abstract This paper explores the science–policy interface in environmental decision-making in the European Community as it moves towards its stated aims of implementing a precautionary and ecosystem-based approach to marine environmental management. Whilst recent EC case law has clarified some questions of Member State responsibilities under international environmental obligations, recent case studies at the crossing point between marine nature conservation and fisheries management in EC waters raise questions about the role of science in policy-making in Brussels. This has important implications for the developing EC Integrated Maritime Policy and Marine Strategy Framework Directive, and the concept of Maritime Spatial Planning as a whole. A new paradigm for bridging the science–policy gap is required in light of the developing legislative framework and given the complex nature of the marine environment.

The ironical role of science in policymaking: the case of the spruce budworm

There is continuing controversy over the proper role of scientific information in policymaking. Opinions appear to be split along ideological lines, with those who subscribe to the technocratic mode favouring a central role for scientific experts in natural resource decision‐making, while the more humanistically‐inclined harbour doubts about such scientific influence. One version of this latter perspective argues that scientific information is often too ambivalent and contentious to be of use in resolving complex policy issues. In the face of such scientific conjecture, therefore, policymakers would be wise to make their decisions insensitive to these various scientific debates. This leaves science with the ironical role of ensuring that no single interpretation of events achieves dominance in policymaking. Aspects of this hypothesis are evaluated within the context of a case study: the spruce budworm problem in New Brunswick, Canada.

Corporate power and the politics of uncertainty: conflicts surrounding major hazard plants at Canvey Island

The process of risk assessment should allow decision makers to achieve an equitable resolution of risk problems by reference to their probability, conse quences and acceptability. Recent research has suggested that corporate inter ests are able to use such data to gain political advantage over other interested parties. In this respect there are three competing explanations as to the power of corporations to influence decisions, namely pluralism, structural Marxism and elite theory. These perspectives will be reviewed along with the role of science in policy-making. The objective here is to explore some of the problems involved in using probabilistic risk assessment within public sector decision making for major hazard sites, using Canvey Island as a basis for the discussion.