Using Science to Inform Controversial Issues: A Case Study from the California Ocean Science Trust

Connecting science and policy to promote the effective management of marine resources is a necessity and challenge acknowledged by scientists, policymakers, and stakeholders alike. As a leader on ocean issues, California has recognized the importance of integrating science into ocean and coastal management through specific policy choices. An example is the establishment of the California Ocean Science Trust (OST), a non-profit organization mandated to support management decisions with the best available science. The OST functions as a “boundary organization” bridging the often-disparate worlds of science and policy. Recently, while coordinating a scientific study on the controversial issue of decommissioning California's offshore oil and gas platforms, the OST encountered public misconceptions about the peer review process and how it can help ensure unbiased scientific information informs policy. The OST's experience with this study, and generally as a scientific knowledge broker, provides a practical perspective on techniques for navigating the choppy waters between science and policy. This article presents a critical reflection on the OST's experience coordinating the platform decommissioning study, examined through the framework of boundary organizations and salience, credibility, and legitimacy. It highlights lessons-learned from the project and shares recommendations for working toward the effective integration of science and policy.

[1]  Jane Lubchenco,et al.  Proposed U.S. Policy for Ocean, Coast, and Great Lakes Stewardship , 2010, Science.

[2]  Harriet Bulkeley,et al.  Boundary Work: Knowledge, Policy, and the Urban Environment , 2006 .

[3]  M. Plan.  CALIFORNIA MARINE LIFE PROTECTION ACT , 2008 .

[4]  Robert T. Lackey,et al.  Science, Scientists, and Policy Advocacy , 2007, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[5]  M. Love,et al.  Ecological and political issues surrounding decommissioning of offshore oil facilities in the Southern California Bight , 2004 .

[6]  J. Holmes,et al.  Enhancing the use of science in environmental policy-making and regulation , 2008 .

[7]  David H. Guston,et al.  Integrating Climate Forecasts and Societal Decision Making: Challenges to an Emergent Boundary Organization , 2001 .

[8]  D. Blockstein,et al.  How to Lose Your Political Virginity while Keeping Your Scientific Credibility , 2002 .

[9]  James D. Watkins,et al.  AN OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: THE WORK OF THE U.S. COMMISSION ON OCEAN POLICY , 2004 .

[10]  Joji Morishita,et al.  Role and Problems of the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission in terms of Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Whale Stocks , 2005 .

[11]  Cynthia K. Dohner.  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR , 1998 .

[12]  Nicola Jones,et al.  Political science? Strengthening science–policydialogue in developing countries. , 2008 .

[13]  T. Hellström,et al.  Boundary organisations in science: From discourse to construction , 2003 .

[14]  A. Tarlock,et al.  Science, Judgment, and Controversy in Natural Resource Regulation , 2005 .

[15]  D. Guston.  Boundary Organizations in Environmental Policy and Science: An Introduction , 2001 .

[16]  A. James.  2010 , 2011, Philo of Alexandria: an Annotated Bibliography 2007-2016.

[17]  P H Abelson,et al.  The office of science and technology. , 1967, Science.

[18]  C. Waterton.  Scientists' conceptions of the boundaries between their own research and policy , 2005 .

[19]  Carolynn S. Culver,et al.  Oceanographic gradients and patterns in invertebrate assemblages on offshore oil platforms , 2008 .

[20]  Steven Kelly,et al.  Science, technical expertise and the human environment , 2003 .

[21]  Morgan Meyer.  The Rise of the Knowledge Broker , 2010 .

[22]  Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement , 2011 .

[23]  David H. Guston,et al.  Stabilizing the Boundary between US Politics and Science: , 1999, Social studies of science.

[24]  P. Stern,et al.  Decision making for the environment : social and behavioral science research priorities , 2005 .

[25]  Scientific uncertainty and the International Whaling Commission: an alternative perspective on the use of science in policy making , 2004 .

[26]  David W. Cash,et al.  Salience, Credibility, Legitimacy and Boundaries: Linking Research, Assessment and Decision Making , 2002 .

[27]  Susan Owens,et al.  Making a difference? Some perspectives on environmental research and policy , 2005 .

[28]  S. Jasanoff,et al.  The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. , 1991 .

[29]  E. D. Santo.  ‘Whose science?’ Precaution and power-play in European marine environmental decision-making , 2010 .

[30]  Clark A. Miller.  Hybrid Management: Boundary Organizations, Science Policy, and Environmental Governance in the Climate Regime , 2001 .

[31]  J. Lubchenco.  Entering the Century of the Environment: A New Social Contract for Science , 1998 .

[32]  E. McNie.  Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature , 2007 .

[33]  R. Andersen,et al.  The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policymakers , 1991 .

[34]  Robert T. Lackey,et al.  The Science-Policy Interface: What Is an Appropriate Role for Professional Societies , 2008 .

[35]  C. Colgan,et al.  CALIFORNIA’S OCEAN ECONOMY , 2005 .

[36]  G. A. Bradshaw,et al.  Conservation Ecology: Uncertainty as Information: Narrowing the Science-policy Gap , 2008 .

[37]  John H. Lawton,et al.  Ecology, politics and policy , 2007 .