Environmental Policy and Science

The International Journal of Science in Society, 2009

Many policy makers, academics, interest groups, environmental managers, and interested citizens have called for a more science-based environmental policy. The assumption is that including scientists and scientific information will improve the quality of complex policy decisions. Others have argued, however, that while science is an important source of information for environmental policy, scientists should only supply the public and policy-makers relevant information and avoid advocating for preferred policy outcomes. They argue that scientists can lose their credibility if they cross the line between science and policy. We investigate this debate with a 2007 U.S. study examining the attitudes of scientists, environmental managers, interest groups, and the public concerning the role of science and scientists in environmental policy. In interviews and surveys with members of these four groups, we find that there are significant differences among groups about what constitutes science, including the acceptability of positivism; a preference among many respondents for research scientists to work closely with managers to interpret and integrate scientific findings into management decisions; and, for those respondents with positivist orientations, some interest in scientific advocacy and decisionmaking by ecological scientists. Ecological scientists, on the other hand, are more doubtful of their ability to provide scientific answers and also more reluctant to engage directly in policy processes than others would prefer them to be.

The role of science in policy making, specifically in the management of complex sociotechnical systems, has been increasing in the past three decades. Particularly in the case of permit processes requiring environmental impact assessment for new projects, such as those covered under the 1969 National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), science has been the main criteria for sound decision making. However, there is increasing concern over the way how science is used by opposing parties in environmental policy issues with high uncertainty and high stakes as a battleground over what are essentially value conflicts. This may be attributed in part to how science currently enters the policy process. This chapter considers the possible weaknesses of the traditional science-intensive policy process, specifically its capacity to engage stakeholders, and proposes an alternative process. In the framework outlined below, the role of scientific analysis in decision making includes consideration of stakeholder interests from the earliest stage of framing the policy question to the implementation of policies. The process is based on joint factfinding that engages all parties.

Environ Sci Policy, 2005

Environmental Science & Policy, 2005

PLoS Biology, 2004

Society of American Foresters - Plenary Address, 2018

People typically expect that scientific information provided by interest and advocacy groups is infused with policy preferences, and for many people, the same skepticism exists for media-provided science. Increasingly, however, public skepticism has extended to scientists themselves (i.e., the prevalence of “advocacy masquerading as science”). Even some experienced managers and policy makers (i.e., knowledgeable “consumers of science”) fail to recognize policy bias when it is presented under the guise of scientific information. For example, a policy bias toward “natural” or “pristine” ecosystems (i.e., those ecosystems unaffected by humans) is a common misuse of science in natural resource management. Using such “science” (i.e., normative science) in policy deliberations is not only a misuse of science, it is insidious because the consumer of the information is often unaware of the hidden policy slant. Public confidence that scientific information is technically accurate, policy relevant, and politically unbiased is central to informed resolution of natural resource policy and management issues that are often contentious, divisive, and litigious. Science must remain a cornerstone of public policy decisions about natural resource issues, but I offer cautionary guidance to scientists: become involved with policy issues, but play the proper role.

Environmental Evidence, 2012

Environmental Science and Policy, 2005

2005

In the debate over the role of science in environmental policy, it is often assumed that science can and should be clearly demarcated from policy. In this paper, I will argue that neither is the case. The difficulty of actually differentiating the scientific arena from the policy arena becomes apparent the moment one attempts to actually locate the boundary. For example, it is unclear whether scientific summaries to be used by regulatory agencies are in the realm of science or policy. If science, then should the authors consider the regulatory implications of uncertainties? If policy, then what is the relevance of a peer review of the document solely by scientists? This descriptive problem is only accentuated by a normative problem: should we try to keep the two realms distinct? The traditional answer has been yes, for the primary reason that the science should not be infected by the social and ethical values so prevalent in the policy realm. I will argue that, to the contrary, social and ethical values are desirable components of scientific reasoning. Indeed, on closer examination, the norms for values in reasoning are the same for science and policy. If I am correct, the pressure to delineate science from policy abates.

Environmental Sciences, 2006