No abstract

This paper adds a new dimension to the role of scientific knowledge in policy by emphasizing the multivalent character of scientific consensus. We show how the maintained consensus about the quantitative estimate of a central scientific concept in the anthropogenic climate-change field - namely, climate sensitivity - operates as an `anchoring device' in `science for policy'. In international assessments of the climate issue, the consensus-estimate of 1.5°C to 4.5°C for climate sensitivity has remained unchanged for two decades. Nevertheless, during these years climate scientific knowledge and analysis have changed dramatically. We identify several ways in which the scientists achieved flexibility in maintaining the same numbers for climate sensitivity while accommodating changing scientific ideas. We propose that the remarkable quantitative stability of the climate sensitivity range has helped to hold together a variety of different social worlds relating to climate change, by continually translating and adapting the meaning of the `stable' range. But this emergent stability also reflects an implicit social contract among the various scientists and policy specialists involved, which allows `the same' concept to accommodate tacitly different local meanings. Thus the very multidimensionality of such scientific concepts is part of their technical imprecision (which is more than just analytical lack of resolution); it is also the source of their resilience and value in bridging (and perhaps reorganizing) the differentiated social worlds typical of modern policy issues. The varying importance of particular dimensions of knowledge for different social groups may allow cohesion to be sustained amidst pluralism, and universality to coexist with cultural distinctiveness.

In the coming years the international debate on commitments for the second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol will intensify. In this study, the Global Triptych approach is put forward as an input for international decision-making concerning the differentiation of commitments by 2020. It is a sector-and technology-oriented approach, and we calculated quantitative emission limitation objectives and global emissions starting from bottomup information on long-term reduction opportunities. Central to the calculations were long-term sustainability targets for the year 2050, formulated for (1) energy efficiency in the energy-intensive industry, (2) greenhouse gas intensity of electricity production, and (3) per capita emissions in the domestic sectors. Calculated emission limitation objectives for 13 world regions ranged from about -30% to more than +200%. The ranking of world regions in the differentiation turned out to be independent of the levels chosen for the long-term sustainability targets. The objectives seem sufficient to maintain the long-term possibility of stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at about 550 ppm CO 2 -eq, but will require severe emission reductions. These may be relaxed to a certain degree if stabilization at 650 ppm CO 2 -eq is aimed for. We conclude that the bottom-up character of the approach made it possible to examine important basic principles of the Climate Convention, including equity, the needs and circumstances of developing countries, cost-effectiveness and sustainable development.

Uncertainty often becomes problematic when science is used to support decision making in the policy process. Scientists can contribute to a more constructive approach to uncertainty by making their uncertainties transparent. In this article, an approach to systematic uncertainty diagnosis is demonstrated on the case study of transgene silencing and GMO risk assessment. Detailed interviews were conducted with five experts on transgene silencing to obtain quantitative and qualitative information on their perceptions of the uncertainty characterising our knowledge of the phenomena. The results indicate that there are competing interpretations of the cause-effect relationships leading to gene silencing (model structure uncertainty). In particular, the roles of post-transcriptional gene silencing, position effects, DNA-DNA interactions, direct-repeat DNA structures, recognition factors and dsRNA and aberrant zRNA are debated. The study highlights several sources of uncertainty beyond the statistical uncertainty commonly reported in risk assessment. The results also reveal a discrepancy between the way in which uncertainties would be prioritized on the basis of the uncertainty analysis conducted, and the way in which they would be prioritized on the basis of expert willingness to pay to eliminate uncertainty. The results also reveal a diversity of expert opinions on the uncertainty characterizing transgene silencing. Because the methodology used to diagnose uncertainties was successful in revealing a broad spectrum of uncertainties as well as a diversity of expert opinion, it is concluded that the methodology used could contribute to increasing transparency and fostering a critical discussion on uncertainty in the decision making process.

Europe is failing young researchers We are young European researchers and participants in science-policy initiatives who feel strongly that the European Research Area (ERA) faces many challenges. The absence of a fully inclusive and self-sufficient ERA still affects research institutions locally. Regional funding remains too sparse and fragmented. As well as a dearth of sustainable career opportunities, there is widespread cronyism, and many administrative and research structures are obsolete.

Key Messages• Analysing, characterising, and dealing with uncertainty forms an integral part of establishing and implementing climate adaptation policy.• The classical elements used in uncertainty assessment (statistics, scenarios and recognised ignorance) can be expanded toward fi ve principal uncertainty dimensions that are crucial for informing/supporting adaptation decision-making: location, level, nature, qualifi cation of knowledge base, and value-ladenness. • In practice, to deal with uncertainties, but also because of time and budget constraints, uncertainty assessments may follow a three step approach:(1) identify and characterise sources of uncertainty; (2) weigh, appraise, and prioritise uncertainties; and (3) select and apply methods for dealing with uncertainties in decision-making and policy.• Based on political and societal preferences, adaptation strategies could either use top-down or bottom-up approaches considering adaptation actions based on the best prediction, robustness, or resilience.(continued)

No abstract

No abstract