Week 2 - Science vs. Politics

Discussion Question:

1. There are two main approaches to environmental problems. The traditional approach to environmental problems has been reactive. When a problem becomes apparent, researchers ascertain the cause of the problem. Then agencies try to eliminate or reduce that cause.

1. An alternative approach, the precautionary principle, assumes that all human activities have the potential to cause environmental harm. Therefore, when there is reason to think--not absolute proof--that some human activity is or might be harming the environment, precautions should be taken. The precautionary principle also applies to the manufacture of chemicals and other products; the use of pesticides, drugs, and fossil fuels; the construction of airports and shopping malls; and even agriculture.

In light of the readings this week, what are the advantages and disadvantages of each approach? Which approach do you think is better? Why?

Terms (Definition and Significance):

• Peak oil
• Precautionary principle
• Cost-benefit analysis (alluded to in Jamieson)
• "Junk science" and the junk science movement
• "Sound science"

Also pay attention to:

• Public health paradigm (in Michaels and Monforton)
• Delaney clause (in Michaels and Monforton)
• "Trinity of conflicting forces" (in Rosenbaum, p. 149)
• Principal-agent problem (alluded to in Rosenbaum)
• Federalism (discussed in Rosenbaum)

Reading Questions:

Jamieson, Dale. (1996). Scientific uncertainty and the political process. Annals of the American Academy, 545: 35-43.

1. What is Jamieson's thesis?
2. According to Jamieson, what are the roles scientific uncertainty can play in the decision making process?
3. Jamieson writes, "[U]ncertainty reduces science to just another playground for competing ideologies" (p. 40). What does he mean?
4. Why is the "right amount of uncertainty" good for both political actors and scientists?
5. Jamieson makes several suggestions for closing the gap between scientific information and the political decision-making process. He follows these suggestions, however, with potential consequences this type of convergence may bring. Should science (rather than values) inform all the relevant policy decisions? Should science and political decision-making remain two distinct processes?
6. Cite examples from Michaels and Monforton's article where scientific uncertainty was used to shut down or stall policy debates. How does society (power financial interests in this case) shape scientific uncertainty in these examples?

Rosenbaum, Walter. "Science, Politics and Policy at the EPA." In Norman Vig and Michael Kraft (Eds.), Environmental Policy, 7th ed.

Rosenbaum writes, "As part of the executive branch of the federal government, the EPA and its administrators are expected to be responsive to presidential policy initiatives and White House political leadership.... At the same time, Congress expects the EPA to be alert to congressional interests while interpreting environmental legislation as Congress intended and assuring that scientific judgments inform EPA policymaking. The scientific community, environmentalists and science advocacy groups expect 'sound science' to be the bedrock for the EPA's regulatory decisions. The federal courts exercise legal oversight to ensure that the EPA implements the law correctly.... " (p. 150). Rosenbaum's account is a great example of the principal-agent problem. Is the EPA tasked with mission impossible?




Carlisle, Juliet E., Jessica T. Feezell, Kristy E.H. Michaud, Eric R.A.N. Smith and Leanna Smith. (2010). Public Understanding of Science, 19(5): 514-527.

1. What question(s) do Carlisle et al. want to answer?
2. What research method(s) do they employ?
3. What do they find?
4. What are the implications of their findings?
5. How does this study inform our discussion last week about partisanship and belief in anthropogenic climate change?

Michaels, David and Celeste Monforton. (2005). Manufacturing uncertainty: Contested science and the protection of the public's health and environment. American Journal of Public Health, 95(1): S39-S48.

1. What strategy do those promoting "sound science" employ to slow regulation? How do they justify their actions?
2. How do anti-regulation agencies cast doubt on the authenticity of science?
3. What can we expect to see if the Data Quality Act and Daubert Ruling are extended to other arenas (economy, political, legal)? What are the negative effects of total transparency?
4. Consider the Carlisle piece. What can we expect to see reflected in public policy if studies contradicting the scientific community are released to the public?

Vig and Kraft

1. According to Vig and Kraft, why is government intervention necessary for environmental protection?
2. According to Vig and Kraft, what is the "guiding principle" that should be used for environmental policy?
3. Does the checks and balance system work for environmental policy? Keep in mind it has saved policy from being weakened in the past, but also requires too much time to get anything done/passed.
4. What role does "agenda setting" play in the policy cycle?
5. According to Vig and Kraft, has environmental policy worked, and how is this measured?
6. How has the conversation about the environment and environmental policy changed since the 1970s?