How science makes environmental controversies worse

By D. Sarewitz. 2004

1,166 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Global and Planetary Change, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9a94cf264aacad298c28d13cc7801d65ba4d76d0

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Global and Planetary Change

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Technical knowledge, discursive spaces and politics at the science - policy interface (2013, background): “For Sarewitz (2004) science inevitably makes environmental controversies worse since it becomes the ammunition that fuels debate since the science evoked during these controversies often frames them in particular ways and uses lines of argumentation not all stakeholders agree with.”
Physical and economic bias in climate change research: a scientometric study of IPCC Third Assessment Report (2011, methodology): “…of Gothenburg, SE 40530 Göteborg, Sweden e-mail: andreas.bjurstrom@globalstudies.gu.se How climate change is understood and which response strategies are proposed is influenced by the scientific disciplines that are consulted (Carolan 2008; Cohen et al. 1998; Demeritt 2001; Sarewitz 2004).”
Incorporating uncertainty and social values in managing invasive alien species: a deliberative multi-criteria evaluation approach (2011, background): “We do argue that technical tools, though powerful, cannot solely solve environmental problems because environmental decisions are ‘‘political’’ as well as scientific and resolving environmental problems requires addressing the values of the public (Beierle 2002; Sarewitz 2004 ).”
When scientists politicize science: making sense of controversy over The Skeptical Environmentalist (2004, background): “Oreskes, 2004; Sarewitz, 2004in this volume).”
Developing post-normal technologies for sustainability (2008, background): “However, it does so conscious that different disciplinary and theoretical lenses will provide "contesting parties with their own bodies of relevant, legitimated facts" which inform and are informed by different interests and normative standpoints (Sarewitz, 2004, p. 385).”
The neglected heart of science policy: reconciling supply of and demand for science (2007, methodology): “People with spinal cord injuries or diabetes, influenced by the rhetoric of scientists studying embryonic stem cells, in turn create an enhanced demand for such research.”
Evidence-based policy or policy-based evidence gathering? Biofuels, the EU and the 10% target† (2010, background): “Authors such as Sarewitz (2004; 2006) argue that science itself cannot decisively resolve values controversies because they are not technocratic disputes; instead, their explicitly political nature must be brought to the fore.”
Exploring the quality of evidence for complex and contested policy decisions (2008, background): “More research on complex issues sometimes reveals more uncertainties and can even lead to more intense controversy and weaker evidence if these implicit assumptions are not adequately dealt with (Sarewitz 2004, van der Sluijs 2005).”
Catching two European birds with one renewable stone: Mitigating climate change and Eurozone crisis by an energy transition (2014, background): “A meaningful policy analysis requires a multiple-objective, multiple-externality framework that explicitly accounts for the dynamic interdependencies [6,7] and that acknowledges potentially considerable uncertainties and the consideration of impacts that are not well quantifiable [8–10].”
Anticipatory Governance (2010, neutral): “…to be unable to solve complex and uncertain problems like global climate change (Farmer, 1999; Popper, Lempert, & Bankes, 2005; Ringquist, Worsham, & Eisner, 2003; Rittel & Webber, 1973; Sarewitz, 2004; Storbjörk, 2007; van Bueren, Klijn, & Koppenjan, 2003; Wildavsky, 2006; Willson & Brown, 2008).”
The importance of social drivers in the resilient provision of ecosystem services (2011, background): “Sarewitz (2004) illustrates the scientization of politics when he writes that ‘‘political debate permits the mobilization of a broad range of weaponry, including scientific facts, religious dogma, cultural norms, and personal experience, in defense of one’s values and interests.”
A Cognition-based View of Decision Processes in Complex Social–Ecological Systems (2007, background): “In fact, additional scientific facts may reinforce value disputes and competing interests (Nelkin 1975, 1995, Collingridge and Reeve 1986, Sarewitz 2004), and more information may lead to more confusion rather than less (van der Colk 1988, Milech and Finucane 1998).”