diminish unsustainability. Leach (this book) explains in relation to the semi-official
target of managing greenhouse gas concentrations to prevent average global
temperatures from rising by more than two degrees Kelvin, compared to preindustrial levels, that such targets are social constructs and political compromises,
not facts of nature. Leach explains that if such numbers were recognized and
acknowledged to be social constructs then:
it might be more appropriately treated as a means: appreciating its social
contestation, the two degree safety barrier might be reconsidered as a dis -
cursive concept to open up debates about legitimacy, values and uncertainty,
thus creating space for and facilitating ‘democratic discussion about what sort
of world we want to live in’.
(Shaw, 2010)
An important feature of such concepts, which van der Sluijs has termed
‘anchoring devices’ is that they are often officially portrayed as if they reliably
captured something like a natural constant, when they are in practice socially
constructed hybrids, incorporating both scientific and policy considerations, but
frequently masquerading as if purely scientific (van der Sluijs et al., 1998). As such,
they can be understood as representatives of a broad category of devices that
individuals and organizations use in an attempt to invoke science to exercise power,
in large part by concealing the fact that they are doing so.
That normative considerations are involved can be revealed in part by
scrutinizing the selection and deployment of the terminology. When quantitative
figures are ‘reported’ as, for example, acceptable daily intakes (ADIs) or maximum
tolerated dose (MTDs), judgements are invariably made about what is to
be deemed ‘acceptable’ and ‘tolerable’ (JMPR, n.d.). However, what is deemed
acceptable or tolerable by some individuals and organizations may well be judged
intolerable and unacceptable by others. When organizations, such as the Joint
Meeting on Pesticide Residues (of the World Health Organization (WHO) and
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)), which are
ostensibly scientific, assign quantitative ADIs or, for example, Maximum Residue
Limits to particular active ingredients of pesticide formulations, they are providing
hybrid science policy judgements that masquerade as if purely scientific. They are
also assuming that the actions of each compound and products ingredient are
independent of the actions of the others, despite empirical evidence to the contrary
(Laetz et al., 2009).
A common tactic among incumbent institutions has been to invoke ostensibly authoritative narratives to try to legitimate policy decisions, and in a culture
in which ‘science’ is widely supposed to deliver the requisite authority. While that
tendency has been dominant, it has also been problematic. It is problematic for
at least two reasons. First, the science relevant to many environmental issues is
uncertain, equivocal and indecisive; consequently, scientific considerations on
their own can never decide policies. Second, if the uncertainties could be
42 Erik Millstone
target of managing greenhouse gas concentrations to prevent average global
temperatures from rising by more than two degrees Kelvin, compared to preindustrial levels, that such targets are social constructs and political compromises,
not facts of nature. Leach explains that if such numbers were recognized and
acknowledged to be social constructs then:
it might be more appropriately treated as a means: appreciating its social
contestation, the two degree safety barrier might be reconsidered as a dis -
cursive concept to open up debates about legitimacy, values and uncertainty,
thus creating space for and facilitating ‘democratic discussion about what sort
of world we want to live in’.
(Shaw, 2010)
An important feature of such concepts, which van der Sluijs has termed
‘anchoring devices’ is that they are often officially portrayed as if they reliably
captured something like a natural constant, when they are in practice socially
constructed hybrids, incorporating both scientific and policy considerations, but
frequently masquerading as if purely scientific (van der Sluijs et al., 1998). As such,
they can be understood as representatives of a broad category of devices that
individuals and organizations use in an attempt to invoke science to exercise power,
in large part by concealing the fact that they are doing so.
That normative considerations are involved can be revealed in part by
scrutinizing the selection and deployment of the terminology. When quantitative
figures are ‘reported’ as, for example, acceptable daily intakes (ADIs) or maximum
tolerated dose (MTDs), judgements are invariably made about what is to
be deemed ‘acceptable’ and ‘tolerable’ (JMPR, n.d.). However, what is deemed
acceptable or tolerable by some individuals and organizations may well be judged
intolerable and unacceptable by others. When organizations, such as the Joint
Meeting on Pesticide Residues (of the World Health Organization (WHO) and
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)), which are
ostensibly scientific, assign quantitative ADIs or, for example, Maximum Residue
Limits to particular active ingredients of pesticide formulations, they are providing
hybrid science policy judgements that masquerade as if purely scientific. They are
also assuming that the actions of each compound and products ingredient are
independent of the actions of the others, despite empirical evidence to the contrary
(Laetz et al., 2009).
A common tactic among incumbent institutions has been to invoke ostensibly authoritative narratives to try to legitimate policy decisions, and in a culture
in which ‘science’ is widely supposed to deliver the requisite authority. While that
tendency has been dominant, it has also been problematic. It is problematic for
at least two reasons. First, the science relevant to many environmental issues is
uncertain, equivocal and indecisive; consequently, scientific considerations on
their own can never decide policies. Second, if the uncertainties could be
42 Erik Millstone