Collaborative Research: Assessing Assessments: A Historical and Philosophical Study of Scientific Assessments for Environmental Policy in the Late 20th Century

评估评估：20世纪后期环境政策科学评估的历史和哲学研究知识价值这个项目调查了科学家试图准确、公平、客观地评估和总结社会需要对复杂问题做出明智判断的科学知识的过程。科学家如何评估同事的可靠性？研究，了解其局限性和不确定性程度，并达成共识（或不达成共识）？当科学家们知道全世界都在关注这个过程的结果时，他们如何应对由此产生的或明或暗的压力？过程中的哪些内部因素可能导致系统性偏差、错误或扭曲？应决策者的要求，科学家们定期聚集在一起，为公众提供科学信息，特别是在与政策有关的环境科学领域。最近的例子包括国家酸雨评估方案、臭氧趋势小组和政府间气候变化专门委员会，它们分别组织起来总结和评估酸雨、全球臭氧消耗和人为气候变化方面的最新情况。这种评估耗费大量的时间、金钱和人力，在政策辩论中可以发挥重要作用。因此，了解它们是如何工作的（或无法工作的）是很重要的。然而，很少有学者研究过它们。更广泛的影响了解评估过程的内部动态使我们能够更好地判断任何特定评估的质量，并提出潜在的改进方法，并最终为基于科学的政策提供改进的基础。评估应影响政策的假设假定这些评估的质量很高，但这一假设很少得到仔细审查。

Assessing Assessments: A Historical and Philosophical Study of Scientific Assessments for Environmental Policy in the late 20th CenturyIntellectual meritThis project investigates the process by which scientists attempt to assess and summarize--accurately, fairly, objectively--the scientific knowledge that society needs to make informed judgments about complex issues. How do scientists evaluate the reliability of their colleagues? research, understand its limits and degrees of uncertainty, and come to consensus (or not)? How do scientists respond to the subtle or overt pressures that arise when they know the world is watching the outcome of the process? What factors internal to the process may lead to systematic bias, error, or distortion? Periodically, scientists come together to present scientific information at the request of policy-makers and for the benefit of the general public, particularly in the area of environmental science relevant to policy. Recent examples include the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, the Ozone Trends Panel, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, organized to summarize and assess the state of the art with respect to acid rain, global ozone depletion, and anthropogenic climate change, respectively. Such assessments consume large amounts of time, money, and manpower, and they can play a major role in policy debates. Therefore, it is important to understand how they work (or fail to work). Yet, few scholars have studied them. Broader ImpactUnderstanding the internal dynamics of the assessment process puts us in a better position to judge the quality of any particular assessment, as well as to suggest potential means of improvement, and, ultimately, to provide an improved foundation for science-based policy. The presumption that assessments should influence policy assumes that the quality of these assessments is high, but that assumption has rarely been closely examined.