Abstract

I use the example of the 2000 US Presidential election to show that political controversies with technical underpinnings are not resolved by technical means. Then, drawing from examples such as climate change, genetically modified foods, and nuclear waste disposal, I explore the idea that scientific inquiry is inherently and unavoidably subject to becoming politicized in environmental controversies. I discuss three reasons for this. First, science supplies contesting parties with their own bodies of relevant, legitimated facts about nature, chosen in part because they help make sense of, and are made sensible by, particular interests and normative frameworks. Second, competing disciplinary approaches to understanding the scientific bases of an environmental controversy may be causally tied to competing value-based political or ethical positions. The necessity of looking at nature through a variety of disciplinary lenses brings with it a variety of normative lenses, as well. Third, it follows from the foregoing that scientific uncertainty, which so often occupies a central place in environmental controversies, can be understood not as a lack of scientific understanding but as the lack of coherence among competing scientific understandings, amplified by the various political, cultural, and institutional contexts within which science is carried out.In light of these observations, I briefly explore the problem of why some types of political controversies become "scientized" and others do not, and conclude that the value bases of disputes underlying environmental controversies must be fully articulated and adjudicated through political means before science can play an effective role in resolving environmental problems.

LanguageEnglish (US)
Pages385-403
Number of pages19
JournalEnvironmental Science and Policy
Volume7
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2004

Fingerprint

science
Lenses
lack
Values
Radioactive wastes
Waste disposal
Climate change
Uncertainty
waste disposal
presidential election
environmental impact
climate change
uncertainty
food
coherence
election
radioactive waste

Keywords

  • Environmental policy
  • Lomborg
  • Politics
  • Science policy
  • Values

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment
  • Global and Planetary Change
  • Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
  • Geography, Planning and Development

Cite this

How science makes environmental controversies worse. / Sarewitz, Daniel.

In: Environmental Science and Policy, Vol. 7, No. 5, 10.2004, p. 385-403.

Research output: Research - peer-reviewArticle

@article{089e37e54b304d0ba56fae049a348ef7,
title = "How science makes environmental controversies worse",
abstract = "I use the example of the 2000 US Presidential election to show that political controversies with technical underpinnings are not resolved by technical means. Then, drawing from examples such as climate change, genetically modified foods, and nuclear waste disposal, I explore the idea that scientific inquiry is inherently and unavoidably subject to becoming politicized in environmental controversies. I discuss three reasons for this. First, science supplies contesting parties with their own bodies of relevant, legitimated facts about nature, chosen in part because they help make sense of, and are made sensible by, particular interests and normative frameworks. Second, competing disciplinary approaches to understanding the scientific bases of an environmental controversy may be causally tied to competing value-based political or ethical positions. The necessity of looking at nature through a variety of disciplinary lenses brings with it a variety of normative lenses, as well. Third, it follows from the foregoing that scientific uncertainty, which so often occupies a central place in environmental controversies, can be understood not as a lack of scientific understanding but as the lack of coherence among competing scientific understandings, amplified by the various political, cultural, and institutional contexts within which science is carried out.In light of these observations, I briefly explore the problem of why some types of political controversies become {"}scientized{"} and others do not, and conclude that the value bases of disputes underlying environmental controversies must be fully articulated and adjudicated through political means before science can play an effective role in resolving environmental problems.",
keywords = "Environmental policy, Lomborg, Politics, Science policy, Values",
author = "Daniel Sarewitz",
year = "2004",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1016/j.envsci.2004.06.001",
volume = "7",
pages = "385--403",
journal = "Environmental Science and Policy",
issn = "1462-9011",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - How science makes environmental controversies worse

AU - Sarewitz,Daniel

PY - 2004/10

Y1 - 2004/10

N2 - I use the example of the 2000 US Presidential election to show that political controversies with technical underpinnings are not resolved by technical means. Then, drawing from examples such as climate change, genetically modified foods, and nuclear waste disposal, I explore the idea that scientific inquiry is inherently and unavoidably subject to becoming politicized in environmental controversies. I discuss three reasons for this. First, science supplies contesting parties with their own bodies of relevant, legitimated facts about nature, chosen in part because they help make sense of, and are made sensible by, particular interests and normative frameworks. Second, competing disciplinary approaches to understanding the scientific bases of an environmental controversy may be causally tied to competing value-based political or ethical positions. The necessity of looking at nature through a variety of disciplinary lenses brings with it a variety of normative lenses, as well. Third, it follows from the foregoing that scientific uncertainty, which so often occupies a central place in environmental controversies, can be understood not as a lack of scientific understanding but as the lack of coherence among competing scientific understandings, amplified by the various political, cultural, and institutional contexts within which science is carried out.In light of these observations, I briefly explore the problem of why some types of political controversies become "scientized" and others do not, and conclude that the value bases of disputes underlying environmental controversies must be fully articulated and adjudicated through political means before science can play an effective role in resolving environmental problems.

AB - I use the example of the 2000 US Presidential election to show that political controversies with technical underpinnings are not resolved by technical means. Then, drawing from examples such as climate change, genetically modified foods, and nuclear waste disposal, I explore the idea that scientific inquiry is inherently and unavoidably subject to becoming politicized in environmental controversies. I discuss three reasons for this. First, science supplies contesting parties with their own bodies of relevant, legitimated facts about nature, chosen in part because they help make sense of, and are made sensible by, particular interests and normative frameworks. Second, competing disciplinary approaches to understanding the scientific bases of an environmental controversy may be causally tied to competing value-based political or ethical positions. The necessity of looking at nature through a variety of disciplinary lenses brings with it a variety of normative lenses, as well. Third, it follows from the foregoing that scientific uncertainty, which so often occupies a central place in environmental controversies, can be understood not as a lack of scientific understanding but as the lack of coherence among competing scientific understandings, amplified by the various political, cultural, and institutional contexts within which science is carried out.In light of these observations, I briefly explore the problem of why some types of political controversies become "scientized" and others do not, and conclude that the value bases of disputes underlying environmental controversies must be fully articulated and adjudicated through political means before science can play an effective role in resolving environmental problems.

KW - Environmental policy

KW - Lomborg

KW - Politics

KW - Science policy

KW - Values

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=4344662301&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=4344662301&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.envsci.2004.06.001

DO - 10.1016/j.envsci.2004.06.001

M3 - Article

VL - 7

SP - 385

EP - 403

JO - Environmental Science and Policy

T2 - Environmental Science and Policy

JF - Environmental Science and Policy

SN - 1462-9011

IS - 5

ER -