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说的合法​​性问题（POL）在专家咨询方面以及新自由主义如何加剧pol的问题。 POL认为，当专家的价值观不是民主选择或代表人数时，对民主政府的专家建议是违法的，因为他们的建议是有价值的。我还将旨在为新自由主义和一般的POL提供解决方案。为了丰富我的哲学主张，我将研究一个案例研究：降低气候的研究，重点是二氧化碳捕获和储存。如果一个人接受这些论点，那么建议决策者的专家兼任专家，他们提供信息和政策制定者，他们调用价值观。当专家的价值观不是民主选择或代表人数时，建议的建议是私生的，因为这将是反民主的。我已经在主人的论文中探索了这个问题，并将其称为合法性的问题（POL）。可能加剧POL的一个因素是新自由主义。尽管新自由主义在随时间和空间之间有所不同，但新自由主义对科学的总体后果可能是，私人资金在公共资金的同时有所增加，而公共资金减少，研究是商品化的，研究的研究却存在偏差（Brown，2002; Lave等，2010; Moore等人，2011; Moore等人，2011; Voland等人，2019年； pol。我的假设是，新自由主义使POL变得更糟，因为它会导致项目资助的偏差。这导致了代表科学价值观的偏见，在科学中，私人和公司利益比社会利益更重要（i）。此外，由于资金的偏差，研究结果不太可能为真（ii）。这是Longino（1990）“知识权威的不平等”的一个实例，即，由于其持有人的政治 - 或在这种情况下，一组价值观主导了一组价值观。第二，我的研究旨在讨论假设的通过新自由主义对pol的假设加剧以及一般而言。拟议的案例研究，关于降低气候的研究，重点是二氧化碳捕获和捕获碳（CCS），这是一个相关的研究，因为研究表明，与社会科学相比，与自然和技术科学研究的解决方案有偏见（Dunlap and Brulle，2015; Overland and Sovacool，2020年）。