much evidence they deem necessary or sufficient for particular types of conclusions,
and choosing as advisers those people who could be characterized, in the British
cricket-derived idiom, as a ‘safe pair of hands’. Those arrangements have allowed
hybrid science-and-policy judgements to be misrepresented as if purely scientific.
Allowing complacent policy judgements to masquerade as if purely scientific can
serve to insulate those responsible for making or defending such judgements from
many forms of political accountability; after all, it is (supposedly) only scientific
experts who are qualified to adjudicate (Thatcher, 1999).
Incumbent authorities have often not only made misleading claims about the
scientific certainty of reassurances that some alleged aspect of unsustainability is
mistaken, they have also often claimed that such unsustainability problems as they
have acknowledged can be addressed uniquely well with their preferred techno -
logical solution. For example, claims are made that genetically modified (GM) crops
technology provides a uniquely appropriate solution to chronic hunger and mal -
nutrition in developing countries (Pollock, 2013; Anon., 2013a), or that nuclear
power provides the uniquely optimal solution to the challenge of decarbonizing
the production of electricity (HMG, 2009).
While some protagonists in debates about climate change have offered spuriously
precise forecasts of changes that may be anticipated, others have been far more
cautious. In its first report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) did not provide a single point estimate of future changes to average global
surface temperatures; rather, ranges were indicated, along with mid-points of those
ranges (IPCC, 1990). More recent IPCC reports have qualified the estimates of
those ranges with figures indicating levels of confidence in those estimates. No
protagonist offering a single point estimate of future changes of climate and/or
weather would nowadays be deemed credible by those with professional expertise
in climate change debates.
Debates about the safety and acceptability of GM foods
and crops
Examples of such tactics and narratives have emerged in the context of the dispute
between EU Member States and the European Commission on one hand and
the USA on the other, about the safety and acceptability of GM crops (Millstone
et al., 2008). In this context, it is remarkable that the biotechnology industry
endeavours to portray GM crops as a technology that could contribute to, or even
be essential for a ‘green transformation’ (Shapiro, 1996; Borlaug, 2000). Since the
late 1990s, the EU as a whole and/or several EU Member States have restricted
imports of some GM products deemed acceptably safe by the US authorities, which
resulted in a formal complaint to the World Trade Organization (WTO),
adjudicated under the WTO Dispute Procedures. In those cases, the US authorities
have argued that since their GM crop policies are based on sound science, any
assessment that reaches contrary conclusions must ipso facto be examples of either
‘bad science’ or be entirely unscientific (USA, 2004).
48 Erik Millstone
and choosing as advisers those people who could be characterized, in the British
cricket-derived idiom, as a ‘safe pair of hands’. Those arrangements have allowed
hybrid science-and-policy judgements to be misrepresented as if purely scientific.
Allowing complacent policy judgements to masquerade as if purely scientific can
serve to insulate those responsible for making or defending such judgements from
many forms of political accountability; after all, it is (supposedly) only scientific
experts who are qualified to adjudicate (Thatcher, 1999).
Incumbent authorities have often not only made misleading claims about the
scientific certainty of reassurances that some alleged aspect of unsustainability is
mistaken, they have also often claimed that such unsustainability problems as they
have acknowledged can be addressed uniquely well with their preferred techno -
logical solution. For example, claims are made that genetically modified (GM) crops
technology provides a uniquely appropriate solution to chronic hunger and mal -
nutrition in developing countries (Pollock, 2013; Anon., 2013a), or that nuclear
power provides the uniquely optimal solution to the challenge of decarbonizing
the production of electricity (HMG, 2009).
While some protagonists in debates about climate change have offered spuriously
precise forecasts of changes that may be anticipated, others have been far more
cautious. In its first report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) did not provide a single point estimate of future changes to average global
surface temperatures; rather, ranges were indicated, along with mid-points of those
ranges (IPCC, 1990). More recent IPCC reports have qualified the estimates of
those ranges with figures indicating levels of confidence in those estimates. No
protagonist offering a single point estimate of future changes of climate and/or
weather would nowadays be deemed credible by those with professional expertise
in climate change debates.
Debates about the safety and acceptability of GM foods
and crops
Examples of such tactics and narratives have emerged in the context of the dispute
between EU Member States and the European Commission on one hand and
the USA on the other, about the safety and acceptability of GM crops (Millstone
et al., 2008). In this context, it is remarkable that the biotechnology industry
endeavours to portray GM crops as a technology that could contribute to, or even
be essential for a ‘green transformation’ (Shapiro, 1996; Borlaug, 2000). Since the
late 1990s, the EU as a whole and/or several EU Member States have restricted
imports of some GM products deemed acceptably safe by the US authorities, which
resulted in a formal complaint to the World Trade Organization (WTO),
adjudicated under the WTO Dispute Procedures. In those cases, the US authorities
have argued that since their GM crop policies are based on sound science, any
assessment that reaches contrary conclusions must ipso facto be examples of either
‘bad science’ or be entirely unscientific (USA, 2004).
48 Erik Millstone