EBP-BIOSOC

Scientificity,

policy making and

empirical validity of knowledge:

new issues ?

M.Kirsch & C.Laurent

Scientificity, policy making and empirical validity of knowledge: new issues ?

1) Several modes of relationship between policy making and building of scientific knowledge

2) The reasons why: some contextual insights

3) Consequences for EBP-BIOSOC ’s WPs

Scientificity, policy making and empirical validity of knowledge: new issues ?

1) Several modes of relationship between policy making and building of scientific knowledge

What we actually find in the course of our first investigations...

Technical content of regulatory

measures

Discontinuity

A1. Expertise

A.2. Direct access(ex. EBD)

Domain of scientific building

Domain of practical implementation

Domain of policy building

Elaboration of compromises

Several modes of relationship between policy making and building of scientific knowledge

Avai

labl

e sc

ient

ific

know

ledg

e

Technical content of regulatory

measuresContinuity

Discontinuity

A1. Expertise

A.2. Direct access(ex. EBD)

B1. Prescription

B2. Co-production of the content of scientific models(PNS, NPS, Triple Helix)

Domain of scientific building

Domain of practical implementation

Domain of policy building

Elaboration of compromises

Several modes of relationship between policy making and building of scientific knowledge

Adoption by policy makers

Contribution of various stakeholdersto scientific production

Scientificity, policy making and empirical validity of knowledge: new

issues ?

2) The reasons why: some contextual insights• A need for a paradigme shift?• From the sociology of science to the science studies• Science war (science a a weapon for dominating minorities)• Post Normal Science (PNS) and New Production of Knowledge (NPK)

Scientificity, policy making and empirical validity of knowledge: new issues ?

2) The reasons why: some contextual insights

Several papers help understand the reasons why these different modes of relationship between science and polocy making have evolved…..

Sociology of science and Science Studies (a very short selection)

• Terry Shinn, Pascal Ragouet, Controverses sur la science. Pour une sociologie transversaliste de l’activité scientifique,Paris, Raisons d’agir, 2005

• Michel Callon, « Défense et illustration des recherches sur la science », in Baudouin Jurdant, Impostures scientifiques,Paris, La Découverte, 1998

The New Production of Knowledge

• M. Gibbons, C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott & M. Trow, The New Production of Knowledge, London, Sage, 1994

• H. Nowotny, M. Gibbons, P. Scott, Re-thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty, London, Polity Press & Blackwell Pub., 2001

Post-Normal Science• Ravetz, J. R. 1986. Usable knowledge, usable ignorance: incomplete

science with policy implications. In Clark, W. C., and R. C. Munn, ed. Sustainable development of the biosphere. p. 415-432. New York: Cambridge University Press.

• Funtowicz, S.O. and J.R. Ravetz 1990. Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy Kluwer Academic Publishers, the Netherlands.

• Funtowicz, S. O., and J. R. Ravetz 1992. Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science. In Krimsky, S., and D. Golding, ed. Social theories of risk. p. 251-274. Westport, CT: Praeger.

• Funtowicz and Ravetz "Science for the Post-Normal Age", Futures, 25/7 September 1993, 735-755.

• Funtowicz S. and Ravetz J.R., 1994: The Worth of a Songbird: Ecological Economics as a Post-normal Science, Ecological Economics, 10(3):197-207.

• Ravetz, J.R., 1996: Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems, Transaction, New Brunswick, N.J. and London.

• Post-Normal Science - Beyond simplistic belief systems, Ravetz, 2005(http://www.postnormaltimes.net/blog/archives/2005/05/postnormal_scie_1.html)

• http://www.nusap.net/• The Encyclopedia of Earth (http://www.eoearth.org/article/Post-Normal_Science)

Scientificity, policy making and empirical validity of knowledge: new issues ?

3) Consequences for EBP-BIOSOC ’s WPs

The core hypothesis of EBP-BIOSOC : there is a specific affinity of political decision-making to certain types of scientific knowledge with specific properties (for instance, simplicity and the possibility of providing quantified simulations in the time-frame of political decision-making, or the ability to produce 'consensus'-generating tools).

ContinuityDiscontinuity

A1. Expertise

A.2. Direct access(ex. EBD)

B1. Prescription

B2. Co-production of the content of scientific models‘(ex. post-normal science)

Consequences for EBP-BIOSOC

WP1 : are these different conceptions part of the actual practices of people designing the technical content of regulatory measures?

- When willing to access to scientific knowledge more easily, which kind of relationship would be prefered?- When actually financing (or relying on) specific research, which kind of relationship is prefered?- etc

ContinuityDiscontinuity

A1. Expertise

A.2. Direct access(ex. EBD)

B1. Prescription

B2. Co-production of the content of scientific models‘(ex. post-normal science)

Consequences for EBP-BIOSOC

WP2 : How are these different conceptions interfering with the building (and assessment) of the empirical validity of the available knowledge ?

- Which criteria for assessing the quality of scientific knowledge (truth, usefulness, ability to create consensus,…) - Which ways for presenting the results and allowing other members of the scientific community (or other stakeholders) to assess the results (role of meta-data)?- etc

ContinuityDiscontinuity

A1. Expertise

A.2. Direct access(ex. EBD)

B1. Prescription

B2. Co-production of the content of scientific models(ex. post-normal science)

Consequences for EBP-BIOSOC

WP3 : How are these different conceptions mobilzed by different stakeholders? How are they contributing to the balance of power between them and to the mode of resolution of the contradictions between objectives of cohesion and objectives of biodiversity conservation?

- Which stakeholder is promoting which kind of knowledge (or kind of access to knowledge)?

- How evidence are they used by various stakeholders (justification, technical support,…)

- How do approaches similar to EBP and post-normal science contribute to reshape the access to knowledge for different kinds of stakeholders? (ability to generate new researches, « post normal » science building and issues on governance, etc.)