IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/anname/v658y2015i1p296-306.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Politics and Science

Author

Listed:
  • Heather Douglas

Abstract

This commentary argues that we need a more nuanced account than we have now of the sources of disagreement among experts and the sources of distrust in scientific claims among the public. Such nuance requires an understanding of the nature of science (an empirical, uncertain, and yet reliable source of knowledge) and of how that differs from faith as a basis for knowledge claims. It also requires an understanding of how values can legitimately function in science, including in the shaping of research agendas and in the assessment of evidential sufficiency, and of the inherently political nature of science (e.g., when evidence shifts the boundary between public and private). While science is neither apolitical nor value-free, it can (and should) be pursued with integrity. Detecting science with integrity and defining the legitimate roles values play in such science opens the space for genuine deliberation and a way forward out of an ideological stalemate.

Suggested Citation

  • Heather Douglas, 2015. "Politics and Science," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 658(1), pages 296-306, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:anname:v:658:y:2015:i:1:p:296-306
    DOI: 10.1177/0002716214557237
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002716214557237
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0002716214557237?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Slovic, 1999. "Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk‐Assessment Battlefield," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 689-701, August.
    2. Toby Bolsen & James N. Druckman & Fay Lomax Cook, 2015. "Citizens’, Scientists’, and Policy Advisors’ Beliefs about Global Warming," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 658(1), pages 271-295, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wang, Fei & Yuan, Yu & Lu, Liangdong, 2021. "Dynamical prediction model of consumers’ purchase intentions regarding anti-smog products during smog risk: Taking the information flow perspective," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 563(C).
    2. Ma, Jie & Tse, Ying Kei & Wang, Xiaojun & Zhang, Minhao, 2019. "Examining customer perception and behaviour through social media research – An empirical study of the United Airlines overbooking crisis," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 192-205.
    3. Pam A. Mueller & Lawrence M. Solan & John M. Darley, 2012. "When Does Knowledge Become Intent? Perceiving the Minds of Wrongdoers," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(4), pages 859-892, December.
    4. Patrick Krieger & Carsten Lausberg, 2021. "Entscheidungen, Entscheidungsfindung und Entscheidungsunterstützung in der Immobilienwirtschaft: Eine systematische Literaturübersicht [Decisions, decision-making and decisions support systems in r," Zeitschrift für Immobilienökonomie (German Journal of Real Estate Research), Springer;Gesellschaft für Immobilienwirtschaftliche Forschung e. V., vol. 7(1), pages 1-33, April.
    5. Jared LeClerc & Susan Joslyn, 2015. "The Cry Wolf Effect and Weather‐Related Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(3), pages 385-395, March.
    6. B. J. M. Ale, 2005. "Tolerable or Acceptable: A Comparison of Risk Regulation in the United Kingdom and in the Netherlands," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 231-241, April.
    7. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim F. Passchier & Nanne K. DeVries, 2007. "How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information? The Impact of Associations with Other Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 715-727, June.
    8. Tim Slack & Vanessa Parks & Lynsay Ayer & Andrew M. Parker & Melissa L. Finucane & Rajeev Ramchand, 2020. "Natech or natural? An analysis of hazard perceptions, institutional trust, and future storm worry following Hurricane Harvey," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 102(3), pages 1207-1224, July.
    9. Eva Lindbladh & Carl Hampus Lyttkens, 2003. "Polarization in the Reaction to Health‐Risk Information: A Question of Social Position?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 841-855, August.
    10. Michael J. Weir & Thomas W. Sproul, 2019. "Identifying Drivers of Genetically Modified Seafood Demand: Evidence from a Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-21, July.
    11. Naoko Kato-Nitta & Tadahiko Maeda & Yusuke Inagaki & Masashi Tachikawa, 2019. "Expert and public perceptions of gene-edited crops: attitude changes in relation to scientific knowledge," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-14, December.
    12. Kirs, Peeter & Bagchi, Kallol, 2012. "The impact of trust and changes in trust: A national comparison of individual adoptions of information and communication technologies and related phenomenon," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 431-441.
    13. Sanchez, Mari & Lamont, Michèle & Zilberstein, Shira, 2022. "How American college students understand social resilience and navigate towards the future during covid and the movement for racial justice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 301(C).
    14. Desta Woldetsadik & Pay Drechsel & Bernard Keraita & Fisseha Itanna & Heluf Gebrekidan, 2018. "Farmers’ perceptions on irrigation water contamination, health risks and risk management measures in prominent wastewater-irrigated vegetable farming sites of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 52-64, March.
    15. Branden B. Johnson & Adam M. Finkel, 2016. "Public Perceptions of Regulatory Costs, Their Uncertainty and Interindividual Distribution," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(6), pages 1148-1170, June.
    16. Violet Muringai & Ellen Goddard, 2018. "Trust and consumer risk perceptions regarding BSE and chronic wasting disease," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 240-265, March.
    17. Meredith Frances Dobbie & Rebekah Ruth Brown, 2014. "A Framework for Understanding Risk Perception, Explored from the Perspective of the Water Practitioner," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 294-308, February.
    18. Hasibuan, Abdul Muis & Gregg, Daniel & Stringer, Randy, 2020. "Accounting for diverse risk attitudes in measures of risk perceptions: A case study of climate change risk for small-scale citrus farmers in Indonesia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    19. Barrafrem, Kinga & Tinghög, Gustav & Västfjäll, Daniel, 2021. "Trust in the government increases financial well-being and general well-being during COVID-19," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 31(C).
    20. Thomas, Melanee & DeCillia, Brooks & Santos, John B. & Thorlakson, Lori, 2022. "Great expectations: Public opinion about energy transition," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:anname:v:658:y:2015:i:1:p:296-306. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.