Abby J. Kinchy

Organizing credibility: Discursive and organizational orthodoxy on the borders of ecology and politics

In the present paper, we show that in its efforts to maintain credibility and claim social relevance, the Ecological Society of America (ESA) and its members repeatedly negotiate a boundary between science and politics. While the boundaries of ecology are flexibly defined, contingent on political context and what is at stake, they are also shaped and constrained by the already constructed social world. Several factors shape the ESA’s boundary-work: (1) historically resonant discourses of both value-freedom and the utility of science; (2) national politics, including social movements and the demands of funding bodies; (3) the structure and actions of other, often more prestigious, scientific societies; and (4) established orthodoxies of scientific behavior. We contribute to the scholarly literature on credibility in science by showing that the construction of boundaries between science and politics is, in some cases, better understood as the reproduction of the already constructed social world than as a product of strategic efforts in pursuit of individual interests.

Why Ban Bovine Growth Hormone? Science, Social Welfare, and the Divergent Biotech Policy Landscapes in Europe and the United States

In the late 1980s, proposals circulated in European Union policymaking institutions that called for adding a new criterion—dubbed the ‘fourth hurdle’—to the standard three dimensions across which new veterinary technologies were evaluated for marketing authorization in the EU. To the traditional three criteria of safety, efficacy and quality, some policymakers and activists wanted to add an evaluation of socio-economic effects. That is, proponents of the fourth hurdle wanted the decision to permit commercialization to be based not just on whether the technology was safe, effective, and of good quality, but also on what kind of impact a new technology might have on the social structure of European agriculture if commercialized. In the EU, the ‘fourth hurdle’ became a legitimate policy consideration. Furthermore, despite the failure to formalize the fourth hurdle in the EU’s marketing authorization procedure, there is evidence to suggest that the EU’s moratorium on the use of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH) is based on the fourth hurdle ‘by the back door’. In other words, even when other justifications for banning rbGH were used, the ongoing (and now permanent) moratorium appears motivated, at least in part, by socio-economic concerns. Why did discussions of socio-economic effects have such resonance in Europe and not in the US? Why did a moratorium on rbGH—motivated by socio-economic considerations—remain intact for over a decade in the EU, while in the United States the federal government could not find justification for banning the drug for more than 90 days? And finally, why, despite considerable support

What is Volunteer Water Monitoring Good for? Fracking and the Plural Logics of Participatory Science

This paper responds to recent calls for deeper scrutiny of the institutional contexts of citizen science. In the last few years, at least two dozen civil society organizations in New York and Pennsylvania have begun monitoring the watershed impacts of unconventional natural gas drilling, also known as “fracking.” This study examines the institutional logics that inform these citizen monitoring efforts and probes how relationships with academic science and the regulatory state affect the practices of citizen scientists. We find that the diverse practices of the organizations in the participatory water monitoring field are guided by logics of consciousness-raising, environmental policing, and science. Organizations that initiate monitoring projects typically attempt to combine two or more of these logics as they develop new practices in response to macro-level social and environmental changes. The dominant logic of the field remains unsettled, and many groups appear uncertain about whether and how their practices might have an influence. We conclude that the impacts of macro-level changes, such as the scientization of politics, the rise of neoliberal policy ideas, or even large-scale industrial transformations, are likely to be experienced in field-specific ways.

Boundaries in science policy making: Bovine growth hormone in the European Union

We simultaneously explore the history of European Union policy on the commercialization of recombinant bovine growth hormone and the sociology of boundary drawing. We argue that, to understand why some boundary-drawing efforts succeed and others fail, we need to be attentive to the relatively stable discursive, organizational, and institutional factors that shape boundary construction. We suggest that attention to two discourses (scientism and social welfarism), the structure of policy making in the European Union, and the institutionalization of particular discourses in World Trade Organization regulations shed light on the E.U.-rbGH case.

Sense and Influence: Environmental Monitoring Tools and the Power of Citizen Science

Abstract Automated monitoring devices are useful technologies for communities seeking to document and solve environmental problems. However, without deeper scrutiny of their design and deployment, there is a risk that they will fail to have the impact that many of their promoters intend. We develop a rubric for analysing how different kinds of monitoring devices help environmental advocates influence public debates. We apply this rubric in a study of environmental organizations in Pennsylvania that are choosing between recruiting volunteer citizen scientists and using automated sensor-based devices to gather water quality data in streams threatened by hydraulic fracturing for natural gas. Many organizations rely on volunteers using simple monitoring tools because they are affordable and produce easily managed data sets. An argument for this method of monitoring is that volunteering in the field also fosters citizen engagement in environmental debates. By comparison, we find the increased use of automated devices tends to reinforce hierarchies of expertise and constrains the agendas of nonprofessionals who participate in monitoring projects. We argue that these findings suggest that automated technologies, however effective they may be in gathering data on environmental quality, are not well designed to support broad public participation in environmental science and politics.

Local variation or global convergence in agricultural biotechnology policy? A comparative analysis

The history of attention to local variation in science and technology studies notwithstanding, there is a growing emphasis in the study of science policy on global convergence. In this paper, we undertake a multi-state comparative study of agricultural biotechnology policies, illustrating the continuing value of attending to policy variation and the factors that mold it. We acknowledge the growing influence of supranational entities and transnational cultural exchanges in shaping policy. However, our research does not indicate the homogenization of agricultural biotechnology policies across the globe. Instead, we find three broad models of agricultural biotechnology governance: ‘liberal science-based’ regulation, ‘precautionary science-based’ regulation, and ‘social values-based’ regulation. While states are constrained by global and local factors, they actively shape policies by blending parts of these three policy models in distinct ways. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

On the borders of post-war ecology: Struggles over the ecological society of America's preservation committee, 1917–1946

Should ecologists advocate for the protection of natural ecosystems? What is the appropri-ate relationship between ecology and activism? These questions have been raised by ecol-ogists and observers of the discipline since at least the early 1900s, and present discussionsshow no sign of a forthcoming resolution. Historian Stephen Bocking (1997) recentlyobserved that ‘Among ecologists there evidently is no consensus concerning their placein environmental politics. Indeed, the debate is nearly as old as the discipline, and ithas helped shape the history and structure of the discipline’. The boundaries ofecology—the limits of the acceptable range of activities for ecologists acting as ecolo-gists—seem always to be contested and shifting. One of the most revealing sites atwhich to observe these boundary struggles is the Ecological Society of America (ESA),the main professional society for ecologists in the United States. The ESA has, throughoutits history, debated the extent to which it ought to advocate for public policy, and oncertain occasions has taken action to officially delineate which activities are acceptable,and which activities fall beyond the scope of a professional scientific society. In sodoing, the ESA has transformed its relationship with the state, shifting from agitationand opposition to advice and assistance.One of the most important instances in which the ESA renegotiated its position on advo-cacy and relationship to the state occurred just prior to the end of World War II. On 20 July1945, the ESA voted to amend its by-laws, excluding from its activities direct action toinfluence legislation. Until that time, the ESA’s Committee for the Preservation ofNatural Conditions had been actively involved in promoting legislation to protect and pre-serve natural areas, particularly in the form of national parks and monuments. The 1945decision, passed by a majority vote, caused a rift in the organization. Those who favoureda strategy of direct involvement in legislative affairs formed a separate organization calledScience as CultureVol. 15, No. 1, 23–44, March 2006

Citizen Science and Democracy: Participatory Water Monitoring in the Marcellus Shale Fracking Boom

Projections—the way that people collectively talk about the future—shape action in the present. This sociological observation has implications for citizen science initiatives that aim to confront powerful industries and produce social change. When people participate in citizen science associations—such as watershed monitoring organizations, the subject of this study—their actions and democratic sensibilities are affected by the ways that organizers and other volunteers project the future uses of the environmental data they are collecting. In this case, hundreds of people are participating in volunteer watershed monitoring groups in response to the “fracking” boom in the northeastern United States. Most of these efforts emphasize the collection of “baseline” data, which they view as essential to future efforts to hold polluters accountable. However, these projects tend to channel public concern about fracking toward future scientific controversies, instead of political action now to prevent pollution. Furthermore, baseline watershed monitoring efforts reinforce the epistemology of regulatory agencies, rather than generating alternative forms of knowledge about watershed health. Organizers actively work to convince volunteers that their work has meaning and that they are being empowered, but future-oriented data collection is often at odds with volunteers’ current-day motivations. Scholars and activists have often heralded citizen science as a way to radically democratize environmental governance; however, to achieve this, citizen science must project futures that stimulate transformative actions in the present.

Fractured knowledge: Mapping the gaps in public and private water monitoring efforts in areas affected by shale gas development:

Spatial gaps in environmental monitoring have important consequences for public policy and regulation of new industrial developments. In the case of Marcellus Shale gas extraction, a water-intensive new form of energy production that is taking place in the state of Pennsylvania (USA), the perception of large gaps in government water monitoring efforts have motivated numerous civil society organizations (CSOs) to initiate their own monitoring programs. Using geospatial mapping, this study reveals that nearly half of the watersheds in the region lack government water monitoring, and CSOs are the sole source of continuous or frequent monitoring data in 22% of the watersheds. While many watersheds remain unmonitored, the gaps do not map on to demographic characteristics typically associated with environmental injustice. This study probes both the reasons for and the implications of the gaps in watershed monitoring, drawing conclusions about the promise and limitations of citizen science.

Barriers to sharing water quality data: experiences from the Shale Network

The Shale Network is a group of stakeholders collating, publishing, and conducting research on water quality data collected in the northeastern United States experiencing natural gas extraction from shale using hydraulic fracturing. In developing the Shale Network, we have experienced reluctance to share data from all participating sectors. This paper explores this reluctance, identifying barriers to greater collaboration among multiple stakeholders in natural resource management projects. Findings are derived from participant observation of the Shale Network team, surveys conducted during Shale Network workshops, interviews with water quality stakeholders, and participant observation of water quality monitoring training sessions. The barriers identified include perceptions about data problems and quality, technical capacity, regulatory and legal limitations, competition for resources, and resource allocation decisions. This paper identifies strategies the Shale Network has used to overcome data-sharing barriers to expand a culture of data sharing that supports enhanced nature resource management and citizen engagement.