Book contents
- Environmental Expertise
- Reviews
- Environmental Expertise
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 What Is Science? (And Why Does This Matter?)
- 3 Frames: Beyond Facts Versus Values
- Case A Framing Climate Change
- 4 Science, Politics, and the Public in Knowledge Controversies
- Case B What Does ‘Climategate’ Tell Us About Public Knowledge Controversies
- Case C Whose Deficit Anyway? Institutional Misunderstanding of Fracking-Sceptical Publics
- 5 The Limits to Knowledge
- Case D Angry Bulbs
- 6 Usable Knowledge
- Case E Expertise for European Fisheries Policy
- 7 Interdisciplinarity and the Challenge of Knowledge Integration
- Case F Knowledge Integration in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
- Case G Integrated Assessment for Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution
- 8 Lay Expertise
- Case H Lay Expertise and Botanical Science
- Case I The Loweswater Care Project
- 9 Environmental Experts at the Science–Policy–Society Interface
- Case J Groupthink and Whistle Blowers in CO2 Capture and Storage
- 10 Environmental Knowledge in Democracy
- 11 Conclusion
- Index
- References
2 - What Is Science? (And Why Does This Matter?)
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 February 2019
Book contents
- Environmental Expertise
- Reviews
- Environmental Expertise
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 What Is Science? (And Why Does This Matter?)
- 3 Frames: Beyond Facts Versus Values
- Case A Framing Climate Change
- 4 Science, Politics, and the Public in Knowledge Controversies
- Case B What Does ‘Climategate’ Tell Us About Public Knowledge Controversies
- Case C Whose Deficit Anyway? Institutional Misunderstanding of Fracking-Sceptical Publics
- 5 The Limits to Knowledge
- Case D Angry Bulbs
- 6 Usable Knowledge
- Case E Expertise for European Fisheries Policy
- 7 Interdisciplinarity and the Challenge of Knowledge Integration
- Case F Knowledge Integration in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
- Case G Integrated Assessment for Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution
- 8 Lay Expertise
- Case H Lay Expertise and Botanical Science
- Case I The Loweswater Care Project
- 9 Environmental Experts at the Science–Policy–Society Interface
- Case J Groupthink and Whistle Blowers in CO2 Capture and Storage
- 10 Environmental Knowledge in Democracy
- 11 Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
This is a book about how environmental knowledge is used in policy and about how it is transformed to be useful for public problem solving. It is also about how such processes sometimes fail, or are based on misguided conceptions of science, of policy, or of public concerns about environmental matters. We will describe the problems environmental professionals encounter in the interaction between knowledge, policy, and society, on a practical, but also on a deeper, conceptual level. To do so, this book builds on the knowledge and experience of both social and natural scientists and tries to combine these insights, without reducing them to the lowest common denominator. This first chapter explains why and how the book addresses these issues.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Environmental ExpertiseConnecting Science, Policy and Society, pp. 11 - 35Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Abraham, C. (2004). Possessing Genius: the Bizarre Odyssey of Einstein’s Brain. London: Icon.Google Scholar
Biagioli, M. (2002). From Book Censorship to Academic Peer Review. Emergences, 12(1), 11–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s Afraid of Peer Review? Science, 342(6154), 60–65. doi:10.1126/science.342.6154.60CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bowker, G. (2000). Biodiversity Datadiversity. Social Studies of Science, 30(5), 643–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callender, C. (2014). Philosophy of Science and Metaphysics. In French, S. and Saatsi, J., eds., The Bloomsbury Companion to the Philosophy of Science (pp. 33–54). London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Callon, M. (1986). Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In Law, J., ed., Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? (Vol. 32, pp. 196–229). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Chapman, A. (2007). Democratizing Technology: Risk, Responsibility and the Regulation of Chemicals. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Cole, S. A. (1998). Witnessing Identification: Latent Fingerprinting Evidence and Expert Knowledge. Social Studies of Science, 28(5), 687–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, H. M. (1975). The Seven Sexes: A Study in the Sociology of a Phenomenon, or the Replication of Experiments in Physics. Sociology, 9(2), 205–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, H. M. (2014). Rejecting Knowledge Claims Inside and Outside Science. Social Studies of Science, 44(5), 722–735.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collins, H. M., and Evans, R. (2002). The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience. Social Studies of Science, 32(2), 235–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, H. M., and Evans, R. (2007). Rethinking Expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Jonge, J. (2016). Trust in Science in the Netherlands 2015. Retrieved from Den Haag: www.rathenau.nl.Google Scholar
Desmond, A., and Moore, J. (2009). Darwin’s Sacred Cause: Race, Slavery and the Quest for Human Origins. Harcourt: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., and Waterton, C. (2004). Environmental Citizenship in the Making: The Participation of Volunteer Naturalists in UK Biological Recording and Biodiversity Policy. Science and Public Policy, 31(2), 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, S. (1996). Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Fagan, Melinda B. (2010). Social Construction Revisited: Epistemology and Scientific Practice. Philosophy of Science, 77(1), 92–116. doi:10.1086/650210Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. London: New Left Books.Google Scholar
Gauchat, G. (2011). The Cultural Authority of Science: Public Trust and Acceptance of Organized Science. Public Understanding of Science, 20(6), 751–770. doi:10.1177/0963662510365246CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geison, G. L. (1995). The Private Science of Louis Pasteur. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gieryn, T., Bevins, G. M., and Zehr, S. C. (1985). Professionalisation of American Scientists: Public Science in the Creation/evolution Trials. American Sociological Review, 50, 392–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jardine, N., Secord, J. A., and Spary, E. C., eds. (1996). Cultures of Natural History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (2003a). Breaking the Waves in Science Studies: Comment on H. M. Collins and Robert Evans, The Third Wave of Science Studies. Social Studies of Science, 33(3), 389–400.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (2003b). Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science. Minerva, 41(3), 223–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1962/1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kwa, C. (2011). Styles of Knowing. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, B. (1983). Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Raise the World. In Knorr-Cetina, K. D. and Mulkay, M., eds., Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science. Beverly Hills: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (2013a). Biography of an Inquiry: On a Book about Modes of Existence. Social Studies of Science, 43(2), 287–301.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (2013b). An Inquiry Into Modes of Existence. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B., and Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Beverly Hills: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Law, J. (1987). Technology and Heterogeneous Engineering: The Case of the Portuguese Expansion. In Bijker, W., Hughes, T. P., and Pinch, T. J., eds., The Social Construction of Technical Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology (pp. 111–134). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lawrence, A., and Turnhout, E. (2010). Personal Meaning in the Public Sphere: The Standardisation and Rationalisation of Biodiversity Data in the UK and the Netherlands. Journal of Rural Studies, 30, 1–8.Google Scholar
Lomborg, B. (2001). The Skeptical Environmentalist. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macfarlane, B., and Cheng, M. (2008). Communism, Universalism and Disinterestedness: Re-examining Contemporary Support among Academics for Merton’s Scientific Norms. Journal of Academic Ethics, 6(1), 67–78. doi:10.1007/s10805-008–9055-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, F. (2016). 8 Scientific Papers That Were Rejected Before Going on to Win a Nobel Prize. ScienceAlert (16 August). Retrieved from www.sciencealert.com/these-8-papers-were-rejected-before-going-on-to-win-the-nobel-prizeGoogle Scholar
Merton, R. K. (1973 [1942]). The Normative Structure of Science. In Merton, R. K. and Storer, N. W., eds., The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (pp. 267–278). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mitroff, I. I. (1974). Norms and Counter-Norms in a Select Group of the Apollo Moon Scientists: A Case Study of the Ambivalence of Scientists. American Sociological Review, 39(4), 579–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mnookin, J. L. (2001). Scripting Expertise: The History of Handwriting Identification Evidence and the Judicial Construction of Reliability. Virginia Law Review, 87(8), 1723–1845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oreskes, N., and Conway, E. M. (2010). Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming: New York: Bloomsbury Press.Google Scholar
Pickstone, J. V. (2000). Ways of Knowing: A New History of Science, Technology and Medicine. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Popper, K. (1942/1966). The Open Society and its Enemies (revised fifth edition edn.). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Radder, H. (2010). Mertonian Values, Scientific Norms, and the Commodification of Academic Research. In Radder, H., ed., The Commodification of Academic Research (pp. 231–258). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rip, A. (2003). Constructing Expertise: In a Third Wave of Science Studies? Social Studies of Science, 33(3), 419–434.Google Scholar
Shackley, S., and Wynne, B. (1996). Representing Uncertainty in Global Climate Change Science Policy: Boundary-Ordering Devices and Authority. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 21(3), 275–302.Google Scholar
Solomon, S. M., and Hackett, E. J. (1996). Setting Boundaries between Science and Law: Lessons from Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 21(2), 131–156.Google Scholar
Van Zwanenberg, P., and Millstone, E. (2000). Beyond Skeptical Relativism: Evaluating the Social Constructions of Expert Risk Assessments. Science, Technology & Human Values, 25(3), 259–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verran, H. (2001). Science and an African Logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wynne, B. (2003). Seasick on the Third Wave? Subverting the Hegemony of Propositionalism: Response to Collins & Evans (2002). Social Studies of Science, 33(3), 401–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziman, J. (1994). Prometheus Bound: Science in a Dynamic Steady State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar