If Post-Normal Science is the Solution, What is the Problem?: The Politics of Activist Environmental Science

Abstract

Post-normal science (PNS) is presented by its proponents as a new way of doing science that deals with uncertainties, value diversity or antagonism, and high decision stakes and urgency, with the ultimate goal of remedying the pathologies of the global industrial system for which, according to Funtowicz and Ravetz, existing science forms the basis. The authors critically examine whether PNS can fulfill this claim in the light of empirical and theoretical work on politics and policy making. The authors credit PNS as an innovative frontrunner in raising important issues regarding the limited problem-solving capacity of ''normal science'' and ''professional consultancy.''

The new randomised controlled trials (RCT) movement in public policy: challenges of epistemic governance

“…Different political systems have developed different 'civic epistemologies' (Miller 2008) and 'boundary arrangements' (Hoppe 2005) in terms of how they decide the nature and role of knowledge and criteria for evidence, make sense of epistemic conflict and the mechanisms for resolving it. The expert advisory committee is one such institution for distilling evidence for policy purposes, but problems arise when it is seen as-and claims to be-doing 'science' or providing unmediated evidence, as opposed to a hybrid activity that is simultaneously political and scientific (Guston 2001;Wesselink and Hoppe 2011).…”

“…In this paper, we examine the promises and pitfalls of this movement, drawing on insights at the interface of science and technology studies (STS), political theory and the policy sciences on the role of scientific evidence and expertise in policymaking (Brown 2009;Guston 2001;Hisschemöller and Hoppe 1995;Hoppe 2005;Jasanoff 2003aJasanoff , b, 2012Miller 2008;Wesselink and Hoppe 2011;Wynne 2010). This extensive literature has been reviewed and synthesised elsewhere (e.g., Hoppe 2005;Hoppe et al 2013), so here we focus on key normative principles for the problem of 'epistemic governance' (Raman 2015).…”

“…Recent RCT advocates argue that the evidence gathered from these trials is a better, more reliable form of knowledge than the personal knowledge of experts. But such knowledge is insufficient if it is abstracted from the political side of policymaking in which problems are framed and knowledge given meaning (Wesselink and Hoppe 2011). This does not mean that the normative objective of how best to think about and produce knowledge for policy is irrelevant.…”

Puzzling about problems: the ambiguous search for an evidence-based strategy for handling influx of health technology

“…From this account of approaching policy problems, policy is a process of ''collective puzzling'' (Heclo 1974(Heclo /2010 to understand what the problem is and to find feasible courses of action related to practice in times of uncertainty and disagreement; a situation most common to policy making. Thereare of course mixed forms of problems with greater or lesser uncertainties (Hisschemöller and Hoppe 1996;Hoppe 2010;Wesselink and Hoppe 2011;Bijker et al 2009). The puzzling process can be related both to uncertainty of knowledge, i.e.…”

Equipped to deal with uncertainty in climate and impacts predictions: lessons from internal peer review

“…However, some caution is warranted, since 'a move towards plural and conditional expert advice is not a panacea' (ibid.). It cannot promise escape from the deep intractabilities of uncertainty or the power political character of decision making (Wesselink and Hoppe 2011). At the least, it will go some way to present a balanced view that recognizes the limitations of 'the predictive capabilities of science, the importance of predictions in rational decision processes, and the potential for political consensus on comprehensive policy' (Brunner 1996 p.124-125).…”