How Scientists Shape Science-Based Environmental Assessments for Policy

本研究项目建议使用人种学、档案和访谈的方法来了解科学评估员的作者和决策工作，特别是即将发布的政府间气候变化专门委员会(IPCC)第六次评估报告。该项目标志着社会科学家将首次从内部实时观察政府间气候变化专门委员会的进程。研究人员将有持续的机会观察、分析和交流专家评估员在撰写过程中如何影响气候评估。反过来，这项研究将分发给研究人员和气候政策实践者，以帮助改进气候科学在政策中的应用，包括在评估过程中纳入不同的代表性，以及对共识、冲突、偏见、错误、风险和不确定性的描述和沟通。该项目将为本科生气候研究课程的发展提供信息，改善包括发展中国家本科生和社会科学研究人员在内的不同气候学者的代表性和能力建设，向公众传播研究成果，并将研究成果反馈给评估人员社区。技术概述本项目的主要目的是为理解科学知识成果的持续学术尝试做出贡献。科学研究领域提供了充分的证据，证明科学知识生产的算法模型在经验上是不充分的，最近开始强调专家判断在不同社区中的重要性。该项目明确阐述了专家判断在当代科学活动的一个主要领域中的实践。它还将提供改进评估和决策过程的建议。就时间、金钱和科学人力资本而言，评估是昂贵的，对于科学界来说，重新评估已经向他们做出的承诺是重要的。研究人员将撰写与政策相关和与科学家相关的论文，将项目结果传达给IPCC和参与评估的科学家。它们还将向用户社区展示，例如在美国科学促进会的会议上。

General Audience Summary This research project proposes to use ethnographic, archival, and interview methods to understand the authorial and decision-making work of scientific assessors, particularly those of the upcoming Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This project marks the first time social scientists will observe the processes of the IPCC in real time, from the inside. The researchers will have a sustained opportunity to observe, analyze, and communicate how expert assessors shape climate assessments during the writing process. In turn, this research will be distributed among researchers as well as climate policy practitioners to help improve the application of climate science to policy, including the inclusion of diverse representation in the assessment process as well as the portrayal and communication of consensus, conflict, bias, error, risk, and uncertainty. This project will inform curricular development of a program in Climate Studies for undergraduate students, improve representation and capacity building among diverse climate scholars including undergraduate students and social science researchers in developing countries, communicate research findings to the public, and feed research findings back to the assessor community. Technical Summary The primary purpose of this project is to contribute to ongoing scholarly attempts to understanding scientific knowledge production. The field of science studies has provided ample evidence of the empirical inadequacy of algorithmic models of scientific knowledge production, and has of late come to stress the importance of expert judgment within diverse communities. This project explicitly addresses the practice of expert judgment in a major domain of contemporary scientific activity. It will also provide suggestions to improve the assessment and decision process. Assessments are expensive in terms of time, money, and scientific human capital, and it important for the scientific community re-assess the commitment that has been made to them. The researchers will produce policy-relevant and scientist-relevant papers to convey project findings to the IPCC and involved scientist assessors. They will also present to user communities, such as at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meetings.