Science and Society: The Structures of Scientific Advice

Scientific advice has rarely seemed so essential, yet so fragile. Action on climate change, transboundary air pollution, and other concerns requires expert guidance. But research budgets are under pressure and scientific advice is being outsourced, even as environmental issues remain wrapped in uncertainty and ignorance. The political contexts of scientific advice have also shifted. Scientists' definitions of what counts as good advice are no longer sufficient: their counsel must now not only meet scientific standards, but be perceived as relevant, legitimate, and accountable—an evolution in expectations that exemplifies the blurring of the boundaries between science and society. These expectations illustrate the essential dilemma of science advisors: to serve as a constructive and trusted partner to policy makers, while maintaining professional independence.

The three books under review provide diverse perspectives on this dilemma. In The Politics of Scientific Advice: Institutional Design for Quality Assurance, edited by Justus Lentsch and Peter Weingart, the authors examine scientific advice across a wide range of issues and national cultures, exploring how demands for relevance and legitimacy relate to the design of institutional mechanisms for constructing, delivering, and evaluating advice. Governing the Air: The Dynamics of Science, Policy, and Citizen Interaction, edited by Rolf Lidskog and Göran Sundqvist, has a more specific focus, presenting historical and contemporary perspectives on the governance of air quality in Europe. Finally, in Science Without Boundaries: Interdisciplinarity in Research, Society, and Politics, Willy Østreng provides a more personal view, examining the virtues and challenges of interdisciplinary science, testing his ideas against his experience directing a polar research project. Together, these books provide an excellent overview of current thought regarding science and politics in the international environmental arena.

The authors assembled by Lentsch and Weingart focus predominately, but not exclusively, on Europe. Their perspectives vary widely: several analytical chapters make extensive use of scholarly literature, drawing particularly from science and technology studies (STS); others, including some focused on a single institution, present insiders' perspectives, or statements of institutional mandates. Most chapters address the volume's focus on institutions: those examined include, among others, the UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, the International Commission on Radiological Protection, the European Environment Agency, the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, and the European Academies Science Advisory Council. Some present useful overviews of ideas presented in more detail elsewhere; a notable example is Sheila Jasanoff's discussion of the evaluation of policy-relevant science, in which she explores the concept of virtuous reason as a means of defining useful and legitimate science in the context of controversy. A few chapters relate less specifically to institutions. Naomi Oreskes discusses unitization, a kind of adaptive management used by the oil industry to deal with the uncertainties associated with exploiting reserves. This model, she suggests, could also be used for making decisions regarding climate change. For his part, Dan Sarewitz revives the venerable notion of technology as a tool for cutting through the complexities of social challenges. Both are interesting, but neither Oreskes nor Sarewitz address obvious objections to their arguments. In Oreskes' case, her suggestion neglects the fact that the failure to respond to climate change uncertainties reflects not a lack of an appropriate technical decision-making process (such as unitization), but the operation of various economic and ideological factors that together discourage action.

Several overall lessons emerge from these contributions, and Lentsch and Weingart conclude their volume with a helpful summary. Some relate to defining scientific advice itself: the difference between science and expertise, and between good science and good advice. The overarching need, particularly in the context of today's complex problems, is not so much for specific technical recommendations, or for certainty in the face of environmental and social complexities, but for the capacity to...