Peak energy and climate change: The double bind of post-normal science

Insofar as the viability of industrial society is at stake, energy supply and climate change are not normal scientific issues. Fossil fuel is the ultimate finite resource, and the atmosphere the ultimate finite sink. There is dispute about the most fundamental issues and values to be promoted or defended. The concept of post-normal science has been introduced for precisely this kind of situation, where “facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent (Ravetz [1, p. 349]).” Although this applies equally to energy supply and climate change, the related knowledge regimes offer a remarkable contrast. Mainstream energy science, on the one hand, has refused to engage in post-normal science. The accredited experts at the International Energy Agency (IEA) and elsewhere have left “peak energy” to mavericks at the fringes or outside mainstream scientific discourse. Consequently, the pressing issue of future energy scarcity has been kept from the public agenda. Official climate science, on the other hand, has embraced post-normal science. But even though the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been uniquely successful in placing climate change on the public agenda, the inherent ambiguities of post-normal science have plunged climate science into a deep legitimacy crisis. Most people prefer denial and self-deception to an unvarnished vision of the truth when intractable problems such as peak energy and climate change are at stake. In such cases, scientists are in a double bind: they are damned if they do and doomed if they do not engage in post-normal science.     

Recent environmental research in the Netherlands: towards post-normal science?

Dutch environmental sciences have a tradition of multi- and interdisciplinarity and are developed in close interaction with Dutch environmental policy. Interdisciplinarity and policy relevance, two elements that are also prominent in the climate change scientific and policy debate, form highly important issues within the theory of post-normal science. The greater part of the Dutch climate research is organised in the National Research Programme (NRP), a research programme that explicitly focuses on delivering a contribution to the policy process. This paper uses four criteria for post-normal science (namely the management of uncertainty, the management of inter- and transdisciplinarity, the management of policy relevance and the management of quality) to detect a trend towards post-normal science. These criteria are useful for indicating long-term shifts but they do not (yet) provide measurable standards to assess scientific programmes like the NRP. The paper concludes that the NRP can not be typified as a post-normal research activity, but that it undoubtedly contains post-normal aspects. Especially the growing attention that is paid to the involvement of different stakeholders and divergent perspectives refers to a post-normal scientific practice.     

Climate change, human genetics, and post-normality in the UK

Virtually intractable matters characterized by uncertainty over consequences, diverse and multiple engaged interests, conflicting knowledge claims, and high stakes, call for post-normal policy responses. This paper explores how two such responses have been implemented in the UK through the management of specific aspects of anthropogenic climate change and human genetics, which we argue can be described as “wicked” or post-normal issues. To address these, approaches require that a broader range of epistemic positions and worldviews be recognized as valid in the policy development process. We suggest that the concept of boundary organisations is well suited to examine some of the institutions that have been set up in the UK to deal with the two post-normal issues we consider here. This paper explores the extent to which the UK Climate Impacts Programme and the Human Genetics Commission respond to a post-normal policy approach and their achievements in overcoming epistemological boundaries and effecting integrated management responses. We conclude by considering the insights such an analysis offers into operationalising post-normal policy approaches. As intermediaries and facilitators, we suggest the two organisations can be considered forerunners in applying a post-normal approach to climate change adaptation and human genetics, respectively.     

Investigating science for governance through the lenses of complexity

This paper assesses the contributions of complexity theory to post-normal science. The oversupply of facts in science for governance is explained as a matter of complexity, defined as irreducible pluralism in the knowledge base. The paper shows how complexity provides an interface to engage with the multiple facts of science through three different examples. First, water narratives are used to show how different scales of analysis produce contradictory scientific representations of the same system. Second, smart electricity grids are assessed to demonstrate how different levels of uncertainty are associated with different representations. Third, the case of slum upgrading is used to discuss the need to take into account stakes in science for governance.     

Science in a double-bind:: Gregory Bateson and the origins of post-normal science

The work of Gregory Bateson, particularly his principles for a new kind of science which, in 1958 “had as yet no satisfactory name”, is revisited as a foundation for post-normal science and adaptive approaches to management of complex environmental problems. The addition of usefulness and relevance of results to decision-making as quality criteria in post-normal science implies inquiry into context at different levels of complexity (what Bateson refers to as deutero-learning). This in turn implies emphasis on processes that facilitate inclusion of diverse perspectives—which facilitates an understanding of relationships among different aspects of a problem; also, social learning, an adaptive approach to valuation that also inquires into the process by which values are constructed, and a reflexive approach to decision-making. Though marginalized from policy discourse, Bateson's principles provided the basis for the eventual development of a new shared understanding.     

Post-normal institutional identities: Quality assurance,reflexivity and ethos of care

This paper suggests adopting a ‘post-normal science’ (PNS) style and practice in scientific advice, and motivate the urgency of this methodological stance with the increasing complexity, and polarisation affecting the use of science-based evidence for policy. We reflect on challenges and opportunities faced by a ‘boundary organisation’ that interfaces between science and policy, taking as example the European Commission’s Directorate General Joint Research Centre, whose mission is stated as that to be the “in-house science service”. We suggest that such an institution can be exemplary as to what could be changed to improve the quality of evidence feeding into the policy processes in the European Union. This paper suggests how an in-house culture of reflexivity and humility could trigger changes in the existing styles and methods of scientific governance; at the JRC, taken as example, this would mean opening up to the existing plurality of norms and styles of scientific inquiry, and adopting more participatory approaches of knowledge production, assessment and governance. We submit that the institutional changes advocated here are desirable and urgent in order to confront the ongoing erosion of trust in ‘evidence based policy’, anticipating controversies before they become evident in the institutional setting in which institutions operate.     

‘Climategate’ and the maturing of post-normal science

In response to the Climategate scandal, I wrote a number of essays, including a posting on an important critical blog. There I explained the affair in terms of post-normal science. First, that the scientists concerned were doing ‘normal science’, not coping with uncertainties, and then that the ‘extended peer community’ had come into power on the critical blogosphere. There was already a current of criticism of PNS, seeing it as contributing to the supposed corruption of climate science through its denial of Truth. One important essay in that tendency is reproduced here. In my reply to my critics, I argued that we are on the same side, committed to the integrity of science; and I reviewed the progression of my own ideas on climate change. In the light of the criticisms, I conclude with some searching questions about post-normal science.     

The post-normal science of precaution

Science now finds itself in a new and troubled situation. The traditional optimistic picture is problematic and compromised at every turn. The scientific system now faces a crisis of confidence, of legitimacy and ultimately of power. We can usefully distinguish two sorts of science. The ‘mainstream’ is reductionist in style, and increasingly linked to industry. By contrast, the ‘post-normal’ approach embodies the precautionary principle. It depends on public debate, and involves an essential role for the ‘extended peer community’. It is based on the recent recognition of the influence of values on all research, even including the basic statistical tests of significance. It is the appropriate methodology when either systems uncertainties or decision stakes are high; under those conditions the puzzle-solving approach of ‘normal science’ is obsolete. This is a drastic cultural change for science, which many scientists will difficult to accept. But there is no turning back; we can understand post-normal science as the extension of democracy appropriate to the conditions of our age.     

Emergent complex systems

Complex systems are becoming the focus of important innovative research and application in many areas, reflecting the progressive displacement of classical physics and the emergence of a new and creative role for mathematics. This article makes a distinction between ordinary and emergent complexity and argues that a full analysis requires dialectical thinking. In so doing the authors aim to provide a philosophical foundation for post-normal science. The exploratory analysis developed here is complementary to those conducted with a more formal, mathematical approach, and begins to articulate what lies on the other side of that somewhat indistinct divide, the conceptual space called emergent complexity.     

Climate-change lore and its implications for climate science: Post-science deliberations?

Using of the results of survey questionnaires distributed to climate scientists who focus on the German Baltic coast, regional political decision makers on the German Baltic coast and weather observations from the same region, this paper assesses the existence of developing climate-change lore and the implications for the role of climate science in the science–policy interface. The Oxford Dictionary (1993) provides one definition of lore as ‘A doctrine, a precept; a creed, a religion.’ This is the definition adopted for this paper. The paper concludes that the discrepancies among weather observations, scientific assessments and decision makers’ perceptions suggest that climate-change lore exists, or is coming into existence. The paper then discusses the implications for the science–policy interface and suggests that given current trajectories, science could come to play a secondary role to climate-change lore in regional political decision making concerning climate change. To the truth-to-power model of the science–policy interface and the tenets of post-normal science, three additional possibly evolving science–policy configurations (as pertaining to the climate change issue) are offered.     

Has science ever been normal? On the need and impossibility of a sustainability science

In this article, I develop a constructive critique of ‘post-normal science’ by challenging the underlying conception of ‘normal science’. Invoking Bruno Latour's constructivist approach, I change focus from a representationalist understanding to a practice-inspired account of science in which the composition of a matter of fact necessarily implies a politically significant differentiation between internalities and externalities. Contending that science has never been normal in that it has always already been political, I further elaborate on this political dimension by connecting Latour's concepts of matters of fact and matters of concern with Rudolf Boehm's distinction between logical and topical truth. Whereas logical truth is a measure of the validity of matters of fact, topical truth is a measure of the relevance and adequacy of scientific knowledge regarding a particular matter of concern. This allows me to argue that any attempt to install a new ‘post-normal science’ with a higher topical truth vis-à-vis sustainability issues neglects the irreducible political moment situated at the point of determining who and what we should be concerned about. Finally, I draw on the notion of ‘forms of life’ to suggest a ‘politics of the imaginable’ that takes socio-material practices as primary matters of a concern for sustainability.     

Environmental nasty surprise, post-normal science, and the troubled role of experts in sustainable democratic environmental decision making

An environmental nasty surprise is an environmental problem such as stratospheric ozone depletion that: catches scientists, technologists, regulators, mass media, and public off-guard; is already extensive by the time it is widely recognized; stems from entrenched technologies; and presents a potentially large-scale, long-term threat to humans or ecosystems. How might the need to minimize the generation of such problems - and address them as effectively as possible when they emerge - help us think more clearly about the role that experts should play in environmental decision making? Using case material on industrial chlorine chemistry, this paper considers the limitations of the theory of post-normal science as a framework for identifying appropriate and inappropriate modes of scientific and technical expertise in environmental decision making. The analysis highlights the need for a model of sustainability expertise that (a) recognizes how prevailing frameworks of environmental decision making allow technologists to actively produce - and exploit - uncertainty and (b) normatively promotes development and deployment of expertise in ways that actively confront these tendencies while making environmental decision making more democratic.     

Uncertainty and hyper-precision in fisheries science and policy

This essay discusses various uncertainty aspects of advice on fish quotas in the North-East Atlantic provided by ICES (the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea). A key conclusion is that while the epistemic uncertainties may be considerable, the advisory framework does not account for these, but sets considerable limitations on what issues, expertise and knowledge is relevant for quota advice. The uncertainty is treated as if it were quantifiable, i.e. a technical problem without epistemic uncertainty. However, since estimates and predictions of stock states are presented with hyper-precision, not even the technical uncertainty is reflected adequately. The inadequate handling of uncertainty is value-laden as the risks and the risk bearers change with different choices of theoretical models. Yet, the ICES framework for quota advice advocates a strict division between science and policy. ICES's claim of producing unbiased advice and the managers’ demand for scientific advice without interference with policy can be regarded as attempts to defend a clear-cut division. Further, the hyper-precision can be seen as a symptom of a sub-optimal management system and can be understood as an attempt to deny that the situation is one of post-normal science.     

Metatheoretical foundations for post-normal risk

The first goal of this paper is to sketch a three-part, synoptic framework that could ease the way beyond the current impasse of competition among the various metatheoretical orientations (e.g. realism vs. social constructivism, positivism vs. cultural theory, etc.) in the risk field. The framework will be constructed on a foundation of metatheoretical principles and its form will accommodate the best features of the competing orientations. Because the articulated principles will build first on a position of realism, we can refer to the framework as a whole as Reconstructed Realism (RR). Because the content of the framework comprises its first two key parts, ontological realism and epistemological hierarchicalism , we can refer to the content by the acronym OREH. The second goal of the paper is to epistemically connect the synoptic framework, RR, to a methodological framework for conducting risk analysis, thereby providing a bridge between theory and practice. The existing methodological framework that bears logical symmetry to RR is the one developed by Funtowicz and Ravetz in a suite of papers (1985; 1991; 1992; 1993; 1994) and which they call 'post-normal science'. Connecting RR- the synoptic framework under development- with postnormal science completes the third part of the framework, and the resulting product is properly labelled 'post-normal risk.' Our life of fishing is so perilous that even though we worship all the gods in the world, many of us still die untimely deaths. Noriko Ogiwara, Dragon Sword and Wind Child     

Reprint of “Discourses of transdisciplinarity: Looking back to the future”

The current ascendancy of transdisciplinarity (TD) is marked by an exponential growth of publications, a widening array of contexts, and increased interest across academic, public and private sectors. This investigation traces historical trends, rhetorical claims, and social formations that have shaped three major discourses of TD: transcendence, problem solving, and transgression. In doing so, it also takes account of developments that have emerged or gained traction since the early 21st century when a 2004 issue of Futures on the same topic was being written.The epistemological problem at the heart of the discourse of transcendence is the idea of unity, traced in the West to ancient Greece. The emergence of transdisciplinarity was not a complete departure from this historical quest, but it signalled the need for new syntheses at a time of growing fragmentation of knowledge and culture. New synthetic frameworks emerged, including general systems, post/structuralism, feminist theory, and sustainability. New organizations also formed to advance conceptual frameworks aimed at transcending the narrowness of disciplinary worldviews and interdisciplinary combinations of approaches that did not supplant the status quo of academic structure and classification.The discourse of problem solving is not new. It was fundamental to conceptions of interdisciplinarity in the first half of the 20th century. Heightened pressure to solve problems of society, though, fostered growing alignment of TD with solving complex problems as well as trans-sector participation of stakeholders in society and team-based science. The discourse of transgression was forged in critique of the existing system of knowledge and education. TD became aligned with imperatives of cultural critique, socio-political movements, and conceptions of post-normal science and wicked problems that break free of reductionist and mechanistic approaches. It also became a recognized premise in interdisciplinary fields, including cultural studies, women's and gender studies, urban studies, and environmental studies. And, calls for TD arrived at a moment of wider crisis in the privileging of dominant forms of knowledge, human rights accountability, and democratic participation.Even with distinct patterns of definition, though, discourses are not air-tight categories. Transcendence was initially an epistemological project, but the claim of transcendence overlaps increasingly with problem solving. The imperatives of transgression also cut across the discourses of transcendence and problem solving. Broadly speaking, though, emphasis is shifting from traditional epistemology to problem solving, from the pre-given to the emergent, and from universality to hybridity and contextuality.     

Engineering ethics and post-normal science: A French perspective

The paper identifies three failures of current engineering ethics and suggests that a post-normal turn may help redesign a more demanding ethics for engineering practice. Finally it outlines some difficulties that such a post-normal engineering ethics may face, especially in the French context.     

Actions towards the joint production of knowledge: the risk of salmon aquaculture on American Lobster

Joint production of knowledge (JPK) is said to facilitate proactive mitigation of risks in marine resource management. However, lack of consensus on who should be involved, when it is happening and the exact mechanisms of sharing knowledge has precluded the development of an effective implementation framework. Here, we explore one approach to building a post-normal science, one that both includes local ecological knowledge and bridges scientific silos. We first identify several actions of knowledge production and then provide an Atlantic Canadian case study, drawn from an assessment of the impact of aquaculture on American lobster, to illustrate necessary actions on the road to JPK. Key actions include theorizing relationships, agreeing on key concepts, specifying, and interpreting required data, identifying principles and making evaluations. We fill a lacuna in the JPK literature by: first, defining knowledge as the result of a set of actions; second, using knowledge generating actions to explore how different knowledge sets come together to contribute to JPK; and third, identifying how knowledge actions can facilitate or inhibit JPK. We conclude that this list of the essential actions of knowledge production is necessary to the successful development of alternative approaches to risk.