1. EBP-BIOSOC Scientificity, policy making and empirical validity of knowledge: new issues ? M.Kirsch & C.Laurent

2. Scientificity, policy making and empirical validity of knowledge: new issues ? 1) Several modes of relationship between policy making and building of scientific knowledge 2) The reasons why: some contextual insights 3) Consequences for EBP-BIOSOC ’s WPs

3. Scientificity, policy making and empirical validity of knowledge: new issues ? 1) Several modes of relationship between policy making and building of scientific knowledge What we actually find in the course of our first investigations...

4. Technical content of regulatory measures Discontinuity A1. Expertise A.2. Direct access (ex. EBD) Domain of scientific building Domain of practical implementation Domain of policy building Elaboration of compromises Several modes of relationship between policy making and building of scientific knowledge Available scientific knowledge

5. Technical content of regulatory measures Continuity Discontinuity A1. Expertise A.2. Direct access (ex. EBD) B1. Prescription B2. Co-production of the content of scientific models (PNS, NPS, Triple Helix) Domain of scientific building Domain of practical implementation Domain of policy building Elaboration of compromises Several modes of relationship between policy making and building of scientific knowledge Adoption by policy makers Contribution of various stakeholders to scientific production

6. Scientificity, policy making and empirical validity of knowledge: new issues ? 2) The reasons why: some contextual insights A need for a paradigme shift? From the sociology of science to the science studies Science war (science a a weapon for dominating minorities) Post Normal Science (PNS) and New Production of Knowledge (NPK)

7. Scientificity, policy making and empirical validity of knowledge: new issues ? 2) The reasons why: some contextual insights Several papers help understand the reasons why these different modes of relationship between science and polocy making have evolved…..

8. Sociology of science and Science Studies (a very short selection) Terry Shinn, Pascal Ragouet, Controverses sur la science. Pour une sociologie transversaliste de l’activité scientifique, Paris, Raisons d’agir, 2005 Michel Callon, « Défense et illustration des recherches sur la science », in Baudouin Jurdant, Impostures scientifiques, Paris, La Découverte, 1998

9. The New Production of Knowledge M. Gibbons, C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott & M. Trow, The New Production of Knowledge, London, Sage, 1994 H. Nowotny, M. Gibbons, P. Scott, Re-thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty, London, Polity Press & Blackwell Pub., 2001

10. Post-Normal Science Ravetz, J. R. 1986. Usable knowledge, usable ignorance: incomplete science with policy implications. In Clark, W. C., and R. C. Munn, ed. Sustainable development of the biosphere. p. 415-432. New York: Cambridge University Press. Funtowicz, S.O. and J.R. Ravetz 1990. Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy Kluwer Academic Publishers, the Netherlands. Funtowicz, S. O., and J. R. Ravetz 1992. Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science. In Krimsky, S., and D. Golding, ed. Social theories of risk. p. 251-274. Westport, CT: Praeger. Funtowicz and Ravetz "Science for the Post-Normal Age", Futures, 25/7 September 1993, 735-755. Funtowicz S. and Ravetz J.R., 1994: The Worth of a Songbird: Ecological Economics as a Post-normal Science, Ecological Economics, 10(3):197-207. Ravetz, J.R., 1996: Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems, Transaction, New Brunswick, N.J. and London. Post-Normal Science - Beyond simplistic belief systems, Ravetz, 2005 (http://www.postnormaltimes.net/blog/archives/2005/05/postnormal_scie_1.html) http://www.nusap.net/ The Encyclopedia of Earth (http://www.eoearth.org/article/Post-Normal_Science)

11. Scientificity, policy making and empirical validity of knowledge: new issues ? 3) Consequences for EBP-BIOSOC ’s WPs The core hypothesis of EBP-BIOSOC : there is a specific affinity of political decision-making to certain types of scientific knowledge with specific properties (for instance, simplicity and the possibility of providing quantified simulations in the time-frame of political decision-making, or the ability to produce 'consensus'-generating tools).

12. Continuity Discontinuity A1. Expertise A.2. Direct access (ex. EBD) B1. Prescription B2. Co-production of the content of scientific models ‘(ex. post-normal science) Consequences for EBP-BIOSOC WP1 : are these different conceptions part of the actual practices of people designing the technical content of regulatory measures? - When willing to access to scientific knowledge more easily, which kind of relationship would be prefered? - When actually financing (or relying on) specific research, which kind of relationship is prefered? - etc

13. Continuity Discontinuity A1. Expertise A.2. Direct access (ex. EBD) B1. Prescription B2. Co-production of the content of scientific models ‘(ex. post-normal science) Consequences for EBP-BIOSOC WP2 : How are these different conceptions interfering with the building (and assessment) of the empirical validity of the available knowledge ? - Which criteria for assessing the quality of scientific knowledge (truth, usefulness, ability to create consensus,…) - Which ways for presenting the results and allowing other members of the scientific community (or other stakeholders) to assess the results (role of meta-data)? - etc

14. Continuity Discontinuity A1. Expertise A.2. Direct access (ex. EBD) B1. Prescription B2. Co-production of the content of scientific models (ex. post-normal science) Consequences for EBP-BIOSOC WP3 : How are these different conceptions mobilzed by different stakeholders? How are they contributing to the balance of power between them and to the mode of resolution of the contradictions between objectives of cohesion and objectives of biodiversity conservation? - Which stakeholder is promoting which kind of knowledge (or kind of access to knowledge)? - How evidence are they used by various stakeholders (justification, technical support,…) - How do approaches similar to EBP and post-normal science contribute to reshape the access to knowledge for different kinds of stakeholders? (ability to generate new researches, « post normal » science building and issues on governance, etc.)