Anchoring Devices in Science for Policy
Anchoring Devices in Science for Policy
复制标题
政策科学的锚定装置
DOI：
10.1177/030631298028002004
复制
发表时间：
1998
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
B. Wynne
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. P. van der Sluijs;J. V. VAN EIJNDHOVEN;S. Shackley;B. Wynne
本文通过强调科学共识的多价性，为科学知识在政策中的作用增加了一个新的维度。我们如何保持共识的定量估计的一个中心科学概念在人为气候变化领域-即气候敏感性-作为一个“锚定装置”在“科学政策”。在对气候问题的国际评估中，气候敏感性的共识估计为1.5°C至4.5°C，二十年来一直保持不变。然而，这些年来，气候科学知识和分析发生了巨大变化。我们确定了几种方法，科学家在适应不断变化的科学思想的同时，保持气候敏感性的相同数字。我们认为，气候敏感性范围的显著定量稳定性有助于通过不断翻译和调整“稳定”范围的含义，将与气候变化有关的各种不同的社会世界联系在一起。但是，这种新出现的稳定性也反映了有关的各种科学家和政策专家之间的一种隐含的社会契约，这种契约允许“同一个”概念默许不同的地方含义。因此，这些科学概念的多维性是其技术不精确性的一部分（这不仅仅是分析缺乏分辨率）;这也是它们在弥合（也许是重组）现代政策问题典型的分化社会世界方面的弹性和价值的来源。知识的特定方面对不同社会群体的重要性各不相同，这可能使凝聚力在多元化中得以维持，使普遍性与文化独特性得以共存。
This paper adds a new dimension to the role of scientific knowledge in policy by emphasizing the multivalent character of scientific consensus. We show how the maintained consensus about the quantitative estimate of a central scientific concept in the anthropogenic climate-change field - namely, climate sensitivity - operates as an `anchoring device' in `science for policy'. In international assessments of the climate issue, the consensus-estimate of 1.5°C to 4.5°C for climate sensitivity has remained unchanged for two decades. Nevertheless, during these years climate scientific knowledge and analysis have changed dramatically. We identify several ways in which the scientists achieved flexibility in maintaining the same numbers for climate sensitivity while accommodating changing scientific ideas. We propose that the remarkable quantitative stability of the climate sensitivity range has helped to hold together a variety of different social worlds relating to climate change, by continually translating and adapting the meaning of the `stable' range. But this emergent stability also reflects an implicit social contract among the various scientists and policy specialists involved, which allows `the same' concept to accommodate tacitly different local meanings. Thus the very multidimensionality of such scientific concepts is part of their technical imprecision (which is more than just analytical lack of resolution); it is also the source of their resilience and value in bridging (and perhaps reorganizing) the differentiated social worlds typical of modern policy issues. The varying importance of particular dimensions of knowledge for different social groups may allow cohesion to be sustained amidst pluralism, and universality to coexist with cultural distinctiveness.