How science makes environmental controversies worse

Abstract

I use the example of the 2000 US Presidential election to show that political controversies with technical underpinnings are not resolved by technical means. Then, drawing from examples such as climate change, genetically modified foods, and nuclear waste disposal, I explore the idea that scientific inquiry is inherently and unavoidably subject to becoming politicized in environmental controversies. I discuss three reasons for this. First, science supplies contesting parties with their own bodies of relevant, legitimated facts about nature, chosen in part because they help make sense of, and are made sensible by, particular interests and normative frameworks. Second, competing disciplinary approaches to understanding the scientific bases of an environmental controversy may be causally tied to competing value-based political or ethical positions. The necessity of looking at nature through a variety of disciplinary lenses brings with it a variety of normative lenses, as well. Third, it follows from the foregoing that scientific uncertainty, which so often occupies a central place in environmental controversies, can be understood not as a lack of scientific understanding but as the lack of coherence among competing scientific understandings, amplified by the various political, cultural, and institutional contexts within which science is carried out.In light of these observations, I briefly explore the problem of why some types of political controversies become "scientized" and others do not, and conclude that the value bases of disputes underlying environmental controversies must be fully articulated and adjudicated through political means before science can play an effective role in resolving environmental problems.

Smart Farming: Including Rights Holders for Responsible Agricultural Innovation

“…What kind of society do we want and what innovation features will get us there? Such a question cannot be answered technocratically; instead, answering values-based questions requires the wide involvement of rights holders, not least because engineers and technical policy actors are highly specialized experts whose life experiences and training do not equip them to anticipate the broad ethical and political implications of innovations (Ottinger & Cohen, 2011;Sarewitz, 2004;Yearly, 2004). Unlike "stakeholders", or anyone with a stake in the innovation process, rights holders might be thought of as those for whom the realization of their livelihood is inextricably linked to governance decisions.…”

Ethics, Chemistry, and Education for Sustainability

“…[2] Sustainability requires scientific investigations into complex research problems, for instance in environmental-chemical and the related biochemical-toxicological or geochemical-physical sciences, with the integration of knowledge from a great variety of other disciplines. [3] The priorities of research are manifold and depend upon the circumstances in which it is conducted. For instance, in a chemical-industrial setting profitability requires that priorities are determined by the demands or expectations of the customers, be they real or conceived.…”

“…Here, besides the intrinsic curiosity of the "Homo ludens", many other indirect factors such as political, cultural, and economic group interests influence and even may determine the direction of the scientific process-though not conspicuously at first sight. Negligence of such forces can lead to a situation in which "science makes (environmental) controversies worse", [3] a problem also known formerly. This may even inhibit the scientific progress, [4] can entail temporary inefficiency of the scientific elucidative process, and signals insufficient knowledge-and education-about the philosophical, ethical, and even spiritual foundations of society and human endeavor.…”

Managed Migration of Coast Redwoods: Subjectivity of Stakeholders in Oregon’s Land Use Planning Community

“…Furthermore, a necessary first step towards the development and widespread success of assisted migration practices is the inclusion of biological considerations in tandem with both social and economic concerns, for which different stakeholders have their own multi-dimensional and complex objectives, metrics and definitions. Consequently, a natural science approach is limited in its capacity and/or unable to answer these questions (Sarewitz, 2004). We must therefore turn towards a more subjective understanding of land use and environmental change, one that considers how an individual's knowledge and values are situated larger societal assumptions about the role of human intervention in the environment and control over resources.…”