Environmental Controversy
Why is it important to understand the role of science in environmental controversy?
Understanding the role in which science plays in an environmental controversy is a crucial element for a comprehensive analysis. The use of scientific knowledge is often represented as a fundamental principle within environmental controversies. The centralized view of science relates to many factors. Firstly, the assumptions of science as an authority lend it to be a privileged type of knowledge. Secondly, as the status of science is portrayed as privileged, various groups or players within the controversy utilize this resource as a power of authority over other knowledge. The struggles over knowledge claims still reside in environmental controversies. However, …show more content…
science is still suggested as the ‘best lousy advisor’ to evaluate or give insight into the depths of a controversy. Lastly, the roles of science within industrial developments are closely observed. This reveals issues on moral and ethics, which challenge political and economic desires of scientific development.
Science is privileged
The role in which science plays within an environmental controversy is an important aspect of understanding disputes that underline the conflict. These disputes often feature science as the centre of scientific or social debates. Barry (1999) suggests, scientific evidence may be used as a potential solution or a possible insight into a controversy. With science playing such a large role within environmental controversies it seems evident to understand the views and perceptions of science. Commonly, the orthodox view of science is regarded as a homogeneous establishment; value free (Irwin 1995, p.47). Thus, science is presented with a role of authority in knowledge. Nelkin (1995, p.452) also observes that science and scientists are judged to be free from any political or social intervention, providing objective scientific findings. As a result of these assumptions the status of scientific knowledge within environmental controversy lend science to be privileged.
In the case of Wynne’s (1989) Chernobyl accident and Beder’s (1991) sewage dumping in Sydney’s beaches, it is apparent how the role of science has been made an authority, dominating over other knowledge, in particular lay knowledge. Regarding Beder’s (1991) interpretation of the issues involved, sewage authorities brought forward the conclusion that there were ‘no evidence’ to suggest potential health risks by extending the outfalls of sewage dumping without secondary treatment. These conclusions of scientific studies, science was made as an authoritative voice, were continually negotiated and manipulated to construct a ‘sound argument’, supporting their interests and agendas. In the case of Wynne’s (1989) Chernobyl account, the communication between the scientist and sheep farmers resulted in unprecedented confusion. Science was applied as an authority of knowledge, in this account the formalities of science did not recognise the informal practices of the sheep farmers. In other words, the scientists completely ignored the lay knowledge of local farming methods and experience. In the end, it had serious affects on the sheep farmers economically. On these occasions, the status of scientific knowledge revels the power struggles over the use of science as a dominant form in negotiation between interested parties. This illustrates how science still prevails over other knowledge because of the institutions behind it, in these case studies the government.
Nonetheless, despite scientific knowledge valued as objective, its application is however still subject to political or social interests (Irwin 1995).
Science has presented practical significants to the progressive world, however, it is impossible to distinguish science from social or political agendas. With that said, the public perception has too changed its views. Nelkin (1995) argues that, in light of the advancements that science has uncovered, these developments expose the underlining tensions between moral and ethics, expressing the political and social undercurrents embedded within science and environmental controversies. Therefore, the position of scientific knowledge within a controversy is dependant on many factors between political and social objectives. Webster (1991) confirms, “Science is rooted in the society which creates them”. Even within the scientific community, disputes over scientific ‘facts’ are seen to be flexible and negotiated to correspond to the image of ‘good science’ (Dolby 1972, p.317, cited in Webster 1991). As science remains to be one of the most important fundamental platforms in environmental controversies, it is important to factor in the social or political agendas within the knowledge claim. Webster (1991) concludes that, science should therefore not be considered a privileged resource unbound from social …show more content…
influence.
Science is a powerful resource
With the acknowledgment of scientific findings to be socially constructed or created (Collins & Pinch 1979 cited in Martin & Richards 1995), it still remains clear that the conventional image of science is portrayed as expert and progressive, providing an assumption that science conveys a sense of power (Webster 1991 p.1). The power of scientific ‘evidence’ often participates in environmental controversy as a resource (Nelkin 1995, p.453). Therefore, it is important to interpret the evidence that various groups employ to evaluate to what extent interests have influenced the course of controversy (Beder 1991, p.229) With many environmental controversies different sides of the conflict have different interpretations of the issues at hand (Drysek 1997, p.7). With interconnected views on science and the natural world, Drysek (1997) asserts, that a discourse approach can assist in understanding the dimensions of an environmental controversy. This approach offers insights to different preoccupations and agendas of various groups, bringing to the surface the way in which they interpret or apply scientific knowledge. The discourse approach gives light to the benefits of contrasting knowledge, enabling a broader search for a resolution in environmental controversy.
As previously noted, science can be continuously renegotiated in the face of interested parties. McMullin (1897 p.51) also agrees, assumptions and beliefs over knowledge claims are also strongly argued and negotiated to rectify the status and creditability of the scientific claim. The strategies that various players use in an environmental conflict are often fostered by scientific studies (Beder 1991, p.253). It seems essential to examine the controversy by those parties or interest involved. Martin & Richards (1995) demonstrate a group politics approach, which ultimately looks at the resources of the groups involved. As mentioned, these resources can be found in scientific knowledge. The importance of these resources often shape and support the group’s position. This is emphasised in the example of Martin & Richards (1995) vitamin C and cancer dispute. The claims and counterclaims over megadoses of vitamin C to control or palliate cancer, continued to present questionable doubt over the credibility of the evidence, as media and political interventions surfaced throughout the controversy. In addition, another environmental conflict illustrated by Irwin (1995, p.48-9) on acid rain, show the significant similarity where by science was used as a weapon in aid for furthering political and economical interest. Science is the best lousy advisor
Although there might be conflicting views as to what scientific findings claimed to be in universal agreement. Science still offers the best lousy advisor to evaluate a controversy. With some limitations in science, such as segregating political or social interest form scientific findings, it can still offer some insights into evaluating the evidence presented. McMullin (1987) states that, the logical method of science will choose one scientific finding, which is merited higher over the other. In other words, science is assumed to produce the best approximation of valuable evidence.
Economics, politics and the developments of science
Economics, politics and science play side by side in environmental controversy. The developments and advancements in the world which science has made possible can be viewed in many ways. Nelkin (1995, p.446) describes that many people perceive scientific advancement to carry benefits essential to social progress, which ultimately out weight the risks involved. However, along with the beliefs of science representing a positive view, there are also social perceptions of science enhancing fear and mistrust. Barry (1999) interestingly states that the negative effects which science has produced in the past have tarnished its image. Due to the fact of rising developments in industry being closely connected with environmental problems. Reid (1995, p.12) reinforces that the development crisis and other environmental crisis coexist in the same problematic realm. The industries aims for economic progression frequently result in unsustainable development (Reid 1995). Science therefore can be understood as the product of an environmental controversy. In contrast, the underlying problems rest in the values of how institutions choose to employ science either environmentally negative or positive. With this, it carries important elements of the struggles between ecological and economical factors within society.
In conclusion, realising the assumptions and perceptions of science either as the creator or solution of an environmental controversy, these disputes draw upon science as the core of the conflict. Understanding science as a privileged type of knowledge still remains evident. In spite of this, scientific claims should not be under any pretence free from the outside pressures of social or political influence. The influences and agendas of various groups or stakeholders use science as a tool to shape and define controversies into a particular light, underpinning the key issues into why it is important to understand the position of science in environmental controversy. As science is sometimes exercised as a weapon, science remains to engage as the best lousy system to approach controversies. With this said, science offers the ‘best’ insights in environmental controversies, but is also ‘lousy’ since political and economical factors must be factored in to bring forth a realistic evaluation. Recognizing the realities of the varied functions which science perform in an environmental controversy, it can not be said to offer the only solution to disputes, but help to identified vital information into an analysis of environmental controversy.
List of Reference:
Barry, J 1999, Environmental and Social Theory. Routledge, London & New York. pp. 151-175.
Bedder, S 1991, Controversy and Closure: Sydney’s Beaches in Crisis, Social Studies of Science, 21, pp.223-256.
Dryzek, J 1997, The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, pp. 3-22.
Irwin, A 1995, Citizen Science: a study of people, expertise and sustainable development. Routledge, London. pp. 40-61.
Martin, B & Richards, E 1995, Scientific knowledge, controversy and public decision-making In Sheila Jansanoff et al. (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Sage, Thousand Oaks. pp. 505-526.
Mcmullin, E 1987, Scientific Controversy and its termination, in Tristram Engelhardt and Arthur Caplan (eds), Scientific Controversies. Case studies in the resolution and closure of disputes in science and technology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.49-91.
Nelkin, D 1995, 'Science controversies.' In Sheila Jansanoff et al. (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Sage, Thousand Oaks. pp.444-456.
Reid, D 1995, Sustainable Development – An Introductory Guide. Earthscan, London. pp. 3-23.
Webster, A 1991, Science, Technology and Society, Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp.1-14.
Wynne, B 1989, Sheepfarming after Chernobyl. A case study in communicating scientific information. Environment. 31/2,
pp.10-39.
Understanding the role in which science plays in an environmental controversy is a crucial element for a comprehensive analysis. The use of scientific knowledge is often represented as a fundamental principle within environmental controversies. The centralized view of science relates to many factors. Firstly, the assumptions of science as an authority lend it to be a privileged type of knowledge. Secondly, as the status of science is portrayed as privileged, various groups or players within the controversy utilize this resource as a power of authority over other knowledge. The struggles over knowledge claims still reside in environmental controversies. However, …show more content…
science is still suggested as the ‘best lousy advisor’ to evaluate or give insight into the depths of a controversy. Lastly, the roles of science within industrial developments are closely observed. This reveals issues on moral and ethics, which challenge political and economic desires of scientific development.
Science is privileged
The role in which science plays within an environmental controversy is an important aspect of understanding disputes that underline the conflict. These disputes often feature science as the centre of scientific or social debates. Barry (1999) suggests, scientific evidence may be used as a potential solution or a possible insight into a controversy. With science playing such a large role within environmental controversies it seems evident to understand the views and perceptions of science. Commonly, the orthodox view of science is regarded as a homogeneous establishment; value free (Irwin 1995, p.47). Thus, science is presented with a role of authority in knowledge. Nelkin (1995, p.452) also observes that science and scientists are judged to be free from any political or social intervention, providing objective scientific findings. As a result of these assumptions the status of scientific knowledge within environmental controversy lend science to be privileged.
In the case of Wynne’s (1989) Chernobyl accident and Beder’s (1991) sewage dumping in Sydney’s beaches, it is apparent how the role of science has been made an authority, dominating over other knowledge, in particular lay knowledge. Regarding Beder’s (1991) interpretation of the issues involved, sewage authorities brought forward the conclusion that there were ‘no evidence’ to suggest potential health risks by extending the outfalls of sewage dumping without secondary treatment. These conclusions of scientific studies, science was made as an authoritative voice, were continually negotiated and manipulated to construct a ‘sound argument’, supporting their interests and agendas. In the case of Wynne’s (1989) Chernobyl account, the communication between the scientist and sheep farmers resulted in unprecedented confusion. Science was applied as an authority of knowledge, in this account the formalities of science did not recognise the informal practices of the sheep farmers. In other words, the scientists completely ignored the lay knowledge of local farming methods and experience. In the end, it had serious affects on the sheep farmers economically. On these occasions, the status of scientific knowledge revels the power struggles over the use of science as a dominant form in negotiation between interested parties. This illustrates how science still prevails over other knowledge because of the institutions behind it, in these case studies the government.
Nonetheless, despite scientific knowledge valued as objective, its application is however still subject to political or social interests (Irwin 1995).
Science has presented practical significants to the progressive world, however, it is impossible to distinguish science from social or political agendas. With that said, the public perception has too changed its views. Nelkin (1995) argues that, in light of the advancements that science has uncovered, these developments expose the underlining tensions between moral and ethics, expressing the political and social undercurrents embedded within science and environmental controversies. Therefore, the position of scientific knowledge within a controversy is dependant on many factors between political and social objectives. Webster (1991) confirms, “Science is rooted in the society which creates them”. Even within the scientific community, disputes over scientific ‘facts’ are seen to be flexible and negotiated to correspond to the image of ‘good science’ (Dolby 1972, p.317, cited in Webster 1991). As science remains to be one of the most important fundamental platforms in environmental controversies, it is important to factor in the social or political agendas within the knowledge claim. Webster (1991) concludes that, science should therefore not be considered a privileged resource unbound from social …show more content…
influence.
Science is a powerful resource
With the acknowledgment of scientific findings to be socially constructed or created (Collins & Pinch 1979 cited in Martin & Richards 1995), it still remains clear that the conventional image of science is portrayed as expert and progressive, providing an assumption that science conveys a sense of power (Webster 1991 p.1). The power of scientific ‘evidence’ often participates in environmental controversy as a resource (Nelkin 1995, p.453). Therefore, it is important to interpret the evidence that various groups employ to evaluate to what extent interests have influenced the course of controversy (Beder 1991, p.229) With many environmental controversies different sides of the conflict have different interpretations of the issues at hand (Drysek 1997, p.7). With interconnected views on science and the natural world, Drysek (1997) asserts, that a discourse approach can assist in understanding the dimensions of an environmental controversy. This approach offers insights to different preoccupations and agendas of various groups, bringing to the surface the way in which they interpret or apply scientific knowledge. The discourse approach gives light to the benefits of contrasting knowledge, enabling a broader search for a resolution in environmental controversy.
As previously noted, science can be continuously renegotiated in the face of interested parties. McMullin (1897 p.51) also agrees, assumptions and beliefs over knowledge claims are also strongly argued and negotiated to rectify the status and creditability of the scientific claim. The strategies that various players use in an environmental conflict are often fostered by scientific studies (Beder 1991, p.253). It seems essential to examine the controversy by those parties or interest involved. Martin & Richards (1995) demonstrate a group politics approach, which ultimately looks at the resources of the groups involved. As mentioned, these resources can be found in scientific knowledge. The importance of these resources often shape and support the group’s position. This is emphasised in the example of Martin & Richards (1995) vitamin C and cancer dispute. The claims and counterclaims over megadoses of vitamin C to control or palliate cancer, continued to present questionable doubt over the credibility of the evidence, as media and political interventions surfaced throughout the controversy. In addition, another environmental conflict illustrated by Irwin (1995, p.48-9) on acid rain, show the significant similarity where by science was used as a weapon in aid for furthering political and economical interest. Science is the best lousy advisor
Although there might be conflicting views as to what scientific findings claimed to be in universal agreement. Science still offers the best lousy advisor to evaluate a controversy. With some limitations in science, such as segregating political or social interest form scientific findings, it can still offer some insights into evaluating the evidence presented. McMullin (1987) states that, the logical method of science will choose one scientific finding, which is merited higher over the other. In other words, science is assumed to produce the best approximation of valuable evidence.
Economics, politics and the developments of science
Economics, politics and science play side by side in environmental controversy. The developments and advancements in the world which science has made possible can be viewed in many ways. Nelkin (1995, p.446) describes that many people perceive scientific advancement to carry benefits essential to social progress, which ultimately out weight the risks involved. However, along with the beliefs of science representing a positive view, there are also social perceptions of science enhancing fear and mistrust. Barry (1999) interestingly states that the negative effects which science has produced in the past have tarnished its image. Due to the fact of rising developments in industry being closely connected with environmental problems. Reid (1995, p.12) reinforces that the development crisis and other environmental crisis coexist in the same problematic realm. The industries aims for economic progression frequently result in unsustainable development (Reid 1995). Science therefore can be understood as the product of an environmental controversy. In contrast, the underlying problems rest in the values of how institutions choose to employ science either environmentally negative or positive. With this, it carries important elements of the struggles between ecological and economical factors within society.
In conclusion, realising the assumptions and perceptions of science either as the creator or solution of an environmental controversy, these disputes draw upon science as the core of the conflict. Understanding science as a privileged type of knowledge still remains evident. In spite of this, scientific claims should not be under any pretence free from the outside pressures of social or political influence. The influences and agendas of various groups or stakeholders use science as a tool to shape and define controversies into a particular light, underpinning the key issues into why it is important to understand the position of science in environmental controversy. As science is sometimes exercised as a weapon, science remains to engage as the best lousy system to approach controversies. With this said, science offers the ‘best’ insights in environmental controversies, but is also ‘lousy’ since political and economical factors must be factored in to bring forth a realistic evaluation. Recognizing the realities of the varied functions which science perform in an environmental controversy, it can not be said to offer the only solution to disputes, but help to identified vital information into an analysis of environmental controversy.
List of Reference:
Barry, J 1999, Environmental and Social Theory. Routledge, London & New York. pp. 151-175.
Bedder, S 1991, Controversy and Closure: Sydney’s Beaches in Crisis, Social Studies of Science, 21, pp.223-256.
Dryzek, J 1997, The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, pp. 3-22.
Irwin, A 1995, Citizen Science: a study of people, expertise and sustainable development. Routledge, London. pp. 40-61.
Martin, B & Richards, E 1995, Scientific knowledge, controversy and public decision-making In Sheila Jansanoff et al. (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Sage, Thousand Oaks. pp. 505-526.
Mcmullin, E 1987, Scientific Controversy and its termination, in Tristram Engelhardt and Arthur Caplan (eds), Scientific Controversies. Case studies in the resolution and closure of disputes in science and technology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.49-91.
Nelkin, D 1995, 'Science controversies.' In Sheila Jansanoff et al. (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Sage, Thousand Oaks. pp.444-456.
Reid, D 1995, Sustainable Development – An Introductory Guide. Earthscan, London. pp. 3-23.
Webster, A 1991, Science, Technology and Society, Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp.1-14.
Wynne, B 1989, Sheepfarming after Chernobyl. A case study in communicating scientific information. Environment. 31/2,
pp.10-39.