The Role of Scientists in the Natural Resource and Environmental Policy Process: A Comparison of Canadian and American Publics

Recent “science wars” challenging the primacy of scientific authority in technical decision making, increasingly complex policy problems, and expanding demands for public participation have created tension among both the producers and users of science, especially in the highly visible policy arenas of natural resource management. This article uses survey data collected in 1999 from Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia to investigate public perspectives on these conflicting roles for science and scientists in the natural resource and environmental policy making process in the Canadian and American contexts. Determinants of public support for involving scientists in the policy making process also are characterized and measured. The article concludes that publics in both areas of the Pacific West are likely to approve of Kai Lee’s concept of civic science, in which research scientists are more actively integrated into natural resource management processes.

[1]  Bruce Shindler,et al.  Public Judgments of Adaptive Management: A Response from Forest Communities , 1996 .

[2]  Clark Kerr,et al.  The Future of Industrial Societies: Convergence or Continuing Diversity? , 1983 .

[3]  R. Inglehart.  Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies , 1997 .

[4]  L. Alm.  Lost Credibility?: Scientists, Advocacy and Acid Rain , 1997 .

[5]  Duane M. Oldfield.  The rise of radical egalitarianism , 1991 .

[6]  T. Dye.  Understanding Public Policy , 1972 .

[7]  Aaron Wildavsky,et al.  But is it true? : a citizen's guide to environmental health and safety issues , 1997 .

[8]  Evan Vlachos,et al.  The dynamics of technical controversy , 1981 .

[9]  E. Errington.  The Lion, the Eagle, and Upper Canada: A Developing Colonial Ideology , 1967 .

[10]  S. E. Moffett.  The Americanization of Canada , 1907 .

[11]  C. Bennett,et al.  What Is Policy Convergence and What Causes It? , 1991, British Journal of Political Science.

[12]  Carl Hosticka,et al.  Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment , 1995 .

[13]  B. Steel,et al.  Managing Federal Forests: Public Attitudes in Oregon and Nationwide , 1993, Journal of Forestry.

[14]  R. Dunlap,et al.  The Social Bases of Environmental Concern: A Review of Hypotheses, Explanations and Empirical Evidence , 1980 .

[15]  C. W. D. Kiewiet,et al.  The Commercial Empire of the St. Lawrence, 1760-1850. , 1939 .

[16]  S. Huntington.  Postindustrial Politics: How Benign Will It Be? , 1974 .

[17]  C. Vance,et al.  Canadian-American relations. The promise and the challenge , 1983 .

[18]  Philip Shabecoff.  Earth Rising: American Environmentalism In The 21St Century , 2000 .

[19]  R. Nader.  Real Junk Science: the Corruption of Science by Corporate Money , 1998, Barry Commoner’s Contribution to the Environmental Movement: Science and Social Action.

[20]  Shirley Laska,et al.  The Changing Face of the Environmental Coalition , 1992 .

[21]  R. Inglehart,et al.  Modernization, Cultural Change, and the Persistence of Traditional Values , 2000, American Sociological Review.

[22]  B. Steel,et al.  The impact of knowledge and values on perceptions of environmental risk to the great lakes , 1990 .

[23]  Y Ezrahi,et al.  Utopian and pragmatic rationalism: The political context of scientific advice , 1980, Minerva.

[24]  W. Fox.  A Continent Apart: The United States and Canada in World Politics , 1985 .

[25]  D. Collingridge,et al.  Science speaks to power: The role of experts in policy making , 1986 .

[26]  A. Smith.  Canada - An American Nation?: Essays on Continentalism, Identity, and the Canadian Frame of Mind , 1994 .

[27]  C. Weiss,et al.  Social science research and decision-making , 1980 .