Uncertainty as a social construct: the certainty trough

A notion relevant to the understanding of the science-policy interface, taken from the field of Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (SSK) is the relation between social distance (from the knowledge producers) and the perceived level of uncertainty in knowledge claims. MacKenzie (1990) developed the idea of the ’certainty trough’ (see figure below): The perceived uncertainty of knowledge claims is smallest a little bit away from the actual site of knowledge production. Scientists from one discipline may attribute less uncertainty to knowledge from another discipline than the practitioners of that other discipline would themselves attribute to it. If applied to the climate change case: policymakers may attribute less uncertainty to IPCC’s claims than do the IPCC experts themselves. Those who feel alienated from the IPCC process will attribute the highest uncertainty to the IPCC claims.

The certainty trough (MacKenzie, 1990)

Wynne (1992) noticed that the discussions about uncertainty seemed to rely implicitly on the naive notion that inadequate control of environmental risks is due only to inadequate scientific knowledge. Wynne criticized this idea, and added the concept of indeterminacy as a category of uncertainty. Indeterminacy refers to the open-endedness (both social and scientific) in the processes of environmental damage caused by human intervention. Indeterminacy introduces the idea that contingent social behaviour also has to be included in the analytical and prescriptive framework. It also acknowledges the fact that many of the intellectual commitments which constitute our knowledge are not fully determined by empirical observations. The latter implies that scientific knowledge depends not only on its degree of fit with nature, but also on its correspondence with the social world and on its success in building and negotiating trust and credibility for the science. We emphasize that this notion implies that virtually every scientific claim that comes under fire when it figures in a societal controversy with high decision stakes will turn out to be indeterminate and uncertain rather than foundational. It also implies that the history of uncertainty in climate change forecasting would be radically different if it concerned the forecasting of climate on a neighbouring planet rather than on the Earth, even if it relied on exactly the same science.

Other authors also have questioned the possibility of obtaining an objective definition of uncertainty. They argue instead that representation and perception of uncertainty are important factors, and that uncertainty is partly constructed as the product of implicit negotiation processes between scientists, policy-makers and the public (Collingridge and Reeve, 1986; Jasanoff, 1990; Shackley and Skodvin, 1995).

We need to bear in mind that all actors with a stake in global warming have agendas of their own and are not always averse to manipulating uncertainty for various reasons. Uncertainties are often magnified and distorted to prevent the public from obtaining insight into the policy-making process and thereby obstructing it (Hellström, 1996, Michaels, 2005, Gleick, 2007; Oreskes and Conway, 2010). The uncertainty question can be (and is) actively used as a strategy to undermine the role of assessment as a shared source of information, and to achieve the postponement of measures. What is needed is a better understanding of the limits of science in relation to the assessment community’s task to provide a scientific basis for the climate policy debate, and a widening in focus from "reducing uncertainties" to "managing uncertainties and complexities".

References

D. Collingridge and C. Reeve, Science Speaks to Power, Printer, London, 1986.

Gleick, P (2007) Testimony to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and transportation For the Hearing on Climate Change Research and Scientific Integrity, February 7, 2007: Threats to the Integrity of Science.

T. Hellström, The Science-Policy dialogue in transformation: model-uncertainty and environmental policy, in: Science and Public Policy, 23 (2), 1996, p.91-97.

S. Jasanoff, The Fifth Branch, Scientific Advisers as Policy Makers, Harvard University Press, Harvard, 1990.

Oreskes N, Conway E: Merchants of doubt, How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York: Bloomsbury Press; 2010.D. MacKenzie, Inventing Accuracy, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990.

Michaels, D (2005) ‘Doubt is their product: Industry groups are fighting government regulation by fomenting scientific uncertainty’, Scientific American, June 2005, pp96–101

S. Shackley and T. Skodvin, IPCC Gazing and the Interpretative Social Sciences, Global Environmental Change, 5 (3), 1995, p. 175-180.

B. Wynne, Uncertainty and Environmental Learning, in: Global Environmental Change, 2, 1992, p.111-127.