Showing papers by "Brian Wynne published in 1998"

Uncertainty, Complexity and Concepts of Good Science in Climate Change Modelling: Are GCMs the Best Tools?

Abstract: In this paper we explore the dominant position of a particular style of scientific modelling in the provision of policy-relevant scientific knowledge on future climate change. We describe how the apical position of General Circulation Models (GCMs) appears to follow ‘logically’ both from conventional understandings of scientific representation and the use of knowledge, so acquired, in decision-making. We argue, however, that both of these particular understandings are contestable. In addition to questioning their current policy-usefulness, we draw upon existing analyses of GCMs which discuss model trade-offs, errors, and the effects of parameterisations, to raise questions about the validity of the conception of complexity in conventional accounts. An alternative approach to modelling, incorporating concepts of uncertainty, is discussed, and an illustrative example given for the case of the global carbon cycle. In then addressing the question of how GCMs have come to occupy their dominant position, we argue that the development of global climate change science and global environmental ‘management’ frameworks occurs concurrently and in a mutually supportive fashion, so uniting GCMs and environmental policy developments in certain industrialised nations and international organisations. The more basic questions about what kinds of commitments to theories of knowledge underpin different models of ‘complexity’ as a normative principle of ‘good science’ are concealed in this mutual reinforcement. Additionally, a rather technocratic policy orientation to climate change may be supported by such science, even though it involves political choices which deserve to be more widely debated.

Anchoring Devices in Science for Policy: The Case of Consensus around Climate Sensitivity

Abstract: This paper adds a new dimension to the role of scientific knowledge in policy by emphasizing the multivalent character of scientific consensus. We show how the maintained consensus about the quanti...

Public Perception of Risks Associated with Major Accident Hazards

Abstract: This research was designed to provide the HSE with a better understanding of the nature and dynamics of public perceptions of the risks associated with major hazard sites in the light of current policy developments and debates. It consisted of a series of case studies conducted around seven different major hazard sites and utilised a qualitative research design that involved people living close to such sites taking part in focus group discussions and completing a Q-sort exercise. The results of the research highlight the influence of local context on public perceptions of major hazard sites and outline the ways in which members of the lay public reason about the associated risks. The analysis differentiates the bases of public toleration of hazardous industrial sites and accounts for their distribution across different local contexts. The report also documents the public’s views of a number of policy issues, including the provision of risk information, the regulation of major hazard industry and the use of land use planning controls. The report concludes with a discussion of the implications of the research for policy, giving particular attention to the Seveso II Directive and forthcoming COMAH Regulations, and to the HSE’s Tolerability of Risk criteria.

Reply to Radder

Abstract: 11. Singleton, op. cit. note 1, 447; see also Vicky Singleton and Mike Michael, 'ActorNetworks and Ambivalence: General Practitioners in the UK Cervical Screening Programme', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 23, No. 2 (May 1993), 227-64. 12. Gavin Kendall and Mike Michael, 'Critical Thought, Institutional Contexts, Normative Projects: A Reply to Gergen', Theory and Psychology, Vol. 7, No. 1 (February 1997), 37-41.