public domain. Consequently, transparency is a condition for enhanced authentic
legitimacy, both scientific and political, at all levels, local, national, regional and
global.
In conditions of transparency, however, it will be evident not just that much
of the relevant sciences are incomplete, uncertain and equivocal, but also that
particular portrayals of the science, especially monolithic prescriptive portrayals,
are framed by crucial non-scientific assumptions. Those assumptions will be con -
cerned, among other questions with: What is to be counted as a benefit or as a
risk? What would count as relevant evidence? And how much of which kinds of
evidence can/should be deemed sufficient to license inferences to particular types
of policy prescriptions? Different assumptions concerning those sorts of issues have
often been the source of policy disputes. It is possible that explicit international
negotiations over such framing assumptions might diminish rather than exacerbate
international policy differences; we’ll have to try it to find out.
Stilgoe et al. (2006) have argued, in relation to scientific advice to policy-makers,
that there is an important difference between opening ‘windows’ or ‘doors’. In
relation to the former, citizens may watch and listen to the experts’ deliberations,
but cannot contribute to them – for example, by asking questions or providing
information. In the latter case, they may. Transparency and genuinely open doors
may therefore be essential, though they will not be sufficient.
Not only should sustainability-related, policy-relevant scientific evidence and
deliberations be in the public domain, but the ways in which scientific studies have
been designed, conducted, reported and interpreted need to be seen as framed by
non-scientific judgements about what is important and which are the objectives
to which the activities are oriented. If those framing assumptions are allowed to
remain implicit, politics will still be able to masquerade as if it were scientific; but
by making those framing assumptions explicit, the relationships between science
and policy can be assessed and, under appropriate conditions, politically legitimated
(Millstone, 2007).
If those framing assumptions, or at least the most important ones, were explicitly
to be articulated by policy-makers, scholars and citizens could then have a better
understanding of how competing claims and analyses have been constructed.
Under those conditions they could also make well-informed judgements about the
relative reliability of competing assertions about, for example, risks or benefits. In
those circumstances, the chances of scientific knowledge and expertise contributing
to enhanced sustainability, and even to green transformations, rather than as a
hindrance to enhanced sustainability, will be increased.
Invoking ‘science’ in green transformations 53
legitimacy, both scientific and political, at all levels, local, national, regional and
global.
In conditions of transparency, however, it will be evident not just that much
of the relevant sciences are incomplete, uncertain and equivocal, but also that
particular portrayals of the science, especially monolithic prescriptive portrayals,
are framed by crucial non-scientific assumptions. Those assumptions will be con -
cerned, among other questions with: What is to be counted as a benefit or as a
risk? What would count as relevant evidence? And how much of which kinds of
evidence can/should be deemed sufficient to license inferences to particular types
of policy prescriptions? Different assumptions concerning those sorts of issues have
often been the source of policy disputes. It is possible that explicit international
negotiations over such framing assumptions might diminish rather than exacerbate
international policy differences; we’ll have to try it to find out.
Stilgoe et al. (2006) have argued, in relation to scientific advice to policy-makers,
that there is an important difference between opening ‘windows’ or ‘doors’. In
relation to the former, citizens may watch and listen to the experts’ deliberations,
but cannot contribute to them – for example, by asking questions or providing
information. In the latter case, they may. Transparency and genuinely open doors
may therefore be essential, though they will not be sufficient.
Not only should sustainability-related, policy-relevant scientific evidence and
deliberations be in the public domain, but the ways in which scientific studies have
been designed, conducted, reported and interpreted need to be seen as framed by
non-scientific judgements about what is important and which are the objectives
to which the activities are oriented. If those framing assumptions are allowed to
remain implicit, politics will still be able to masquerade as if it were scientific; but
by making those framing assumptions explicit, the relationships between science
and policy can be assessed and, under appropriate conditions, politically legitimated
(Millstone, 2007).
If those framing assumptions, or at least the most important ones, were explicitly
to be articulated by policy-makers, scholars and citizens could then have a better
understanding of how competing claims and analyses have been constructed.
Under those conditions they could also make well-informed judgements about the
relative reliability of competing assertions about, for example, risks or benefits. In
those circumstances, the chances of scientific knowledge and expertise contributing
to enhanced sustainability, and even to green transformations, rather than as a
hindrance to enhanced sustainability, will be increased.
Invoking ‘science’ in green transformations 53