How Scientists Shape Science-Based Environmental Assessments for Policy

本研究项目拟采用民族志、档案和访谈等方法来了解科学评估人员的写作和决策工作，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。这个项目标志着社会科学家将第一次从内部实时观察IPCC的工作过程。研究人员将有持续的机会观察、分析和交流专家评估人员在撰写过程中如何形成气候评估。反过来，这项研究将在研究人员和气候政策实践者之间进行分发，以帮助改善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，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项目的课程制定提供信息，改善发展中国家本科生和社会科学研究人员等各类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群体。本项目的主要目的是为正在进行的理解科学知识生产的学术尝试做出贡献。科学研究领域已经提供了充分的证据，证明科学知识生产的算法模型的经验不足，并且最近开始强调专家判断在不同社区中的重要性。这个项目明确地解决了在当代科学活动的一个主要领域的专家判断的实践。它还将为改进评估和决策过程提供建议。就时间、金钱和科学人力资本而言，评估是昂贵的，科学界必须重新评估对他们作出的承诺。这些研究人员将撰写与政策相关和与科学家相关的论文，将项目发现传达给IPCC和相关的科学家评估人员。他们还将向用户社区展示，比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.