The Problem of Legitimacy in Expert Advising and its Exacerbation Through Neoliberalism: A Case Study from the Research on Climate Mitigation

专家咨询的合法性问题及其因新自由主义而加剧：气候减缓研究的案例研究

• 批准号: 2752080
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: London School of Economics and Political Science
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Studentship
• 财政年份: 2022
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2022 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 未结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=studentship-2752080
• 关键词: Problem; Legitimacy; Expert; Advising; its

My research aims at discussing what I call the Problem of Legitimacy (PoL) in expert advising and how neoliberalism may exacerbate the PoL. The PoL argues that expert advice to a democratic government is illegitimate when the experts' values are not democratically chosen or representative because their advice is value laden. I will also aim to provide solutions to both the exacerbation of the PoL by neoliberalism and the PoL in general. To enrich my philosophical claims, I will look at a case study: research on climate mitigation with a focus on carbon dioxide capture and storage.Philosophers of science have long argued that science, especially science used in policy making, is value laden (Douglas, 2007; Rudner, 1953; Steele, 2012). If one accepts these arguments, then experts who advise policy makers function as both experts, who provide information, and policy makers, who invoke values. The advising then is illegitimate when the experts' values are not democratically selected or representative because this would be counter democratic. I have already explored this problem in my master's dissertation and have called this the Problem of Legitimacy (PoL).One factor that might exacerbate the PoL is neoliberalism. While neoliberalism varies across time and space, some general consequences of neoliberalism for science may be that private funding for science has increased while public funding has decreased, research is commodified and there is a skew in what is researched (Brown, 2002; Lave et al., 2010; Moore et al., 2011; Voland et al., 2019; Wehling, 2015).My research's primary aim is to assess whether neoliberalism exacerbates the PoL. My hypothesis is that neoliberalism makes the PoL worse because it causes a skew in what projects are funded. This leads to a skew in the representation of values in science where private and corporate interests are more important than societal ones (i). Additionally, because of the skew in funding, it is less likely that research findings are true (ii). This is an instance of Longino's (1990) "inequality of intellectual authority", i.e., that a set of values dominates because of the political - or in this case economic - power of their holders.Secondly, my research will aim at discussing how the hypothesized exacerbation of the PoL through neoliberalism could be reduced and how the PoL in general could be alleviated. The proposed case study, research on climate mitigation with a focus on carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS), is a pertinent one because research shows that there is a skew towards researching solutions from the natural and technical sciences as opposed to the social sciences (Dunlap and Brulle, 2015; Overland and Sovacool, 2020).

我的研究旨在讨论我所谓的合法性问题（PoL）在专家咨询和新自由主义如何可能加剧PoL。PoL认为，专家的意见，民主政府是非法的，当专家的价值观不是民主选择或代表，因为他们的建议是价值负载。我还将致力于为新自由主义和一般的PoL的恶化提供解决方案。为了丰富我的哲学主张，我将看一个案例研究：以二氧化碳捕获和储存为重点的气候减缓研究。科学哲学家长期以来一直认为，科学，特别是用于政策制定的科学，是有价值的（道格拉斯，2007;鲁弗斯，1953;斯蒂尔，2012）。如果人们接受这些论点，那么为政策制定者提供建议的专家既充当提供信息的专家，又充当援引价值观的政策制定者。当专家的价值观不是民主选择或代表时，建议是不合法的，因为这将是反民主的。我已经在我的硕士论文中探讨过这个问题，并称之为合法性问题（PoL）。虽然新自由主义在时间和空间上各不相同，但新自由主义对科学的一些一般后果可能是，私人对科学的资助增加了，而公共资助减少了，研究被商品化了，研究的内容存在偏差（Brown，2002; Lave等人，2010;摩尔等人，2011; Voland等人，二〇一九年;我的研究的主要目的是评估新自由主义是否加剧了PoL。我的假设是，新自由主义使PoL变得更糟，因为它导致了资助项目的倾斜。这导致了科学价值观的代表性倾斜，其中私人和公司利益比社会利益更重要（i）。此外，由于资金的倾斜，研究结果不太可能是真实的（ii）。这是Longino（1990）“知识权威的不平等”的一个例子，即，一套价值观占主导地位，因为政治-或在这种情况下，经济-权力的持有者。其次，我的研究将旨在讨论如何通过新自由主义的PoL的假设恶化可以减少，以及如何PoL一般可以得到缓解。拟议的案例研究，以二氧化碳捕获和储存（CCS）为重点的气候减缓研究，是一个相关的研究，因为研究表明，研究自然科学和技术科学的解决方案，而不是社会科学（Dunlap和Brulle，2015; Overland和Sovacool，2020）。