Science and Environmental Controversy

HPSC1500 essay, S2 2004



Ecosystems are complex, and our knowledge of them is limited, as the biological scientists who study them are the first to admit. Human social systems are complex too, which is why there is so much work for the ever-growing number of social scientists who study them. Environmental problems by definition are found at the intersection of ecosystems and human social systems, so one should expect them to be doubly complex. (Dryzek, 1997; p.8)



Introduction

Understanding the role of science is critical for the meaningful analysis of environmental controversy. Throughout the course of a controversy, science and scientists will function in many different ways, on behalf of many different actors, including themselves. They support or contradict other expert opinions, produce knowledge and solve problems that they may have themselves uncovered, or even created. Different groups utilise scientific knowledge for their own purposes and will debate which science is more appropriate or correct. Debate over the science of an environmental controversy may form a secondary controversy within the first, or mask a deeper clash of values. Even the perception of science by non-scientists will affect the role science plays in environmental controversy. Despite being a kind of authority, however, science is at the mercy of other agents when it comes to communicating its role and knowledge to the wider public.

Science as an authority

The starting point of many environmental controversies are in scientific enquiry. Some issues are not able to be physically observed by ordinary people, such as ozone depletion, while other controversies of risk, such as the transmission of ‘mad cow disease’ (BSE) across species, may not be within the realm of the ordinary person’s experience. Uncovering these issues and bringing them to public attention means that science and the discourse of science is responsible for framing these issues and is often assumed to be central to both the controversy and its possible resolution.

Traditionally, science has been seen as an authority; objective, unified and dependable. According to Barry (1999), part of this authority was due to unity of opinion within science, which was seen as a homogenous establishment. However it is clear that during the course of an environmental controversy, science as well as public opinion is divided on many issues. Obviously, where scientific opinion and beliefs are divided and enlisted as support by different actors within a controversy, it is impossible for science to be seen as a meaningful authority. Roll-Hansen (1994) suggests that, despite this division, we still assume science is correct, but as the opinions of experts vary and we know eventually some beliefs will be disproved, it is tempting to side with the expert whose stance we like best. Yearly (1988) also asserts that scientific knowledge and its authority is not absolute and should in no way be regarded as such. He argues that, instead of being evaluated in terms of the truth of the science, often scientific evidence is evaluated socially, in terms of who produced it. Part of science’s authority therefore comes from the position in society of the scientists or institutions that produced it.

Furthermore, while it may not be accepted or obvious to many scientists, postmodernist theory recognises scientific knowledge as being just one kind of knowledge within human experience (Barry, 1999). Irwin (1995) also notes that the discourse of science imposes this one kind of knowledge and considers it alone to be valid or authoritative. The credibility of science is evaluated by ordinary people socially, not scientifically, as illustrated by Wynne’s (1989) account of the experience of sheepfarmers in dealing with the scientists after the Chernobyl fallout. This example also illustrated the practical consequences of scientists failing to grasp the authority of the farmers in their special area of expertise – sheep. Although one of the goals of science is to describe the natural world, the abstract knowledge science produces require additional assumptions and non-scientific applications of values to be implemented in the real world. To be useful in the real world, scientific knowledge needs to be combined with other forms of knowledge (Wynne, 1989).

Science as a tool

With the destruction of the orthodox view of science as an authority in its own right, analysis of the role of science in environmental controversy has focussed on how science is used by different groups to further their views and support their own arguments. In their discussion of analytical methods, Martin and Richards (1995) describes the group politics approach to controversy analysis as regarding science as a resource that can be mobilised in support of a group’s position. Martin’s (1988) paper on the fluoridation controversy also treats science in this way. Irwin (1995) echoes this sentiment when he describes science as a legitimating tool, both by the stances it supports and the way it frames the controversy. He also describes this use of science as “politics by other means” (p.49).

Dryzek (1997) places importance on the discourses used by groups as a key to analysing environmental controversy. He claims that discourse conditions the way a group will frame and address the controversy. As previously mentioned, most environmental controversies will be framed by the discourse of science. However, different groups with different worldviews will also attempt to use science to further their own discourse; science therefore will subscribe to the discourse of its sponsor in the importance they place on elements of a controversy and the solutions or actions they propose. Deprived of a social or political agenda of its own, or having it subsumed by the group it works for, science is another means of supporting established discourses, such as economic rationalism or sustainability, or possibly establishing new discourses in the public arena.

The use of science as a tool in public debate may also obscure the way science is still vulnerable to marginalisation within environmental controversy. While the government and corporations have access to the public via commercial media channels and their own forms of communication (mailouts, public meetings, etc), science has no such resources. Roll-Hansen’s (1994) description of the media treatment of acid rain damage to forests in Norway highlights the way in which commercial media selects which scientific knowledge to broadcast according to its own interests, rather than giving a complete or accurate account. So although scientists are actors in environmental controversy and their expertise is used by various stakeholders to support their claims, the roles of science as a stakeholder and independent entity within a controversy is far less important than its legitimating role.

Science as the creator of environmental controversy

Ulrich Beck’s concept of the ‘risk society’, as discussed by Barry (1999) and Irwin (1995) includes the idea that environmental controversies involve science as the underlying cause of environmental controversy because if its role in the development of industrial society. If, however, we accept that science is used to develop technology and further development, perhaps it would be more useful to pass the blame for environmental controversy onto the institutions and governments that support modern industrialism and its social and economic structure. Roll-Hansen (1994) attributes the ineffective use of science by policy-makers as a possible cause of environmental controversy, due to the failure of the relevant authorities to adequately understand the science and its impacts before implementing legislation.

Science as a surrogate controversy

Reid (1995) describes the existence of “meta-problems” (p.15) –interlinked environmental and social concerns that have many causes and dimensions. To effectively treat a meta-problem, all the aspects of the meta-problem must be addressed. For example, the unsustainable development of poor nations is not just a matter lack of scientific knowledge or technology, but a product of the global economic climate they operate in. Science could be called in to provide material solutions to the many controversial environmental problems of development, but the real source of controversy would still be the nation’s economic policy driving the unsustainable development, which in turn would be driven by international market forces.

In a similar vein, Irwin (1995) makes mention of Cotgrove’s argument that environmental controversies are actually founded on clashes between different ideas of morality and society. Ordinary people, therefore, will have minimal interest in the specific technical information of a controversy (Irwin cites the nuclear power debate as an example) and any scientific information provided to them will probably not change their position. What they really object to is not so much the technology as the society that produced it and that the new technology in turn reinforces, yet any debate over the new technology will centre on the risks associated with it. Likewise, Nelkin (1995) suggests that controversies are significant because they are also moral statements about the role of science.

Conclusion

As science is varied and complex, in its institutions and expertise, so to is the role science plays in environmental controversies. Science can be an authority in its own right, but more often has its authority and credibility appropriated by conflicting groups within a controversy. The discourse of science shapes how environmental controversies are seen and how they are debated in the public arena, but science itself is dependent on the discourse of its sponsor in how it frames solutions. Indeed, science is usually responsible for bringing environmental controversies to light, as well as providing the technical basis for their resolution. Less obviously, debate over science and risk in environmental controversy may mask the deeper debate about fundamental social and moral values. Appreciation of the complex and varied role science plays in an environmental controversy is crucial for its meaningful analysis, which in turn is essential for finding ways forward to a possible resolution.


References

Barry, J (1999) Environmental and Social Theory. Routledge, London. pp. 151-175.

Dryzek, J (1997) The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. Oxford University Press, Oxford. pp. 3-22.

Irwin, A (1995) Citizen Science: a study of people, expertise and sustainable development. Routledge, London. pp. 40-61.

Martin, B (1988) Analysing the fluoridation controversy: resources and structures. Social Studies of Science. 18:331-363.

Martin, B & Richards, E (1995) Scientific knowledge, controversy and public decision-making IN Sheila Jansanoff et al. (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Sage, Thousand Oaks. pp. 505-526.

Nelkin, D (1995) 'Science controversies.' IN Sheila Jansanoff et al. (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Sage, Thousand Oaks. pp.444-456.

Reid, D (1995) Sustainable Development – An Introductory Guide. Earthscan, London. pp. 3-23

Roll-Hansen, N (1994) Science, politics and the mass media: on biased communication of environmental issues. Science, Technology and Human Values. 19:324-341.

Wynne, B (1989) Sheepfarming after Chernobyl. A case study in communicating scientific information. Environment. 31/2:10-39.

Yearly, S (1988) Science, Technology and Social Change. Unwin Hyman, London. pp. 16-43.