diminished or even eradicated, scientific considerations alone could never settle
policy issues. Scientific evidence and understanding will be necessary contributors
to debates about enhancing sustainability, but they can never be sufficient.
The politics of uncertainty
While much of the relevant science is uncertain, it is not uniformly so; some things
are known with far greater precision than others. Over the last 30 years the certainty
and precision with which the toxicity of metallic lead and lead compounds has
improved as a result of increasingly sensitive and thorough studies, has been
remarkable (Millstone, 1997). On the other hand, estimates of the risks posed to
human and environmental health from many other compounds, products and
processes have become increasingly uncertain and imprecise, even though that has
not been reflected in official statements or standards. The tactics used to try to
control policy agendas concerning (un)sustainability include variously overstating
or understating the uncertainties in ways that chime with particular interests; as
Brian Wynne has pointed out, there is an important ‘politics of uncertainty’ (Wynne,
1992).
The persistence and contested nature of scientific uncertainties ensure that the
role of expert advisers is both pivotal and problematic (Nelkin, 1984). If pertinent
scientific knowledge was sufficient and reliably codified, then policy-makers and
civil servants might need little more than a decent set of textbooks, but expert
advisers are recruited and can be particularly influential when knowledge is
incomplete; they are required not just to explain the content of the textbooks, but
to provide seemingly authoritative judgements, because (supposedly) while their
knowledge may be incomplete and uncertain, nobody knows better than they do.
The apparent authority of science is often invoked to portray a preferred
narrative as either the only intelligible perspective or as the most reliable and
authoritative perspective. Those tactics are intended to convey the impression either
that ‘there is no alternative’ or ‘we know best – trust us’ (Stirling, 1998). The
apparent authority of dominant perspectives can, however, often be challenged by
questioning the truth, reliability or adequacy of dominant scientific narratives, and
of the arguments and evidence on which they purport to rest.
Strategies and tactics used to influence agendas and
decisions
A range of strategies and tactics have been adopted by organizations and individuals
as they have attempted to influence agendas concerning the (un)sustainability of
the status quo as well as innovative products and processes. Those agendas and the
disputes that are a consequence of the perspectival diversity are typically concerned
with issues such as problem identification, causal diagnoses and prescriptions.
In relation to every type of industrial or commercial sector, the first regulatory
policy battle has almost always debated whether or not the sector needs to be
Invoking ‘science’ in green transformations 43
policy issues. Scientific evidence and understanding will be necessary contributors
to debates about enhancing sustainability, but they can never be sufficient.
The politics of uncertainty
While much of the relevant science is uncertain, it is not uniformly so; some things
are known with far greater precision than others. Over the last 30 years the certainty
and precision with which the toxicity of metallic lead and lead compounds has
improved as a result of increasingly sensitive and thorough studies, has been
remarkable (Millstone, 1997). On the other hand, estimates of the risks posed to
human and environmental health from many other compounds, products and
processes have become increasingly uncertain and imprecise, even though that has
not been reflected in official statements or standards. The tactics used to try to
control policy agendas concerning (un)sustainability include variously overstating
or understating the uncertainties in ways that chime with particular interests; as
Brian Wynne has pointed out, there is an important ‘politics of uncertainty’ (Wynne,
1992).
The persistence and contested nature of scientific uncertainties ensure that the
role of expert advisers is both pivotal and problematic (Nelkin, 1984). If pertinent
scientific knowledge was sufficient and reliably codified, then policy-makers and
civil servants might need little more than a decent set of textbooks, but expert
advisers are recruited and can be particularly influential when knowledge is
incomplete; they are required not just to explain the content of the textbooks, but
to provide seemingly authoritative judgements, because (supposedly) while their
knowledge may be incomplete and uncertain, nobody knows better than they do.
The apparent authority of science is often invoked to portray a preferred
narrative as either the only intelligible perspective or as the most reliable and
authoritative perspective. Those tactics are intended to convey the impression either
that ‘there is no alternative’ or ‘we know best – trust us’ (Stirling, 1998). The
apparent authority of dominant perspectives can, however, often be challenged by
questioning the truth, reliability or adequacy of dominant scientific narratives, and
of the arguments and evidence on which they purport to rest.
Strategies and tactics used to influence agendas and
decisions
A range of strategies and tactics have been adopted by organizations and individuals
as they have attempted to influence agendas concerning the (un)sustainability of
the status quo as well as innovative products and processes. Those agendas and the
disputes that are a consequence of the perspectival diversity are typically concerned
with issues such as problem identification, causal diagnoses and prescriptions.
In relation to every type of industrial or commercial sector, the first regulatory
policy battle has almost always debated whether or not the sector needs to be
Invoking ‘science’ in green transformations 43