Ronald D. Brunner

Science and social responsibility

Science in the aggregate has not lived up to its promise to work for the benefit of society as a whole. This problem stems from the narrow perspectives that basic and applied researchers typically take to their work. Among the barriers to broadening those perspectives, the most tractable is the myth that the overriding purpose of science in human affairs is prediction; that such predictions are prerequisites for major policy decisions; and that scientific inputs to these decisions are objective and value-free. This article challenges the myth from three standpoints - epistemology, the historical context, and contemporary case studies - as a step toward improving the responsibility and accountability of science to society.

The policy movement as a policy problem

The policy movement is unified by a common interest in the improvement of policy decisions through scientific inquiry. The movement is differentiated, however, because this common interest is highly ambiguous and subject to interpretation from different perspectives. This paper applies a policy sciences perspective to the movements disappointments over the last few decades, and in particular, the failure to realize earlier aspirations for rational, objective analysis on the more important and controversial policy issues. The paper offers a definition and diagnosis of the underlying problem, and suggests what can be done about it as a matter of individual and collective choice.

The policy sciences as science

The preceding evaluation of the policy sciences by Schneider, Stevens, and Tornatzky is based on a rather narrow conception of science that emphasizes quantitative and rigorous methods. It overlooks the limitations of such methods, as revealed by the results of applications, and certain adjustments to these limitations. The latter include the adoption of more modest but realizable aspirations and the synthesis of diverse methods-qualitative as well as quantitative, exploratory as well as confirmatory. It also overlooks differences and trends in epistemological preconceptions that underlie the conduct of research and the interpretation of research results. This article reviews the relevant literature in the hope that it might eventually contribute to more enlightened evaluations of the emerging discipline.

Science and the climate change regime

Given rapidly increasing losses from extreme climate events, the world community already has a common interest in action to mitigate and adapt to climate change. However, this common interest is not well served through continued promotion of either mandatory (legally-binding) policies or ‘do nothing’ policies by various participants in the regime established by the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. The common interest would be better served by a third way, comprised of voluntary ‘no regrets’ policies that are commensurate with the limited political power of the regime and already have succeeded on small scales in reducing vulnerabilities to extreme climate events and in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Both mandatory and ‘do nothing’ policies, as well as the regime itself, have depended upon scientists for political support in the past. But scientists might better serve the common interest of the world community through support of a third way in the future.

Raising standards: A prototyping strategy for undergraduate education

Public concerns about the quality of undergraduate education merit the attention of research universities. This policy analysis documents standards of learning and teaching that fall far short of a liberal education in one department. It attributes the problem primarily to factors that obscure differences in standards, especially quantitative performance measures. And it recommends liberating small working groups of faculty volunteers to develop and distinguish courses that do raise standards. This prototyping strategy is an alternative tot the status quo, which is unsustainable, and a comprehensive, centrally-directed plan, which is impractical. It may be adapted to similar situations elsewhere.

A milestone in the policy sciences

ConclusionWhat stands in the way of inquiry to help communities clarify and secure theircommon interests? The problem is not the theories and procedures available,as many scholars presume. The framework presented in Jurisprudence for aFree Society is quite adequate even if it is provisional. The problem is professionalism(Torgerson, 1985), or more precisely, the decline of professionalismas it was understood in the Law, Science, and Policy seminar over severaldecades. As McDougal recalls in the Preface:A profession, we insisted, is best regarded as a group with both a specialskill and a sense of responsibility for the consequences upon the communityof the exercise of that skill. The special skill of the lawyer is in the managementof authority and control in the making of decisions, and the genuineprofessional must seek to synthesize all relevant knowledge and pro-cedures toward decisions that serve common interests (p. xxiii; emphasisadded).The decline of professionalism is all around us. It reflects and reinforces thesame specializing and fragmenting factors that call into question the sustainabilityof late modem or post-modern society. The question for this generationof policy scientists is whether the policy sciences, subject to the samepressures as other skill groups, can maintain the professional standards exemplifiedby Lasswell and McDougal and stay the course they have set in Jurisprudencefor a Free Society.