Value-Free yet Policy-Relevant? The Normative Views of Climate Scientists and Their Bearing on Philosophy

Abstract

This article contributes to the philosophical debate on values in science by exploring how scientists themselves understand the proper role of moral, political, and social values in expert practice. I present findings from interviews with climate scientists who have participated as authors in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The climate scientists subscribe to the value-free ideal as a regulative ideal that applies both to the provision of knowledge to policymakers and how they engage with political issues in the public sphere. Yet their views on the moral responsibility of scientists and the aim of providing policy-relevant output challenge the value-free ideal. The article suggests ways in which their views can be relevant to the philosophical discussion.

Communicating efficacy: How the IPCC, scientists, and other communicators can facilitate adaptive responses to climate change without compromising on policy neutrality

“…Despite this, IPCC scientists may be reluctant to appeal to efficacy in the ways described above, due to a desire to maintain a neutral stance in relation to policy advocacy. For instance, Gundersen (2020), who interviewed IPCC scientists in Norway, found reluctance amongst the interviewees to speak up about climate change publicly because they were afraid to risk their perceived objectivity and credibility.…”

Managing Performative Models

“…Turning to stage 3), the issue of whether and how researchers should make recommendations based on model outputs is contentious (Carrier 2022; John 2018; Gundersen 2020). I will not engage here with the various positions that have been offered in the literature and only note that much depends on specifics of the context and what type of view one takes on appropriate roles for scientists advising policy.…”

Leaking the IPCC: A question of responsibility?

“…Risks from leaking are, however, often less calculable (Johnson et al, 2020, p. 10). 6 For exceptions, see Gundersen's (2020) study on Norwegian IPCC authors, the value-free ideal and moral responsibility, and Tollefson's (2021) survey among WGI authors, inter alia, on advocacy work. 7 Making note of Pielke's (2007) seminal work on four types of scientists in decision-making, Donner (2014, p. 3) suggests that a continuum "explicitly recognizes the continuous, rather than categorical, nature" of the science-advocacy nexus.…”

“…This is surprising, given the importance and immense tasks conferred upon organizations at science‐policy interfaces to address “wicked social problems” such as climate change (Grundmann, 2016). As others have shown, progressing climatic changes continuously scale up the policy‐relevance of science‐policy interactions which in the case of the IPCC means challenging its mantra to be neutral but policy‐relevant (Beck & Mahony, 2018; Gundersen, 2020; Hulme, 2016; Mahony & Hulme, 2018). Moreover, the urge of parts of the climate change community to create a “countdown” on climate action through deadlinism confronts scientists, particularly those involved in the IPCC, with the question “[w]hat is a responsible response to the politics of deadline‐ism for the IPCC as the authoritative voice of climate science?” (Asayama et al, 2019, p. 570) In other words, on whom lies the responsibility to act on climate change and what does responsible action (or in this case activism) look like?…”

“…6 6 For exceptions, see Gundersen's (2020) study on Norwegian IPCC authors, the value‐free ideal and moral responsibility, and Tollefson's (2021) survey among WGI authors, inter alia, on advocacy work. …”