Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-7ccbd9845f-s2vjv Total loading time: 0.582 Render date: 2023-01-30T09:47:56.160Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true
The Politics of Scientific Advice The Politics of Scientific Advice
Institutional Design for Quality Assurance
Buy print or eBook[Opens in a new window]

Book contents

14 - Reflective approaches to uncertainty assessment and communication

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2011

By
Jeroen P. van der Sluijs ,
Arthur Petersen  and
Silvio Funtowicz
Edited by
Justus Lentsch  and
Peter Weingart
Jeroen P. van der Sluijs
Affiliation:
Utrecht University
Arthur Petersen
Affiliation:
VU University Amsterdam
Silvio Funtowicz
Affiliation:
Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen (IPSC)
Justus Lentsch
Affiliation:
Heinrich Böll Foundation
Peter Weingart
Affiliation:
Universität Bielefeld, Germany
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Policy decisions in many areas involving science, including the environment and public health, are both complex and contested. Typically there are no facts that entail a unique correct policy. Furthermore, political decisions on these problems will need to be made before conclusive scientific evidence is available. Decision stakes are high: The impacts of wrong decisions based on the available limited knowledge can be huge. Actors disagree on the values that should guide the decision-making. The available knowledge bases are typically characterised by imperfect understanding (and imperfect reduction into models) of the complex systems involved. Models, scenarios and assumptions dominate assessment of these problems, and many (hidden) value loadings reside in problem frames, indicators chosen and assumptions made.

The evidence that is embodied in scientific policy advice under such post-normal (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1993) conditions requires quality assessment. Advice should be relevant to the policy issue, scientifically tenable and robust under societal scrutiny. Governmental and intergovernmental agencies that inform policy and the public about complex risks increasingly recognise that uncertainty and disagreement can no longer be suppressed or denied, but need to be dealt with in a transparent and effective manner. In response to emerging needs, several institutions that interface science and policy have adopted knowledge quality assessment approaches, where knowledge refers to any information that is accepted into a debate (UK Strategy Unit 2002; EPA 2003; MNP/UU 2003; IPCC 2005).

Type
Chapter
Information
The Politics of Scientific Advice
Institutional Design for Quality Assurance
 , pp. 259 - 269
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Purchase

Buy Book

Buy print or eBook[Opens in a new window]

References

Beck, B. 2002. ‘Model evaluation and performance’, in El-Shaarawi, A.H. and Piegorsch, W.W. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Environmetrics, Vol. 3, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 1275–9.Google Scholar
Beven, K. 2002. ‘Towards a coherent philosophy for modelling the environment’, Proceedings of the Royal Society London A 458(2026): 2465–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corral, Quintana, S.A. 2000. Una Metodología integrada de exploración y compensión de los procesos de elaboración de políticas públicas, Ph.D. thesis, University of La Laguna, Spain.Google Scholar
Craye, M., Sluijs, J.P. and Funtowicz, S. 2005. ‘A reflexive approach to dealing with uncertainties in environmental health risk science and policy’, International Journal for Risk Assessment and Management 5/2: 216–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funtowicz, S.O. and Ravetz, J.R. 1990. Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funtowicz, S.O. and Ravetz, J.R. 1993. ‘Science for the post-normal age’, Futures 25: 735–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornberger, G.M. and Spear, R.C. 1981. ‘An approach to the preliminary analysis of environmental systems’, Journal of Environmental Management 12: 7–18.Google Scholar
,IPCC 2005. Guidance Notes for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on Addressing Uncertainties, Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Google Scholar
Janssen, P.H.M., Petersen, A.C., Sluijs, J.P., Risbey, J.S. and Ravetz, J.R. 2003. RIVM/MNP Guidance for Uncertainty Assessment and Communication: Quickscan Hints & Actions List, Bilthoven, The Netherlands: RIVM/MNP. ISBN 90-6960-105-2.Google Scholar
Janssen, P.H.M., Petersen, A.C., Sluijs, J.P., Risbey, J. and Ravetz, J.R. (2005). ‘A guidance for assessing and communicating uncertainties’, Water Science and Technology 52/6: 125–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keepin, B. and Wynne, B. 1984. ‘Technical analysis of IIASA energy scenarios’, Nature 312: 691–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kloprogge, P., Sluijs, J.P. and Petersen, A.C. 2005. A Method for the Analysis of Assumptions in Assessments Applied to Two Indicators in the Fifth Dutch Environmental Outlook, Research Report. Department of Science Technology and Society, Utrecht, The Netherlands: Utrecht University.Google Scholar
,MNP/UU 2003. RIVM/MNP Guidance for Uncertainty Assessment and Communication, Bilthoven: Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP) and Utrecht:Utrecht University (UU).Google Scholar
Oreskes, N., Shrader-Frechette, K. and Belitz, K. 1994. ‘Verification, validation, and confirmation of numerical models in the earth sciences’, Science 263: 641–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, A.C. 2006a. Simulating Nature: A Philosophical Study of Computer-Simulation Uncertainties and Their Role in Climate Science and Policy Advice, Apeldoorn and Antwerpen, The Netherlands: Spinhuis Publishers.Google Scholar
Petersen, A.C. 2006b. ‘Simulation uncertainty and the challenge of post-normal science’, in Lenhard, J., Küppers, G. and Shinn, T. (eds.), Simulation: Pragmatic Constructions of Reality, Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook Vol. 25, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 173–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, A.C., Janssen, P.H.M., Sluijs, J.P., Risbey, J.S. and Ravetz, J.R. 2003. RIVM/MNP Guidance for Uncertainty Assessment and Communication: Mini-Checklist & Quickscan Questionnaire, Bilthoven, The Netherlands: RIVM/MNP. ISBN 90-6960-105-1.Google Scholar
Risbey, J., Sluijs, J.P., Kloprogge, P., Ravetz, J.R., Funtowicz, S. and Corral Quintana, S. 2005. ‘Application of a checklist for quality assistance in environmental modelling to an energy model’, Environmental Modeling & Assessment 10/1: 63–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saltelli, A. 2002. ‘Sensitivity analysis for importance assessment’, Risk Analysis 22/3: 579–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saltelli, A., Chan, K. and Scott, E.M. (eds.) 2000. Sensitivity Analysis, Probability and Statistics Series, New York: John Wiley & Sons Publishers.Google Scholar
Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Campolongo, F. and Ratto, M. 2004. Sensitivity Analysis in Practice: A Guide to Assessing Scientific Models, New York: John Wiley & Sons Publishers.Google Scholar
Stirling, A. 1999. On Science and Precaution in the Management of Technological Risk: Volume I – A Synthesis Report of Case Studies, Seville: European Commission Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Report number EUR 19056 EN.Google Scholar
Stirling, A. 2001. ‘Inclusive deliberation and scientific expertise: Precaution, diversity and transparency in the governance of risk’, PLA Notes 40: 67–71.Google Scholar
,UK Strategy Unit 2002. Risk: Improving Government's Capability to Handle Risk and Uncertainty, London: UK Strategy Unit, Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
Sluijs, J.P. 1997. Anchoring Amid Uncertainty: On the Management of Uncertainties in Risk Assessment of Anthropogenic Climate Change, Ph.D. thesis, Utrecht, The Netherlands: Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Sluijs, J.P. 2002. ‘A way out of the credibility crisis of models used in integrated environmental assessment’, Futures 34: 133–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sluijs, J.P. 2005. ‘Uncertainty as a monster in the science policy interface: Four coping strategies’, Water Science and Technology 52/6: 87–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sluijs, J.P., Craye, M., Funtowicz, S., Kloprogge, P., Ravetz, J. and Risbey, J. 2005. ‘Combining quantitative and qualitative measures of uncertainty in model based environmental assessment: The NUSAP system’, Risk Analysis 25/2: 481–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sluijs, J.P., Janssen, P.H.M., Petersen, A.C., Kloprogge, P., Risbey, J.S., Tuinstra, W. and Ravetz, J.R. 2004. RIVM/MNP Guidance for Uncertainty Assessment and Communication: Tool Catalogue for Uncertainty Assessment, Utrecht University & RIVM.Google Scholar
Sluijs, J.P., Risbey, J., Kloprogge, P., Ravetz, J., Funtowicz, S., Corral Quintana, S., Guimaraes Pereira, A., Marchi, B., Petersen, A., Janssen, P., Hoppe, R. and Huijs, S. 2003. RIVM/MNP Guidance for Uncertainty Assessment and Communication: Detailed Guidance, Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, and RIVM-MNP, Utrecht, The Netherlands, available at: www.nusap.net.Google Scholar
Sluijs, J.P., Eijndhoven, J.C.M., Shackley, S. and Wynne, B. 1998. ‘Anchoring devices in science for policy, the case of consensus around climate sensitivity’, Social Studies of Science 28/2: 291–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, W.E., Harremoës, P., Rotmans, J., Sluijs, J.P., Asselt, M.B.A., Janssen, P. and Krayer von Krauss, M.P. 2003. ‘Defining uncertainty: A conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model-based decision support’, Integrated Assessment 4/1: 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yearley, S. 1996. Sociology, Environmentalism, Globalization, London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
3
Cited by

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×