Michael Oppenheimer, Naomi Oreskes, Dale Jamieson, Keynyn Brysse, Jessica O’Reilly, Matthew Shindell, and Milena Wazeck
- Published in print:
- 2019
- Published Online:
- September 2019
- ISBN:
- 9780226601960
- eISBN:
- 9780226602158
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- University of Chicago Press
- DOI:
- 10.7208/chicago/9780226602158.003.0002
- Subject:
- Environmental Science, Environmental Studies
The US National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program was established in 1980 to serve as both a research program and an assessment body. It is generally thought to have been successful in the former ...
More
The US National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program was established in 1980 to serve as both a research program and an assessment body. It is generally thought to have been successful in the former aim but not the latter; the fact that the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments were made prior to the publication of NAPAP’s final assessment is often taken as evidence that it failed to influence policy. We find that factors contributing to this perceived failure included significantly compartmentalized research (particularly between environmental scientists focused on ecosystem effects and atmospheric scientists focused on atmospheric processes), and insufficient emphasis placed on the policy-relevant assessment dimension as a consequence of institutional ties of participating scientists. However, the boundary between assessment and policy is semi-permeable: knowledge, and information needs can move in both directions, with science assessment and policy influencing each other through both formal and informal channels. NAPAP scientists and program directors contributed informally to policy-relevant discussions preceding the 1990 amendments, and may therefore have influenced the outcome. NAPAP’s Regional Atmospheric Deposition Model, seen in the policy domain as needed for regulatory purposes, was not finalized in time to influence policy, but it did advance atmospheric modelling.Less
The US National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program was established in 1980 to serve as both a research program and an assessment body. It is generally thought to have been successful in the former aim but not the latter; the fact that the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments were made prior to the publication of NAPAP’s final assessment is often taken as evidence that it failed to influence policy. We find that factors contributing to this perceived failure included significantly compartmentalized research (particularly between environmental scientists focused on ecosystem effects and atmospheric scientists focused on atmospheric processes), and insufficient emphasis placed on the policy-relevant assessment dimension as a consequence of institutional ties of participating scientists. However, the boundary between assessment and policy is semi-permeable: knowledge, and information needs can move in both directions, with science assessment and policy influencing each other through both formal and informal channels. NAPAP scientists and program directors contributed informally to policy-relevant discussions preceding the 1990 amendments, and may therefore have influenced the outcome. NAPAP’s Regional Atmospheric Deposition Model, seen in the policy domain as needed for regulatory purposes, was not finalized in time to influence policy, but it did advance atmospheric modelling.
Michael Oppenheimer, Naomi Oreskes, Dale Jamieson, Keynyn Brysse, Jessica O'Reilly, Matthew Shindell, and Milena Wazeck
- Published in print:
- 2019
- Published Online:
- September 2019
- ISBN:
- 9780226601960
- eISBN:
- 9780226602158
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- University of Chicago Press
- DOI:
- 10.7208/chicago/9780226602158.001.0001
- Subject:
- Environmental Science, Environmental Studies
Societies have long turned to experts for advice on controversial matters, but in the past, the arrangements to solicit expert advice were largely ad hoc. In recent years we have witnessed the ...
More
Societies have long turned to experts for advice on controversial matters, but in the past, the arrangements to solicit expert advice were largely ad hoc. In recent years we have witnessed the development of an institutionalized system in which scientists offer knowledge in exchange for influence on the policy process, creating, in effect, a permanent assessment economy. We examine this process of expert assessment through detailed analyses of three groups of large, formal scientific assessments: the U.S. National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, international assessments of ozone depletion, and assessments examining the potential disintegration of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. We show that assessments not only summarize existing knowledge, but also can create new knowledge and set research agendas. Assessments can also impede the development of knowledge, particularly if scientists focus unduly on uncertainty or on achieving consensus. The desire to achieve consensus can also weaken assessment outcomes by leading scientists to converge on least common denominator results. Assessments often try to stay on the science side of a poorly defined and intermittently enforced boundary between science and policy because of a concern with objectivity and efficacy. Assessments often try to neutralize bias by being inclusive in terms of nationality, gender, and prior intellectual commitments—adopting what we call a “balance of bias” strategy. We conclude that the assessment process is one of expert discernment, but nevertheless surprisingly sensitive to the institutional arrangements that establish it.Less
Societies have long turned to experts for advice on controversial matters, but in the past, the arrangements to solicit expert advice were largely ad hoc. In recent years we have witnessed the development of an institutionalized system in which scientists offer knowledge in exchange for influence on the policy process, creating, in effect, a permanent assessment economy. We examine this process of expert assessment through detailed analyses of three groups of large, formal scientific assessments: the U.S. National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, international assessments of ozone depletion, and assessments examining the potential disintegration of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. We show that assessments not only summarize existing knowledge, but also can create new knowledge and set research agendas. Assessments can also impede the development of knowledge, particularly if scientists focus unduly on uncertainty or on achieving consensus. The desire to achieve consensus can also weaken assessment outcomes by leading scientists to converge on least common denominator results. Assessments often try to stay on the science side of a poorly defined and intermittently enforced boundary between science and policy because of a concern with objectivity and efficacy. Assessments often try to neutralize bias by being inclusive in terms of nationality, gender, and prior intellectual commitments—adopting what we call a “balance of bias” strategy. We conclude that the assessment process is one of expert discernment, but nevertheless surprisingly sensitive to the institutional arrangements that establish it.
Dietland Müller-Schwarze
- Published in print:
- 2011
- Published Online:
- August 2016
- ISBN:
- 9780801450105
- eISBN:
- 9780801460869
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Cornell University Press
- DOI:
- 10.7591/cornell/9780801450105.003.0019
- Subject:
- Biology, Animal Behavior / Behavioral Ecology
This chapter examines the impact of the so-called “nuisance beavers” on the landscape. It argues that “nuisance beaver” is a misnomer, since damage to crops, tree plantations, roads, water supplies, ...
More
This chapter examines the impact of the so-called “nuisance beavers” on the landscape. It argues that “nuisance beaver” is a misnomer, since damage to crops, tree plantations, roads, water supplies, and recreational facilities such as golf courses and campgrounds results from human encroachment on the beaver's habitat, not the other way around. It also considers how the beaver's recent spectacular expansion of its range southward from wilderness to developed land has intensified the conflict between humans and animals. It shows that the beaver causes economic losses by flooding and softening roads as well as flooding often tens of acres of farmland and golf courses. Finally, it asks whether the beaver can help in the fight against acid precipitation or contributes more to the acidification of many bodies of water.Less
This chapter examines the impact of the so-called “nuisance beavers” on the landscape. It argues that “nuisance beaver” is a misnomer, since damage to crops, tree plantations, roads, water supplies, and recreational facilities such as golf courses and campgrounds results from human encroachment on the beaver's habitat, not the other way around. It also considers how the beaver's recent spectacular expansion of its range southward from wilderness to developed land has intensified the conflict between humans and animals. It shows that the beaver causes economic losses by flooding and softening roads as well as flooding often tens of acres of farmland and golf courses. Finally, it asks whether the beaver can help in the fight against acid precipitation or contributes more to the acidification of many bodies of water.
