1. Social Science as Expertise and Social Scientists as Experts
SC2208 Lecture 3, spring 2017, Göran Sundqvist,
Science Advice
Texts
Jasanoff, Sheila (2003) ’Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science’
Maasen, Sabine & Weingart, Peter (2005) ’What’s New in Scientific Advice to Politics?’
Nowotny, Helga’ (2003) ‘Democratising Expertise and Socially Robust Knowledge’
Outline
The old contract – Two classical models
Something has happened in science-society interactions – Changes
Mode 1 – Mode 2 (Nowotny)
Science – Politics (Maasen & Weingart)
Hubris – Humility (Jasanoff)
Science Advice in Climate Change – The IPCC

2. Delegation to scientific experts
The old science-society contract
State gives money and autonomy to scientists
Scientists deliver technological benefits (progress)
The two elites
Scientists deliver what power asks for
Prime example: The atomic bomb
What kind of autonomy is this?
Mandated or independent research?
Mutual trust!

3. Independent scientists
Speaking truth to power
Autonomous scientists establish consensus
Scientists surprises politicians and decision makers
Deliver what power needs but not ask for
The strengths of independent research
When existing not possible to disregard (act on right facts)
The linear model
Scientists are given just money, no specific demands
Prime example: climate change

4. Comparing the two models
Delegation to experts
Speaking truth to power
Most common?
Who is in charge?
What about autonomy?
What about connection/communication?

5. Changes – new contracts?
New trends (the three papers)
Autonomous research does not exist
Independent research = just words
In reality: collaboration, innovation, relevance and utility
Involvement, engagement, connected researchers (in all phases)
No clear delegation, no autonomous scientists
Government Bill: Collaboration (samverkan) as the driver
Kunskap i samverkan – för samhällets utmaningar och stärkt konkurrenskraft, 28 nov. 2016
The role of science in Sweden 2016: managing societal challenges and strenghtening (economic) competitiveness

6. Nowotny – ‘Mode 2 research’
The transgressiveness of expertise
1. Science is produced in the context of application
2. No (external) certainty exists – no knowledge autonomy
3. Science is transdisciplinary
4. Complex issues; many sites, participants and audiences
5. Increasing reflexivity
6. Science is produced and approved in the Agora
Summing up
From reliable science (peer review) to socially robust science (extended review)

7. From Mode-1 science to Mode-2 knowledge production
Mode 1 – reliable science
Disciplinary science – theoretical and experimental
Autonomous institutions and autonomous scientists
Denial of external criticism
Educating “the other”
Connecting to society after consensus has been established among scientists
Could be “delegation-model” or “speaking truth to power-model”
Mode 2 – uncertain innovation
To survive means to adapt to “external” circumstances
Adaptation leads to socially robust knowledge
Knowledge is not about certainty but about usability
From the linear model to the circular model
Application and acceptance already from the beginning

8. Maasen & Weingart: science-politics as two systems
Science and politics: two different subsystems
Different codes of operation: truth vs. power
This means to acknowledge Mode-1 science
The two systems are coupled, but boundaries not blurred
The Agora is a secondary domain, not a primary domain
The Agora is a hybrid, neither purely scientific nor purely political
What’s new in scientific advice to politics?
Increasing coupling between science and politics
A multitude of configurations
Increasing amount of hybrid activities, and this is our NEW study object!
Scientization of politics AND politicization of science
Proliferation of expertise
But scientific advice cannot solve the problem it has been given: there is no certainty to complex problems

9. Jasanoff: technologies of hubris and humility
A possible solution to the irresolvable dilemma of scientific advice?
How to foster the development of technologies of humility
This is what we should do!
A normative approach
And social scientists have an important role to play
How to handle risk issues? Methods of prediction (hubris)
Prediction and control (calculations, assessments, models)
Blindness toward uncertainty and ambiguity, political discussions and framing assumptions
Too high expectations on predictive methods lead to failure (BSE, technological accidents)
Uncertainties and unknowns should be recognized
New institutions, processes and methods (humility) needed
Technologies of humility (there is no perfect foresight, but how to perform it?)
Acknowledge assumptions (framing), consequences (vulnerability, distribution), learning (reflection)
What is the issue about, who is at risk, what possible consequences, what to learn and improve?

10. Comparing Nowotny, Maasen&Weingart and Jasanoff
Nowotny talks about a new society (Mode-2 society)
Maasen & Weingart ask us to study new approaches in the hybrid world
Jasanoff wants us to study and help developing technologies of humility
They are all sociologists!
What is the role of sociology in science advice?

11. The example of climate change and the IPCC
Science discovered climate change
No science, no climate policy
IPPC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1988 (WMO and UNEP) – scientists took the initiative!
Aim: to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts
UNFCC – United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1992
Aim: to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system climate
Science and politics

12. IPCC, one voice, one message (consensus)
Strong focus on consensus
The idea of one voice leading to strong policy impact
Science and politics
The IPCC is not producing science, but synthesizing science in the Agora
Turn science and the peer review system upside down
Many authors, few reviewers
Disagreements to be deleted
Climate sceptics the only critics

13. Questions about the IPCC
Delegation to experts (the old contract)?
What does the IPCC deliver? (no bombs, just reports)
Speaking truth to power?
Mode-1 science or Mode-2 knowledge production?
Does the IPCC produce socially robust knowledge?
What/where is the IPCC Agora?
Does the IPCC organization make distinction between science and politics?
Prediction and control?
Humility?

14. The IPCC organization Delegation to experts (the old contract)?
What does the IPCC deliver? (no bombs, just reports)
Speaking truth to power?
Mode-1 science or Mode-2 knowledge production?
Does the IPCC produce socially robust knowledge?
What/where is the IPCC Agora?
Does the IPCC organization make distinction between
science and politics?
Prediction and control?
Humility?