Silvio Funtowicz

Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Measures of Uncertainty in Model Based Environmental Assessment. The NUSAP System.

This article discusses recent experiences with the Numeral Unit Spread Assessment Pedigree (NUSAP) system for multidimensional uncertainty assessment, based on four case studies that vary in complexity. We show that the NUSAP method is applicable not only to relatively simple calculation schemes but also to complex models in a meaningful way and that NUSAP is useful to assess not only parameter uncertainty but also (model) assumptions. A diagnostic diagram can be used to synthesize results of quantitative analysis of parameter sensitivity and qualitative review (pedigree analysis) of parameter strength. It provides an analytic tool to prioritize uncertainties according to quantitative and qualitative insights in the limitations of available knowledge. We show that extension of the pedigree scheme to include societal dimensions of uncertainty, such as problem framing and value-laden assumptions, further promotes reflexivity and collective learning. When used in a deliberative setting, NUSAP pedigree assessment has the potential to foster a deeper social debate and a negotiated management of complex environmental problems.

‘Democratising’ expertise, ‘expertising’ democracy: What does this mean, and why bother?

What is the role of participatory processes in decision-making related to science and technology and in any other area where knowledge and expert advice play an important role? Can expert advice to policy makers be more transparent and accountable? This introduction discusses these and other connected questions under the provocative label of ‘democratising expertise’. It highlights and explores the variety of linkages between governance and knowledge that are presented by the authors of this special issue. The result is a complex landscape of still unresolved issues of coexistence and conflict. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Post-Normal Science. Science and Governance under Conditions of Complexity

Policy-related research issues are particularly challenging for science. They include masses of detail concerning many particular topics, which require separate analysis and management. At the same time, there are broad strategic considerations which should guide regulatory work, such as those connected with precaution, safety or sustainability. Nothing can be managed in a convenient isolation; problems are mutually implicated extending across many scale levels of space and time; and uncertainties and value-loadings of all sorts and all degrees of severity affect data and theories alike.

Ciência pós-normal e comunidades ampliadas de pares face aos desafios ambientais

The new issues of risk and the environment have common features that distinguish them from traditional scientific problems: uncertain facts, values in dispute, high stakes, and a pressing need for decision-making. The problem-solving strategy appropriate to this context can be called post-normal science. The essential function of quality assurance and critical assessment can no longer be performed only by a restricted corps of insiders. The dialogue on quality, along with that on policy, must be extended to all those who have a stake in the issue, that is, to the extended peer community.

Change and commitment: beyond risk and responsibility

Risk and responsibility have always been linked philosophically in the Western tradition. The purpose of this article is to discuss possible alternatives to the centrality of the risk discourse, arguing that such alternatives call for a revision in the concept of responsibility, decoupling it from the aspirations of control over Nature and the future. It implies also a more complex relation between knowledge and action. Rather than believing that contemporary global challenges will be sufficiently met by being responsible under risk, we will explore how to stay committed in times of uncertainty and change.

The Precautionary Principle: Implications for Risk Management Strategies

ABSTRACT The European Commission has published a Communication on the Precautionary Principle and a White Book on Governance. These provide us (as research civil servants of the Commission) an institutional framework for handling scientific information that is often incomplete, uncertain, and contested. But, although the Precautionary Principle is intuitively straightforward to understand, there is no agreed way of applying it to real decision-making. To meet this perceived need, researchers have proposed a vast number of taxonomies. These include ignorance auditing, type one-two-three errors, a combination of uncertainty and decision stakes through post-normal science and the plotting of ignorance of probabilities against ignorance of consequences. Any of these could be used to define a precautionary principle region inside a multidimensional space and to position an issue within that region. The rôle of anticipatory research is clearly critical but scientific input is only part of the picture. It is difficult to imagine an issue where the application of the Precautionary Principle would be non-contentious. From genetically-modified food to electro-smog, from climate change to hormone growth in meat, it is clear that: 1) risk and cost-benefit are only part of the picture; 2) there are ethical issues involved; 3) there is a plurality of interests and perspectives that are often in conflict; 4) there will be losers and winners whatever decision is made. Operationalisation of the Precautionary Principle must preserve transparency. Only in this way will the incommensurable costs and benefits associated with different stakeholders be registered. A typical decision will include the following sorts of considerations: 1) the commercial interests of companies and the communities that depend on them; 2) the worldviews of those who might want a greener, less consumerist society and/or who believe in the sanctity of human or animal life; 3) potential benefits such as enabling the worlds poor to improve farming; 4) risks such as pollution, gene-flow, or the effects of climate change. In this paper we will discuss the use of a combination of methods on which we have worked and that we consider useful to frame the debate and facilitate the dialogue among stakeholders on where and how to apply the Precautionary Principle.