Science, Risk, and Policy

Andrew J. Knight

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9781138189263
• eBook ISBN: 9781317280804
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politica e relazioni internazionali
• Subtopic: Politica pubblica in ambito scientifico e tecnologico

For decades, experts and the public have been at odds over the nature and magnitude of risks and how they should be mitigated through policy. Experts argue that the fears of the public are irrational, and that public policy should be based on sound science. The public, on the other hand, is skeptical of experts, and believe policy should represent their interests. How do policy analysts make sense of these competing views?

Science, Risk and Policy answers this question by examining how people evaluate evidence, how science is conducted, and how a multi-disciplinary framework to risk can inform policy by bridging the gap between experts and the public. This framework is then applied to four case studies: pesticides, genetically engineered foods, climate change, and nuclear power. By tracing the history of the science, policies and regulations, and evaluating arguments made about these risks, Andrew J. Knight provides a guide to understand how experts and the public view risks.

1 Introduction

DOI: 10.4324/9781315641706-1

When I hear the term “layperson,” my mind returns to my childhood, when my father was an occasional lay preacher. In his spare time, he gave sermons on Sunday mornings at churches, filled in as an interim pastor, held services at correctional facilities, taught Sunday school, served as a deacon, and led devotions. He was a lay preacher because he was not an ordained minister; he did not have any formal schooling to be a preacher, nor did he have the appropriate credentials to be a minister. While the lack of credentials prevented him from becoming a certified member of the pastor membership sanctioned by the governing body, his strong faith in God, an inquiring mind to the study of scripture, exceptional people skills, and a gift for speaking enabled him to become a highly respected Sunday school teacher, biblical scholar, church elder, and speaker.

Having been raised in such an environment may very well have been responsible for my desire for learning, achieving a doctoral degree, and becoming a professor. Unlike my father, however, years of formal schooling and training provided me with the credentials to become a professional with an expertise on various topics. Without the credentials of a PhD and the requisite training, I would be a person with a passion for innovation and science, but would remain a layperson outside of the expert scientific society.

It may be argued that there are practicing pastors without formal training and some scientists working at universities who do not have PhDs. In reality, this argument is true. Technically, these laypeople have been accepted as members of a given profession or specialized field. There are always exceptions to the general rules, and exceptional individuals may be able create their own path. As a sociologist, my training warned about making generalized statements, but at the same time, taught me to be cognizant of trends and overarching patterns. While exceptions might exist, it still valid and necessary to describe the overarching pattern.

The scientific community historically, and often still, views laypeople as uniformed and unqualified to discuss scientific matters. The predominant view is that laypeople should leave science to the experts. Whereas some scientists might prefer the realm of science to be their domain exclusively, many laypeople disagree with this view and have launched various critiques against science and scientists. Debates between laypeople and scientists and their conceptions and misconceptions about each other became a topic of my own research agenda and in part led to the writing of this book.

As an academic, a government employee, and a layperson, I have been privy to many discussions on the roles of science in research and public policy. Some people have advocated that public policy should be based solely on scientific evidence. Politicians, however, have sometimes ignored or discarded science for the sake of politics. Some either deny or misrepresent science for ideological reasons. Others are skeptical of science and its so-called experts. Lay charlatans sometimes exploit the public’s ignorance about science to profit from it. Many of these discussions have led me to believe that there are two sides to the coin. On one side, the scientific community is correct when stating that non-practitioners often do not understand science. On the other side, scientists far too often ignore or dismiss valid points made by the public or laypeople.

Such discussions left me with such questions as: what is sound science? How does one distinguish sound or good science from unsound or poor science? How do scientists perceive laypeople? Why do some scientists have difficulty wrapping their heads around concerns expressed by the public? How do people conceive science? Why don’t people always embrace science and technology? What concerns do people have about science and technology? Why do they have these concerns? Are science and technology really neutral? Who are experts and how does one become an expert? In a similar vein, who are laypeople or who defines them as such?

Over the years, these questions became prominent in my teaching and research. I taught a class on science and technology. My dissertation empirically tested how people perceive different food safety risks. My attention then turned to how people perceive scientific discoveries and technologies. Heck, I even wrote a proposal to receive funding for a study on understanding how scientific experts and laypeople view risks. My research interests revolved around three themes: 1) the study of risks and more specifically understanding how people conceptualize risks, 2) a focus on how systems produce and deal with risks, and 3) an emphasis on policy and governance. Of particular interest was the study of controversies surrounding science and technologies and how these controversies are reflected in public policy. The ultimate goals of my research were to develop a more sophisticated framework to conceptualize risks on multiple levels and to understand individual risk perceptions and behaviors in their broader structural contexts.

Subsequent conversations after leaving a career in academia have reinforced the need for this book. I have found that some of my colleagues in government and friends often express a mythical view of science. This mythical view places science on a pedestal as an objective and rational approach to the study of a particular phenomenon. Science is given a status above other approaches without an understanding of how science works in “real life” or without a realization of the limitations of science. This book is an attempt to reveal what is behind the curtain of science and explain how science is practiced.

I will be the first to admit that I don’t understand all of the science behind science. I, like anyone else, cannot claim to be an expert of all things. As a sociologist, I do not portend to understand the fields of biology, physics, or any of the natural sciences. I am, however, experienced in their arguments and their views of science. I can also claim to understand how risks are perceived, how systems work, and discuss some differences among the scientific disciplines. In addition to the textbook knowledge, I was fortunate enough to have been involved in many multidisciplinary research projects in my academic career, where I was often working with both natural and social scientists. A hindrance to my own academic career may have been my desire to work across the aisle and publish in interdisciplinary journals, rather than focus on sociology alone. At conferences, I would often be mistaken as an economist or psychologist rather than a sociologist. Upon reflection, my professional life has mirrored my early discomfort with labels.

I by no means wish to suggest that science is not useful and that it does not merit the status it has achieved. This book, however, does suggest that there are other valid forms of social and natural inquiry, and that “good” science can be distinguished from “bad” science. If anything, this book is about having an open mind and using critical thinking skills. It provides a guide to help laypeople and public policy professionals to differentiate “good” science from “bad” science. All science is only as good as the foundations of its assumptions and the methodology employed; in order to evaluate science, its assumptions and methods need to be questioned. This book will provide tools to the layperson so that he or she can make informed evaluations about science and scientific claims. This book is not only for scientific non-experts, however. Hopefully, scientists will find the book of value because it addresses public perceptions of science and how science may fit into people’s daily lives. It also might make scientists reflect on their own conventions and practices, resulting in better science. Upon reading this book, I hope a scientist making a presentation to a public audience will have a better understanding of the issues that may be raised and will be able to communicate more effectively with the public.

Social Constructionism

While the natural sciences, and some social sciences, rarely question their scientific underpinnings, conventional wisdom suggests that science is most interested in doing science, as opposed to thinking about science. In order to march forward, science cannot get bogged down in a discussion about the merits of the scientific method. Scientific debates typically are over how science is “done,” the interpretation of results, and the motivations behind the science. The application of science and the theories used to explain the results are fair game for criticism and discussion; the scientific principles, however, are often assumed and not subject to reflexion.

Many of the natural sciences have come to a collective agreement about the scientific method, and thus no longer need to discuss it. In contrast, philosophers and sociologists tend to be more navel gazing and self-critical, and have not signed on to this agreement. These branches of philosophy and sociology tend to be more critical of the tenets of science itself by recognizing that beliefs and values enter the scientific realm. Scientists, after all, are human beings.

Social constructivism is a theoretical perspective within sociology that has been used to study how science is performed and how science advances. In doing so, it questions the very assumptions of science itself. For this reason, my approach to the analysis of science in this book borrows heavily from a social constructionist perspective.

Social constructionism assumes that our reality and how we interpret the world is based on meaning. Meaning requires negotiation among people through social interaction. We define ourselves according to our social constructions and shared lives. Social interactions occur in structures embedded in particular places, times, and cultures; meaning varies according the context of these social interactions. Each person will interpret reality differently based on his or her cultural environment. Social constructionism is often viewed as a critical perspective because it seeks to reveal the operations of the social world and the political apportioning of power. For this reason, it is often critiqued as being non-objective, but a social constructionist would in turn argue that objectivity is socially constructed and in the eye of the beholder.

Imagine yourself in an elevator with a group of strangers. Norms tell us that one should not make conversation in an elevator, and the structure of the elevator makes social interaction awkward, as everyone is facing in the same direction. As you are standing in the elevator, a stranger asks how you are doing. In all likelihood, you might begin to wonder why this person is talking to you and offer a quick, terse response. Now imagine yourself having lunch on the patio of a restaurant with a good friend. Upon seeing your friend, you smile, shake hands, or hug; your friend asks, “How are you?” The conversation flows easily and is rather relaxed. In these two scenarios, meaning and social interaction are different based on the cultural context and setting.

Another example highlighting the importance of social interaction and context is my own life path. My freshman year of university began as an electrical engineering student. At the time, I was not sure what to take and decided to combine the professions of my two brothers: one was an engineer, and I perceived the other as having a background in electronics. I soon found myself lost in a sea of equations and had difficulty comprehending the concepts. After the first term, I switched out of engineering into general sciences. Still, I struggled with physics and calculus. The problem was that I could not relate to the equations. At the end of my freshman year, I enrolled in general arts. Sociology became a good fit for me because I found it easier to understand the concepts discussed, as they dealt with people and social structures.

To obtain my undergraduate sociology degree, I had to take at least one statistics course. To be honest, I still do not know how I managed to pass that course. I had the same experience while completing a statistics course in graduate school and cannot explain how I passed the master’s level statistics course. After working three years in market research, I decided to enroll at Pennsylvania State University for a doctorate. Once again, I was faced with the prospect of taking a statistics course. Unlike the previous courses, however, I breezed through the class. Why did the light suddenly go on and I was able to comprehend the material and explain it to others? Partially it was because of my market research background. Having designed surveys and analyzed quantitative data, I now had a context to understand the application of statistics.

More of a factor was professor Fern (Bunny) Willits’s teaching style, which emphasized the interpretation of results rather than mathematical derivations. The difference was that she focused on understanding when to use a statistical procedure and how to interpret the results rather than the calculations and empirical formulas. After all, the computer program performs the calculations for you. For me, it was more efficient to focus on what you needed to input into the program and how to interpret the outcomes. In a subsequent statistics course that emphasized the math component, I again struggled. I remember telling the professor that I could tell him what statistical test I should run and what it meant, but I was not very good at calculations. In short, when the proper context was provided, I was able to understand statistical concepts and their meaning. To this day, I describe myself as a person who uses statistics, rather than a statistician.

Outline of the Book

This book is organized into three parts: foundation, case studies, and lessons learned. Part I is comprised of Chapters 2 through 4 and forms the foundation on which the other parts are built. Chapter 2 describes the principal ways in which humans make sense of the world through gathering and evaluating information. Evidence and meaning are derived through the senses, intuition, spirits, religion, science, and the influence of other humans and institutions. These six systems provide us with values and help define our worldviews, which shape how we interpret information. The goal of this chapter is to show that we have multiple means to gather and interpret information, and they sometimes contradict and conflict with one another. It is important for scientists and policy analysts to understand that people might utilize different systems of meanings depending on the context, and prioritize one over others. Situations that might seem irrational from one perspective are actually rational from another.

Chapter 3 examines the ideal of science, how it is practiced in reality, and its limitations. More specifically, it focuses on how science is actually conducted at universities, how agreement is formed to advance science, and the hierarchies that have been socially constructed. The chapter also provides some tips on how to distinguish “good science” from “voodoo” or “junk” science. Chapter 4 tackles how risk is perceived by science, scientists, and laypeople. The theoretical foundations of risk perception research are explained in order to understand how science and risk are viewed differently by insiders and outsiders. The argument made in the chapter is that people do use rational processes when conceptualizing risks, and these risk perceptions are complex and vary by risks. In order to communicate effectively with the public, it is important for scientists and policy makers to understand that people do not hold a homogeneous view of risks. Further, it is important for policy analysts to understand the motivations behind how different subsets of the population view risks. History has shown that scientists and decision makers who ignore the will of the public do so at their own peril.

Chapters 5 through 8 form Part II of the book, and provide case studies on how controversies surrounding science play out in society. It builds on the base of the foundational chapters in Part I by describing the history of the science and policies/regulations, analyzing the controversies surrounding the benefits and risks associated with the particular case study, and provides advice on how science can inform policy. Chapters 5 and 6 tackle agricultural risks. Pesticides are used as a case study to illustrate the controversies surrounding chemicals. Debates surrounding biotechnology applications are discussed in the next chapter. One of the rationales for the use of genetic engineering in agriculture has been to address some of the risks associated with pesticides. Both chapters examine risk in terms of agricultural systems; and how views of these systems shape risk perceptions and policy options.

Chapter 7 looks at climate change and the debates over the scientific evidence on whether climate change is occurring, what is responsible for climate change, and the benefits and risks associated with climate change. The chapter also explores the motivations of the groups behind these debates. Nuclear power has been promoted as a clean technology and partial solution to climate change. Chapter 8 takes a closer look at the science behind this claim and other claims promoted by the nuclear industry. More specifically, it looks at the debates associated with risks of accidents and the daily operations of nuclear power plants.

The final chapter, or Part III of the book, reflects on the lessons learned in the previous chapters. The chapter provides insights into the role of policy analysts and promotes how policy analysts should use science and risk assessment in shaping public policy. The chapter also makes recommendations on how to improve risk assessment so that policy analysts and decision makers have the necessary information to make informed public policies.

A Note on Sourcing

Most of the sources used in this book come from my own experiences as an academic, either through teaching or my research interests. The approach to listing sources used for this book was to state the author names when specific pieces of research or information are referenced. When a general overview of the literature or topic was provided, specific references were not provided. The intention was not to bog down the reader with citations. While the book is rather academic, it is not written in the academic format that one might find in a peer-reviewed publication. Citations of specific information can be found in the reference sections at the end of each chapter.

While the book does often reference a review of the literature, sources are used for illustrative purposes, and not to provide an extensive literature review on a particular topic. The reference sections do not contain all of the literature on a particular subject or all of the information read as background for the book. Rather, they should be viewed as a synopsis of the literature and specific key studies or information for illustrative purposes. In addition to my own experiences and knowledge of the literature, the book relied primarily on information presented in peer-reviewed academic journal articles and books, as well as government publications. In order to present the controversies about the science on the various topics discussed in the book, articles and books written by journalists and “so-called” subject matter experts were also reviewed. Information by “so-called” experts might include opinion pieces, research from think tanks, industry and advocacy groups, or social media sites. “So-called” subject matter experts are peop...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• series
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Figures
• Tables
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Systems of Evidence
• 3 Science in Practice
• 4 Risk
• 5 Pesticides
• 6 Genetic Engineering in Agriculture
• 7 Climate Change
• 8 Nuclear Power
• 9 The Intersection of Policy, Science, and Risk
• Index