When Does Science Matter? International Relations Meets Science and Technology Studies

Despite widespread agreement on the importance of science for policy-making, there are still diverging understandings of how, when, and under what conditions science influences policy, and accordingly, on how the interplay between science and policy should be best organized. Some researchers claim that science can effectively influence policy only if it is autonomous from the political process. Others claim the opposite: that science can influence policy only by being deeply attached to it from the beginning.Within the field of international relations (IR), scholars argue that “[t]he more autonomous and independent science is from policy, the greater its potential influence.”1 These scholars believe that science and policy should only unite after consensus has been reached among scientific experts. This is what makes “speaking truth to power” possible.2In contrast, researchers within the field of science and technology studies (STS) state that science is not as pure as it claims to be and that what makes science important is that it is messy, impure, and political: “to the old slogan of science—the more disconnected a scientific discipline from society, the better—now resonates a more realistic call for action: the more connected a scientific discipline, the better.”3 Thus, the validity of the model of “speaking truth to power”—with its understanding that “technical input to policy problems has to be developed independently of political influences”—needs to be reassessed.4The point of departure for this paper is research from IR scholars on separation and consensus in the science–policy debate. By confronting IR research with insights from the field of STS, we aim to achieve a deeper understanding of the dynamic interactions between science and policy in international environmental governance, both regarding how the relationship between science and policy actually operates and how it should be organized.The ambition of this article is not to systematically compare IR and STS, but to use STS research to elaborate upon and deepen IR research regarding how and when science connects to policy. The IR literature has long discussed the conditions and possibilities for developing international environmental governance. Overviews of the field present realist, liberal institutionalist, and constructivist approaches, highlighting particular approaches that aim to bridge differences between realist and constructivist ways of understanding the role of science in international relations.5 Not least, studies of institutions for global environmental assessments have focused upon the role of science in international environmental governance.6 Nevertheless, there have been few attempts to systematically deal with the contribution of STS to enriching the IR understanding of the role of science in international environmental governance.7 STS often focuses on the micro-level of the interplay between science and policy when criticizing the distinction between science and policy and has provided a small number of contributions to the field of international environmental governance.8 Although we are well aware of the differences between the two academic traditions, we are nonetheless convinced that STS can supplement and deepen IR discussions on the use of science in policy.The role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in shaping climate policy serves as an illustrative case of the conditions under which science matters. The case study was selected because the IPCC is one of the most ambitious examples to date of mobilizing science, building consensus, and providing policy advice. However, the lack of progress in international climate negotiations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) demonstrates the substantial challenges involved in transforming research recommendations into practical policies. How is this “failure” related to the questions of consensus and separation raised above? Based on the various assessments of the IPCC made by scholars from IR and STS, we attempt to reach an improved understanding of consensus and separation.The paper is divided into five sections. The first section presents an IR perspective on how the science–policy interplay should be designed to ensure that science matters in international environmental policy-making, namely by focusing on separation and consensus. To constructively evaluate this proposal, the second section presents the STS concepts of coproduction, stage management, and civic epistemology, followed by a critical discussion and reconstruction of the IR understanding of the science–policy interplay using these concepts, in section three. The fourth section analyzes the IPCC by first presenting a critical assessment made by IR scholars and then presenting an STS interpretation, which enables a more nuanced evaluation of the IPCC’s importance in influencing climate change policy. The final section concludes that IR’s focus on formal aspects of the interplay between science and policy—for instance how the separation between science and policy is organized in specific international arrangements—needs to be complemented by an improved understanding of the role of contextual factors, e.g., how policy cultures and public support are crucial for explaining the role of science in policy-making.A major approach within the discipline of IR is regime theory, an academic field with a strong focus on international environmental governance. According to this theory, under certain circumstances, science can play an important role in designing effective international environmental institutions. Because science produces representations of the environment, negotiators can use its results to influence international agreements.9 However, in regime theory, science is understood as a resource that nation-states can use in their negotiations concerning international agreements and has no independent role relative to state interests. Indeed, knowledge is but one of many resources that a state can use when bargaining over international cooperation.The epistemic community approach—originally developed by Peter M. Haas—suggests an alternative perspective within IR studies.10 This approach emphasizes the importance of science, and in particular consensus-based knowledge in policy-making. Haas argues that consensus-based science can play an independent and important role by influencing and even reformulating state interests, thereby helping to bring about international agreements that transcend and reshape state interests. This is made possible through the involvement of experts. Thus, from the epistemic community perspective, environmental regimes are driven not only by state powers but also by epistemic networks and under certain conditions, scientific consensus among expert networks can be a crucial factor in shaping policy.Haas, together with Casey Stevens, has analyzed more than thirty existing international environmental regimes that involve scientific bodies in order to determine what conditions enable scientific knowledge and epistemic communities to influence policy-making.11 They find that the maintenance and support of scientific bodies within multilateral environmental governance arrangements are necessary but not sufficient conditions for science to be able to speak truth to power. They also find that the design of the science–policy interplay is of vital importance; however, regimes vary widely in how this interplay is organized.Based on their evaluation, Haas and Stevens argue that to be influential, scientific knowledge should be separated from the policy process. First, scientific bodies should establish their own agendas. Committees that set their own agendas appear to be the most politically insulated, whereas ad hoc panels seem to be the most vulnerable to political interference. Second, individual state governments should not select the members of the scientific bodies; instead, experts should be nominated exclusively on the basis of scientific merits. If they are selected by intergovernmental organizations and on scientific grounds—i.e., on the basis of their reputation and authority as active researchers and not on their merits as policy advocates or science administrators—the legitimacy of the scientific body and the governance process will be increased. Third, scientific bodies should not be organized in an open-access fashion, in which all member countries are able to appoint representatives. A small expert group, nominated by intergovernmental organizations and geographically distributed across the member states, could establish the of between the scientific body and Haas and Stevens argue that by the expert community from political science has the to knowledge that is and thereby able to influence policy. The more autonomous the science, the greater its potential to Haas and Stevens, separation is not the only important factor in the science–policy and knowledge as to how that consensus was are also They the importance of between and can be more than however, consensus is necessary for science to consensus that are and independent of political political often attempt to science which makes it to achieve scientific consensus. this consensus is related to If scientific experts are not to and research questions with of from political it is only possible to achieve scientific Thus, the of scientific is the when to the as scientific consensus is consensus be reached independent of political Haas and Stevens then believe should be discussed This the how should science to that this is a for epistemic which as the for the of knowledge to communities are networks of political through studies have how epistemic communities and can change the understanding of an environmental thereby policy to knowledge an important factor for international which that can change a of its interests. However, it is the of an epistemic community as an that makes “speaking truth to power” the process of scientific consensus independent of policy, Haas and Stevens also the importance of that both has a makes it and for its from science to policy A critical stage of this process the shaping of the it to be and which experts it influence from and Stevens that science first truth and then speak to power. and of vital but Haas and Stevens argue that they should be as Based on this we can the role of science in policy as a science from and knowledge to to this the with many environmental regimes is that science involved in consensus has been which scientific and the that science will be as a and for the a no and states, by science, to their own in international Haas and Stevens climate and as examples of that have not to expert thereby to speak truth to They particular to the which they as an of a attempt by science to influence and the role of the we will Haas and approach with important insights from the field of STS, to the understanding of what is by consensus, and to the STS community has in developing a for and international environmental STS however, science and the role of science in policy it a field to for this to regime and the epistemic community STS scholars science and policy as The science–policy relationship is as a process of when policy influences the and of knowledge and policy. a particular knowledge claim because it their policy knowledge claims and to one in a process of this and that or science can in a policy and a policy can through the support of is to what of as to of of the institutions of science and policy as and with between the of the and of science and policy. The that of science from policy, which are in from a of a separation between science and policy, a of and among and can be Thus, science that from policy is not the it is a that deeper and more of that scholars argue that knowledge and science from policy a have no and and are made through and These are of what has been stage management, a process by which science and policy are to present science as an for what should be and certain are is possible within a scientific it a of science and policy, which to a of scientific knowledge as knowledge able to influence policy by its can also through both and both of which are important to the of the between science and to the process of knowledge which is and management, science and and is often as certain and independent of political stage makes it possible to study how in the of science and policy. Thus, in between science and policy through stage management, be as and is important to determine what of stage science and stage to the of environmental and the thereby the to influence however, more and deeply also These are not by the in the of public the of and of science and policy within the of what has civic to through which the and of knowledge claims are in a is a crucial of political on and shaping the of the members of a specific They can on or and certain to Thus, a is into of public and the of civic epistemology, we from a regarding science and policy and how to establish an effective interplay between science and policy. we the of how knowledge to be as in political civic the of science in political as a to be not as to be for not but questions as is the will be and how can we Although these are in particular political they are not all civic are They not only influence the and science–policy developed by but are also by These influences are however, they are of and can and in stage management, civic are more and to not being aware of how science is whereas civic how the between policy and science are This focus enables specific science and policy to be by understanding as of a particular civic also particular science–policy be effective in one but not in coproduction, stage management, and civic are for science–policy an STS perspective, we will and evaluate the IR with to how the of consensus, and be by the STS Haas and Stevens are in formal concerning and for of should and what should be STS scholars are in more that influence influence on science not when political the research to or when formal and are to scientific more than the formal design of the science–policy and formal and for are only one of scientific formal which to knowledge there are of involved in to the between science and by their as independent from policy, they attempt to achieve among the scientific This not that STS claims that is or that the of research agendas and of are to STS that science and policy influence one even in they are as and are organized into and of scientific consensus have long been of substantial to thirty the of the the that only members the of a specific scientific can to the of According to we should for these when how science how problems are and and how agreements are is a for it are the most important researchers within a particular consensus and in science, are of crucial scholars have no specific perspective on it is or for to be connected or to policy however, in studies they have that if can their networks to and also of science, they will be more to and thereby of and the that research agendas will be To a also to to Thus, whereas Haas and Stevens that makes scientific STS scholars claim the opposite: can only be by building networks with and these are to be in with the of scientific also from IR studies on the science–policy interplay in that STS not consensus as a of expert STS scientific consensus as the of negotiations and between The of than consensus, is to the results of These involve scientific but also research or the of research are examples of how and research can influence the process consensus should be understood not as a process by research but as a process on negotiations and STS scholars that consensus not be necessary for science to This is because the of science on the of the and institutions that speak for science than the of consensus by scientific If experts and institutions are their claims are also even if consensus is not epistemic community that of experts can to influence international negotiations and state interests. has been to how these networks has been to what in the that these and on civic epistemology, coproduction, and stage for a deeper discussion on the of knowledge from science to policy, what makes it and it matters. the role to an epistemic community to be According to STS, the of authority to a small of experts be understood we focus on the and networks in which these expert to the process of consensus the that science to as epistemic of and from a perspective this that science and policy are connected from the their focus on Haas and Stevens focus on the of expert because knowledge be and to the expert However, they to that civic which that there is no for expert knowledge can be no from science to policy as long as there are ways of and which the expert knowledge political in and political IR and STS present to the of the conditions under which science matters. By how IR and STS the of the we will the of how to the role of science in international environmental IPCC is one of the most ambitious by the international community to and science to policy. Nevertheless, to Haas and Stevens, it has in its IPCC is designed in a that enables over individual are to influence the of climate change Although the IPCC on of its assessment it is governments that the research appoint and the The scientific from the global which the and legitimacy of the these Haas and Stevens find that the IPCC is designed to science on a than influence policy. Indeed, the IPCC’s to and research have not from the policy process. governments have the science have the of science by the and of individual involved in the assessment and have thereby also the that science could are and involve in the case of climate is for science to policy. Nevertheless, to Haas and Stevens, certain international have been more in this as in the for the and of in the on and the of Convention for the of the regimes can from what these have as they the of autonomous scientific bodies able to knowledge that has consensus in various policy and Stevens argue that the IPCC’s expert is an of a of The IPCC is in a that the body of of its member the member of the and the The Panel makes the major the of the of the research and the and of the IPCC and The governments and bodies to in the IPCC and The IPCC experts from the or UN member as well as or but in the IPCC is to governments in to it possible for to The governments of IPCC member are for to on the IPCC and The as and are selected by the or from among the experts on the provided by governments and as well as experts through their and Haas and Stevens the of a of in expert to be when and governments the and select the they find of in the of the to policy makes it to achieve scientific consensus, of and thereby This is the IPCC has to influence its design makes it to to Haas and STS the of the IPCC as a in of a scientific understanding of the climate IPCC was developed to be the for knowledge claims on climate change and is the for global assessments of climate has in on the role of a for what climate change is and scientific or has authority when it to the of climate the climate change is and as a political in of multilateral agreements and political with as the This understanding of the has been to political and few governments with the The IPCC’s role in has also expert bodies and global and has as a role model for the and of expert This is most in the Intergovernmental for and in which that its and design by the from an STS perspective, the of the IPCC is a strong public to the in climate science, the authority of science and the IPCC has not has even been to science a more in public discussions of climate not because science is as the best to and scientific IPCC has the of climate change and it to political but this has not to political Indeed, present there are no international agreements that have to of Haas and Stevens argue that this is because science and policy are not They that the knowledge by the IPCC is of and not policy as is that they not lack of political however, be in a by an STS The IPCC has developed a specific of what climate change which knowledge about as well as about the of to and what should be and the role of science and policy in the this science and policy are science not only a of climate change but also an understanding of Thus, what is as a scientific global scientific a specific perspective on how studies have that environmental science is most when it to and understandings of the The of climate change however, been developed with public input and has alternative ways of understanding the The that IPCC have to the understanding of climate the of about and the with not but it is only one of many possible Climate experts a certain of the public to climate change under the the which to being to the results is not that the IPCC has to establish consensus or science from policy-making. the is that science has not been connected to what and and This has been by the IPCC’s of a model of truth to policy, which has in politically questions in an and its focus on consensus through expert the IPCC has the and of science and thereby also the to alternative policy The IPCC on a specific of what should be as and knowledge and the between science and policy should be The IPCC has been focused on scientific consensus, thereby the of climate change to scientific and policy and of civic the that the IPCC’s problems are by its lack of from it is connected to a small of society, and the it to climate change resonates with and understandings of what matters. the for scientific there is no from science to policy. countries that are in and epistemic evaluate the IPCC’s This is because they have civic or ways of knowledge claims in the public knowledge only if it resonates with civic from this perspective, there is a for greater not greater between science and society, a and more between scientific knowledge and civic their of the role of the IPCC in international policy-making, Haas and on what makes science is of crucial However, by their assessment to explaining the IPCC’s political influence in of a lack of scientific and consensus they a and understanding of the IPCC’s and and science a more that the importance of how to Haas and Stevens, STS researchers find that many the IPCC a and as it from an STS perspective the is not that the IPCC has but that it has been The Panel has the of climate and its understanding of the has been However, its of the has also particular and specific This also the of political in to policies. public and it is for to and climate and a role in policy The for this is not that science is with policy, but that it a sufficient to global is not only by what as important and However, the IPCC from policy communities is not the most important in science the it is to how greater separation between science and policy will or even the between scientific public and political it is more important to evaluate the of the climate and the of it for the public of and on what makes science is to Haas and Stevens are in this but their understanding is that an of science could be in IR research and that critical discussion on the and of scientific knowledge was By scientific knowledge for as an input that negotiators or not use in IR research a understanding of to this argues that there to be a focus on the conditions necessary for science to for and study has to this by presenting a of the conditions under which expert knowledge influences policy, the of both science and focus on knowledge also understanding scientific knowledge in to its of is important to that Haas has developed approach in a constructivist and focuses more on the that knowledge than this knowledge for are between IR and STS the on the importance of for understanding how science are also between the epistemic community approach and the STS perspective, as the importance of the for scientific and understanding science in of process than to these we also The epistemic community approach focuses on the interplay between science and policy in international this as their point of Haas and Stevens find that the design of the science–policy interplay is of crucial importance for science STS, however, for a understanding of the science–policy how it in and how it is Haas and Stevens are in science–policy relations are is in and how the relationship between science and policy in to to a particular or that STS could to IR research is a more understanding of what the formal design of the science–policy and policy are and and knowledge can be in a it has to to specific civic the perspective of stage management, Haas and Stevens be in that consensus and separation from policy could be of substantial importance for science However, between science and policy are present in scientific consensus is not a for also has the potential to for instance by alternative and to and a lack of support from to we that governments have the that science should policy the being from policy a the that consensus-based knowledge is important for policy, be well to certain civic but to STS, this not the importance of separation a should to more of what when science with policy. should not existing stage for but of be aware that knowledge and in one not be in it is important to be aware that the interplay between science and policy not exclusively formal and the focus should be on the of a specific design within and policy and not least, the in public of scientific knowledge understood in to specific civic important of STS is that there is no to the of how science can influence policy and the of scientific consensus to science, as well as studies of science, to be to influence The to which science or to influence is not a of or consensus among the of but one of how science is to specific This is a for studies in international environmental governance in and that the IPCC to in greater in the