1. Science & Democracy: Squaring Accountability with Expertise
Descartes Lectures #2
Tilburg University
Heather Douglas

2. Science in Democracy Science is entangled with values.
Science is instrumentally useful.
Science is unstable (always open to challenge), and thus robust.
Science is specialized, and complete expertise impossible.
Experts need to “be on tap, not on top.”

3. Three Conditions
The reality of value-laden scientific knowledge and expertise
The importance of scientific expertise for good decision-making
The general difficulty of assessing expertise for the non-expert
How to make this work, for both science advising (science for policy) and science funding (policy for science)?

4. Rejecting Scientism

5. Expertise ≠ Raw Instrumental Success
Readily assessable
Not readily assessable
Chess players
Magicians
Car mechanics
Cooks (Aristotle)
Shoe makers (Dewey)
Climate modelers
Epidemiologists
Ecologists
Etc…

6. Explication and Expertise
“[E]xpertise requires that the expert, unlike the mere muddler or the person with the unintellectual knack, be able to ‘give an account’ (logon didonai) of what it is that she is an expert in. The expert, but not the dabbler, can explain why she is doing what she is doing; instead of being stuck with inarticulacy, or being reduced to saying that ‘it feels right this way,’ she can explain why this is, here and now, the appropriate thing to do in these circumstances.” (Julia Annas, 2001, Social Philosophy & Policy)
This is particularly important for when success is not easily displayed.

7. Explicated Expert Judgment
Explanations for phenomena
What is known, what is not (uncertainties)
Rejected explanations
Social and ethical values held by expert
There is no value-free expertise.

8. Science Advising: Accountability Mechanisms
Experts are accountable:
To their home expert community for the accuracy of their claims
To the citizenry for the value judgments in their claims
(But the expert community needs to help with this as well.)

9. The Case of L’Aquila
On April 6, 2009, 6.3 magnitude earthquake kills over 300 people.
Two Central Failures:
Seismologists allowed a public official to say false things in their name.
The broader scientific community circled the wagons in response to the charges being laid.

10. The Science Advisory Ecosystem (in part)
Formal Science Advice
Committee struck (often interdisciplinary) to address a particular issue
Report drafted over months
E.g., NAS, CCA, Royal Society, EPA’s SAB, IPCC, etc.
Informal Science Advice
Individual science advisor
Direct discussion with advisee (usually elected official)
E.g., chief science advisor

11. Accountability Mechanisms
Formal Science Advice (committee with formal report)
Representation among committee members
Make value judgments explicit in public report
Informal Science Advice (individual working with an elected official)
Accountability through advisee (who is elected)
Trust relationship (competency, shared values)
Crisis Advising

12. Accountability in the Advising Ecosystem
Plurality of advising mechanisms
E.g., formal advising committees, within and without government
The expert community and accountability for value judgments
Demands on experts:
Hold each other accountable to the available evidence
Make value judgments explicit in their assessments of the evidence
Make sure that stated value commitments line up with judgments made
Paths less helpful:
Success criteria
Direct election of experts

13. Is this complexity required?
Revert to success criteria?
Need for politicians to be able to reject advice, given other considerations.
Elect our experts?
Campaigning would reduce expertise
Hard to know what expertise will be needed

14. ~2010 Research Funding

15. Producing the Knowledge Needed
Privately funded science = Private-interest science
Commercial products
Patentable knowledge (IP)
Required tests for regulatory hurdles
Why we need public-interest science:
Public goods that are not easily commercializable
Public harms of private enterprise
And curiosity-driven research…

16. Encouraging Public-Interest Research
Public funds should support this (in addition to curiosity-driven research)
Range of mechanisms:
Targeted areas (e.g. challenge areas)
Citizen engagement
Crowd-funding
Responsible innovation & upstream engagement
Collaborative research
Oversight committee?
Justice issues: Research for the least well-off

17. The Upshot No perfect system Where we started: Accountability:
Value-laden expertise
Importance of expertise for governance
Opacity of specialized expertise
Accountability:
For accuracy to expert communities
For value judgments to public (and also via expert examination)
The Need for Public Interest Science