Science & Policy

In Theories of Science in Society, Cozzens and Gieryn’s have collected an impressive set of contributed chapters detailing major theories in the sociology of science and the sociology of scientific knowledge. These essays present and explicate major sociological theories from Weberian bureaucracy theory and Anthony Giddens’ theory or structuraration, to theories of boundary work and discourse coalitions. This repertoire provides a largely-inclusive sampling of different sociological approaches to science/ scientific knowledge circa 1999.

The included chapters explore two broad issues the authors have loosely titled convergences and divergences. These headings refer to the exploration of sociological issues in science in the case of the former, and exploration of methodological and theoretical issues for stuying science, in the case of the latter. Included under the heading convergences are issues such as: 1)boundaries of science, 2)power, patronage, autonomy, and 3) rhetoric. Issues of divergences include: 1)nomothetic vs. ideographic, 2) reflexivity: involvement or detachment, and 3) units of analysis: structure or action. While this text contains quite a few great chapters, I’ve chosen only to highlight a few issues below (those that are especially relevant to the science-policy interface.)

In Rob Hagendijk’s chapter, “Structuration Theory, Constructivism and Scientific Change,” he explores the interesting concept of the discourse coalition. Discourse coalitions are temporary loci of discursive interchange between otherwise incommensurate groups. This concept maps interesting only to similar science studies concepts like Peter Gallison’s trading zones, and Randy Allen Harris’ pragmatic commensurability. The theory of discourse coalitions was developed in Bjorn Wittrock et al’s (1987) Social Science and the Modern State. This text explores discourse coalitions developed between academic social scientists and policy makers in Europe. These groups with different backgrounds and interests had similar goals in societal construction and so came together in the development of governmental policy.

In “Forms of Patronage,” Stephen P. Turner explores the historical development of different forms of political and economic patronage in Anglo-American science. He traces science from its early days in which financed patronage was the only way of having the capital necessary to engage in scientific exploration, to current government-funded sciences. Turner explores government-funded science though the lens of historical patronage, and is so doing explores the impact of funding sources of trust and bias in the sciences.

In “Contested Boundaries,: Sheila Jasanoff explores different conceptualizations of the science-policy interface as articulated by a variety of scientific and policy institutions. Jasanoff uses the debate over the regulation formaldehyde and its designation as a carcinogen to explore these different conceptualizations. She draws on discourse from a veritable alphabet soup of government and scientific organizations including EPA, OSHA, OSTP, OMB, and NAS. Ultimately Jasanoff concludes that the contested boundaries of science and policy are a fundamental rhetorical problem. She argues that the language used to construct and conceptualize the boundaries tends to place power and/or blame on one side of the boundary. Of course this localization of power and/or blame is to the benefit of one or more of the parties using or originating the interface-construct.

Jasanoff begins her article by establishing the different modes of discussion and debate used in science and policy. She contrasts the relatively private peer-review and conference discussion process of science with the public legal/adversarial processes of policy. She notes how the consensus building and decision-making processes internal to science have helped establish science’s special place in knowledge generation. Jasanoff further argues that since the modus operandi of policy is to publically deconstruct the opposing side by pointing biases and areas of uncertainty that this makes science more hesitant to engage in policy as it may futher erode public confidence in science. In an attempt to manage this tension, scientists and policy makers have developed conceptual constructs that delimit “pure” science from policy science and “pure” policy from science-based policy.

Jasanoff traces three such constructs that were popular in the science-policy discourse of the 1970s and 1980s: “science policy,” “risk assessment,” and “peer review.” In her initial discussion Jasanoff explores the shift from “trans-science” to “science policy.” As she describes, each of these constructs were developed to articulate the nature of a “grey area” between science and policy, or in the words of Alvin Weinberg, the space made up of questions that “can be asked of science and yet which cannot be answered by science.” Janasoff argues that the establishment of this grey area creates a space where scientific concepts are subject to policy decision-making strategies. This, of course, places significant power in the hands of policy makers. However, this also serves to shift the locus of tension between science and policy to the location of the boundary. How can one distinguish between science (“pure and unbiased” and trans-science (the place for policy). As Jasanoff elucidates, this is a matter for contention as well. The discourse of trans-science tends to place the onus on the scientists. However, the reformulation of trans-science as “science policy” locates trans-science as a subset of policy.

According to Jasanoff, another major issue in the development of different interface constructs was the nature of the questions “science couldn’t answer.” As would be expected much of this has to do with science as predictive. Consequently the debate around science policy in general, and the potentially carcinogenic-nature of formaldehyde shifted to a discussion about policies of risk. Within this new discursive arena of science policy the boundaries were redrawn to include two areas of discussion: risk assessment and risk management. As the terms imply, under this division of labor scientists would be responsible for determining whether or not something was risky to either the environment or human health, and the policy-makers would manage that risk through appropriate guidelines and legislation.

Finally Jasanoff explored demands for peer-review in science policy. According to the article, many government sponsored scientists involved in predictive risk assessment were not subject to the same type of peer-review as traditional “internal” science. Therefore there was a rising demand for some form of peer-review-style oversight in this emerging field. However the nature of the peer-review, who constituted peers, and what data needed to be reviewed were all issues of constant debate.

In “Sheepfarming after Chernobyl,” Brian Wayne explores communicaitons problems between scientists, government officials, and sheepfarmers in Cumbria, UK following Chernobyl. In the aftermath of the Chernobyl incident, radioactive isotopes rained on sheepfarming areas in Cumbria causing governmental concern over the safety of Cumbrian sheep for human consumption. During this time the English government enacted many risk management policies designed to ensure the safety of the sheep supply and to compensate Cumbrian sheepfarmers for the results of this disaster.

Wayne identifies several communication failures that exacerbated an already tense situation. He cites a persistent lack of inclusion of local expertise on the part of government regulators as a major contributor to the communication problems. Cumbrian farmers expressed a great deal of discontent at the apparent lack of understanding on the part of government regulators and scientists. For example, they objected to government demands that they round up their sheep in an impossible time frame. Additionally, farmers distrusted what they perceived as overly theoretical knowledge such as the distinction between different Cesium isotopes. Ultimately Wayne suggests that scientistis and government regulators typically devalue local knowledge in favor of creditialed “expert” knowledge, and that in so doing they often alienate portions of the public. Ultimately the recommend reorganizing policy decision-making practices so as to include local expertise.

This article identifies key constituents in the problems surrounding communication with Cumbrian sheepfarmers post-Chernobyl. It seems the denial of legitimacy to local knowledge sources added unneeded tension to an already difficult situation and may have slowed the process of crisis-management. However, the article seems to conflate the roles of scientists and government regulators. (Something that may well have been done by the Cumbrian sheepfarmers.) A more through investigation of post-Chernobyl Cumbrian sheepfarming might include more detailed exploration of the scientists-policy maker interface.

In “The Role of Pathos,” (reprinted in Harris’ Landmark Essays on Rhetoric of Science Case Studies, 1997), Craig Waddell explores the 1976 debate surrounding whether or not recombinant DNA (rDNA) research should be allowed in Cambridge, MA. In particular, Waddell focuses on the city-formed Cambridge Experimentation Research Board (CERB) and a meeting it had with researchers from Harvard and MIT and concerned citizens. Waddell determined that though our culture in general and the post-hoc reflections of CERB meeting attendees tend to privilege the role of logos in policy decision making, that, instead, the arguments presented at the meeting involved a sophisticated coordination of logical, pathetic, and ethetic arguments. In follow-up interviews CERB members reported that emotional arguments such as appeals to the sanctity of human germ plasm and the tragedy of children with congenital illness were prominent and in some cases particularly persuasive. Furthermore Waddell explores how ad hominem attacks became the primary mode of argumentation in some parts of the discourse.

Ultimately Waddell argues that this data suggest that scientists interested in influencing policy and rhetoricians studying the science-policy interface need to pay attention not only to the logical appeals, but also the role of pathos and ethos in that discourse. And while these were important conclusions in 1990 and they still ring true today, subsequent research in the science-policy interface has rendered these findings somewhat obvious to rhetorical scholars. Nevertheless, I think it is important to continue to remind ourselves that the scientists who participate in policy discourse and those making policy decisions often think of those decisions as exclusively logical, if well made.

In “Turning Science into Policy,” world bank member and former Clinton-Gore adviser Robert T. Watson reflects on the relationship between science and policy within the debates on climate change, environmental sustainability, and population control. He argues that no fruitful directions in policy are likely without a through integration of research into scientific, economic, and social issues for environmental policy. Watson suggests that contemporary environmental policy activists need to focus primarily on deconstructing the long held false binary between environmental protection and economic success and argue for policy change, in stead, on a foundation that links environmental sustainability with economic sustainability.

This short article is a clear and insightful exploration of science-policy interface issues, albeit by a non-science studies academic. I highly recomended it as an introduction to the complected interfaces between science and policy. It would serve well both for undergraduate courses and for scholars looking to explore the science-policy interface for the first time.