Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Discerning ExpertsThe Practices of Scientific Assessment for Environmental Policy$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Michael Oppenheimer, Naomi Oreskes, Dale Jamieson, Keynyn Brysse, Jessica O'Reilly, Matthew Shindell, and Milena Wazeck

Print publication date: 2019

Print ISBN-13: 9780226601960

Published to Chicago Scholarship Online: September 2019

DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226602158.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM CHICAGO SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.chicago.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright University of Chicago Press, 2021. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in CHSO for personal use.date: 29 July 2021

Conclusion

Conclusion

Chapter:
(p.211) Conclusion
Source:
Discerning Experts
Author(s):

Michael Oppenheimer

Naomi Oreskes

Dale Jamieson

Keynyn Brysse

Jessica O’Reilly

Matthew Shindell

Milena Wazeck

Publisher:
University of Chicago Press
DOI:10.7208/chicago/9780226602158.003.0007

The practice of scientific assessment involves both expert review and expert judgment. Key goals of assessments include objectivity (individual and institutional), and, typically, inclusivity and consensus. Recent scientific assessments, such as those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, generally seek to demarcate science from policy—to be “policy-relevant” but not "policy-prescriptive.” While their explicit goal may be to summarize scientific knowledge and inform policy, assessments may also be used to delay policy action, as were some early national assessments of ozone depletion. Despite the "no research" mandate of some assessment bodies (e.g., the IPCC), assessments may produce new scientific knowledge. The inclusion (and exclusion) of individual assessors, and the organization of the assessment (both process and product), may affect epistemic outcomes. Finally, assessments may influence scientific research agendas, either explicitly, as in the case of the US National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, or implicitly, sometimes leading to the production of knowledge but also to the production of ignorance regarding areas that are or are not considered important or sufficiently tractable in the terms of the assessment economy.

Keywords:   objectivity, balance of bias, consensus, research agenda, knowledge production

Chicago Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs, and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us.