# Essay



# Towards a new paradigm of

science

in scientific policy advising

2007

Eva Kunseler Kansanterveyslaitos Environment and Health Department

Methods of Scientific Thought Prof. Lindqvist

### Introduction: Paradigm of science

Science is a logic inductive process leading to theory formulation, while all the way put through critical tests that have been deductivel y derived from the theory; Popper’s critical rationalist concept of science is an objective progression toward the tr uth. In contrast, Kuhn positions science in its non-rational context of cultural and historical values; the exercise of scholarly activities is subject to the prevailing paradigm. The term paradigm refers to a set of practices, such as methods of observation and inte rpretation, that define a scientific discipline during a particular period of tim e. Kuhn interprets science as a process of peaceful ‘puzzlesolving’ punctuated by scientific revolutions. A scientific revolution or paradigm shift may occur when shortcomings of the basic assump tions in the prevailing paradigm build up and cannot longer be ignored. Duri ng the revolutionary period, new ideas and perceptions are discussed, which involves competition between incommensurable paradigms. The new paradigm better fits the evolved context where scie nce makes part of. (1) The prevailing paradigm of science is not su itable for the science policy context with its different perceptions of reality and presence of great scientific uncertainty and ignorance. A paradigm shift is argued by the concept of post-normal science, which emerged from dissatisfaction with knowledge arising from the gap between policy quest ions and scientific answers. Scientific policy a dvising in normal and post-normal context exemplify the line of reasoning.



### Normal science

The term normal science refers to the routine work of scientists within a paradigm; slowly accumulating knowledge in accord with establis hed theoretical assumptions. Kuhn identified this mode of science as being a form of puzzle-solving. The paradigm is enlarged and frontiers of knowledge and t echniques pushed forward. (1)

Normal science is also named academic scie nce or mode 1. The exercise of scholarly activities is defined by the dominance of the Mertonian CUDOS norms of science. They

include:

 (C)ommunalism - the common ownership of scie ntific discoveries, according to which scientists give up in tellectual property rights in excha nge for recognition and esteem;

 (U)niversalism - according to which claims to tr uth are evaluated in terms of universal or value-free criteria;

 (D)isinterestedness - according to which scient ists are rewarded for acting in ways that appear to be selfless;

 (O)rganized (S)kepticism - al l ideas must be tested and are subject to structured community scrutiny. (2)



### Normal science in policy-making

Routine puzzle-solving by expert s provides an adequate knowle dge base for policy decisions. The policy environment is a ‘normal’ setting where experts do routine work on small-scale problems. (3) A reductionist method is applied for generating scientif ic knowledge; focusing only on a small and well-defined view of rea lity. The success of reductionism lies in its abilities to make complex problems simpler, to get rid of taboos and traditions and to focus on a single aspect of reality when dealing with specific problems - one at a time. It assumes that reality can be known and that, therefore, sooner or later scientists will achieve adequate

2knowledge. (4) All that is needed to achieve this goal is more money and time, a provision that fundamentally conflicts with the action- oriented policy actors who must act under time constraints and with limited budgets. (5)

‘Normal’ scientific policy advising

National research institutes have an advisory role towards policy-makers, which usually is only a small, though certainly not a negligible task amongst their total scope of activities. Their work programme is influenced by the po licy agenda, which is in turn influenced by identified priorities and needs in the research field. The ‘rese arch-oriented a dvisory bodies’ conduct ‘normal’ scientific policy advising. They report research findings and conclusions to authorities and this way carry out a legitimating and instrument al function and, every now and then, an enlightenment function in the policy process. Instrumental knowledge is grounded in a specific research context, wh ich affects selection and shapin g of data and conclusions. Hence, scientific information and advice lack certain objectiveness. On the policy side, science can be abused when used only in case it provides supportive evidence for the preferred and predetermined policy direction. (5) In order to prev ent these pitfalls, clear task

demarcation between research institutes and au thorities is advocated. The demarcation is meant to ensure that political accountability rests with policy-makers and is not shifted, inappropriately, to the scientists, while it sim ilarly serves as a mean s of protecting science from the political interference wh at would threaten its integr ity. (6) Constructing the right form of demarcation between science and policy is most important and largely subject to the type of boundary arrangement between scien tific experts and policy actors. Too great separation can result in the scientific institutes putting the policy process in a certain direction as might be the case in a technocratic or enli ghtenment arrangement. Too small separation can aggravate rather than resolve the risks of political interference in science, as is the risk in a bureaucratic or engineering arra ngements. In contrast to dema rcation construction, pragmatic arrangements co-ordinate the science-policy rela tionship as dependent on the topic of advice. This boundary arrangement seldom exists in ‘ normal’ scientific policy advising while being most common in a post-normal setting. (5, 6)



### Post-normal science

A new concept of science was introduced by Funtowicz and Ravetz during the 1990s in response to the crisis in th e reductionist paradigm. (4) Kuhn already emphasized on the important role of human factors, such as intuition, imagination and receptivity to new ideas, in the exercise of scholarly activities. The concept of post-normal science goes beyond the traditiona l assumptions that science is both certain

and value-free. Post-normal situations have in common that facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and deci sions urgent, unlike normal scie nce situations where these elements are small. In addition to the applic ation of routine techniques, also judgement becomes necessary as well as involvement of extended peer communities. This new social organisation of science is also named post-ac ademic science or mode 2. The exercise of scholarly activities is defined by the dominance of goal orientat ion where scientific goals are controlled by political or societal actors. (3 ) Science operates in a strong two-way dialogue with society. (4)



### Post-normal science in policy making

According to the post-normal concept of scienc e, commitments of scientific advisors can legitimately influence judgements of decision- makers on issues where there are deep and

3irresolvable uncertainties. Sc ience should be engaged in the policy process. Scientists’ integrity lies not in disinteres tedness but in their behaviour as stakeholders. (3) Normal

science made the world believe that scientis ts should and could pr ovide certain, objective

factual information for decision-makers. But when there are problems not of how things work,

but rather issues of what should be and w hy, the narrow focus and single solutions have shortcomings. Facts are still necessary, but no longer sufficient. The guiding principle of normal science - the goal of ach ievement of factual knowledge - must be modified to fit the post-normal principle to achieve the goal of quali ty. For this purpose, post-normal scientists should be capable of establishing extended peer communities and allow for ‘extended facts’ from non-scientific experts. Proper interpreta tion and weighting of various knowledge claims is crucial to conform to quality criteria. In post-normal science, the maintenance and enhancement of quality, rather than the establishm ent of factual knowledge, is the key task of scientists. (4) This new role of scientists is challenging and requires different professional capabilities, as well as incor poration of several new features in the methodology of science (3).

‘Post-normal’ scientific policy advising

Scientific advisory councils and committees are policy-oriented as they aim to support the policymaking process with issue-specific knowle dge on the state of science, based on actual research findings and scientif ic data supplemented with knowle dge of the societal context. Scientific facts are only one part of the relevant knowledge that is brought in as support to a decision or policy process. Be sides their legitimating, inst rumental and enlightenment function, scientific policy advise rs fulfil ‘post-normal’ tasks. They have an interpretative function in reflecting, improvi ng and sharpening judgements of policy makers regarding social, cultural and institutional factors, which might have a negative or positive impact on the policy issue. Furthermore, it is th e task of ‘post-normal’ scientific policy advisers to catalyse the process of consensus building among different actors or stakeholders in the policy process. (5) During this exercise a plurality of co-ordinated legitimate perspectives (each with their own value commitments and framings) is accepted. Even the strength and relevance of

scientific evidence is amenable to assessment by citizens. The existence of a pragmatic relationship betw een scientific, policy a nd other societal actors is a necessary condition for ‘post-normal’ scien tific policy advisers to co-ordinate this coproduction of knowledge in extended peer co mmunity setting. (5, 6) Findings from a comparative research project in advisory bodi es in France, Germany and Poland show that ‘post-normal’ scientific policy advising is ga ining importance in policy-oriented advisory councils. In general, structur ed public and stakeholder consultations are common practice, whereas the internal advisory process stil l includes only scientific members who are voluntary-operating professionals with a main o ccupation at research institutes. Two French advisory councils engage furthe r in exercising post-normal schol arly activities by appointing non-scientific members, such as legislators a nd industrial and public representatives. Despite extended peer evaluation and inclusion of differe nt perspectives and expertise, they encounter a problem in verification of the scientific qual ity of their advisory reports. (5) Scientific quality is still assessed according to the uni versal norm or value-fr ee criterion of normal

science.



### Conclusion: Towards a new paradigm of science

The paradigm shift implied by th e concept of post-normal science is due to (i) existence of different perceptions of reality and (ii) presen ce of great uncertainty and genuine ignorance in the exercise of scholarly activities.

4The paradigm shift suggests to abandon assumpti ons typical of reductionism, of which most important the assumption to make possible substa ntive models of reality. The paradigm shift is particularly needed for science used in pol icy processes. Within the new paradigm decisionmaking is no longer based on ‘optimal’ solutions provided by scientists. Science for policy is more often than not dealing with complex, unc ertain and ambiguous topics. Decisions should be based on negotiation among the social actors. Involved social actor s must agree on the definition of perceptions, narratives, interpretatio n of models, data and indicators that are selected by the scientists. The ro le of scientists still remains crucial, though it is somewhat changed. They have to contribute to the de finition of acceptable compromises. For this purpose, scientists have to contribute to soci ety by learning as quick ly as possible about different perceptions towards options, problems and constraints, instead of seeking deep ultimate knowledge. In a ‘post-normal’ world, scient ists still have to guarantee the quality of their work where the definition of quality has to include many more criteria of performance than those required for normal science. (4) The paradigm shift woul d create the opportunity for development of new methods of knowledge qua lity assessment. Policy-oriented scientific advisory bodies would certainl y welcome such a revolution.



### References

1. Kuhn, T.S. Revolutionary theorist of science. Science: 197 (1977): 143 – 5. 2. Merton, R.K. Sociology of scien ce. Accessed at 14 February 2007: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_K._Merton 3. Ravetz, J.R. What is post-normal science? Futures: 31 (1999): 647 – 53. 4. Giampietro, M., Allen, T., Mayumi, K. Scie nce for governance: the implications of the complexity revolution. In: Guimarães Pere ira, Â., Guedes Vaz, S., Tognetti, S.
Interfaces between science and society. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing Ltd, 2006. 5. Kunseler, E.M. The role of advisory bodies in environmental h ealth policymaking – a comparative research project in France, Germany and Poland (Thesis). Maastricht University: 2005. 6. Funtowicz, S. Why knowledge assessment? In: Guimarães Pereira, Â., Guedes Vaz,
S., Tognetti, S. Interfaces between scie nce and society. She ffield: Greenleaf Publishing Ltd, 2006.

5