This article investigates why science often does not speak with one voice within the context of environmental controversies. I argue that sociologists must be willing to turn to those processes and phenomena that are internal to science. In doing this, we find that many environmental conflicts are products, at least in part, of science itself. What is it about science that helps to breed these conflicts? In answering this question, this article first reflects upon the effects that disciplinary and methodological diversity have on scientific disputes. Attention then turns to the topics of proof and consensus, highlighting how these terms have often been employed to amplify conflict. I then speak to how science presupposes values. The article concludes by making policy-relevant suggestions about how to `do' environmental science in a way that acknowledges its various epistemic bright- and blind-spots.
Austin, A. and Phoenix, L. (2005) The Neoconservative Assault on the Earth: The Environmental Imperialism of the Bush Administration. Capitalism Nature Socialism16(2): 25-43.
2.
Bhaskar, R. (1978) A Realist Theory of Science. Harvester Press: Hassocks.
3.
Bijker, W. (1995) Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change. MIT Press: Cambridge.
4.
Bolch, B. and Lyons, H. (1993) Apocalypse Not: Science, Economics, and Environmentalism . CATO Institute: Washington, DC .
5.
Brickman, R., Jasanoff, S. and Ilgen, T. (1985) Controlling Chemicals: The Politics of Regulation in Europe and the United States. Cornell University Press : Ithaca.
6.
Carolan, M.S. (2004) Ontological Politics: Mapping a Complex Environmental Problem. Environmental Values13(4):497-522.
7.
Carolan, M.S. (2005a) Realism without Reductionism: Toward an Ecologically Embedded Sociology. Human Ecology Review12(1): 1-20.
8.
Carolan, M.S. (2005b) Society, Biology, and Ecology: Bringing Nature back into Sociology's Disciplinary Narrative through Critical Realism. Organization and Environment18(4): 393-421.
9.
Carolan, M.S. (2006a) The Values and Vulnerabilities of Metaphors within the Environmental Sciences. Society and Natural Resources19(10): 921-30.
10.
Carolan, M.S. (2006b) Scientific Knowledge and Environmental Policy: Why Science Needs Values. Environmental Sciences: The Journal of Integrative Environmental Research3(4): 229-37.
11.
Cohrssen, J. and Covello, V. (1989) Risk Analysis: A Guide to Principles and Methods for Analyzing Health and Environmental Risks. Executive Office of the President of the USA, Council on Environmental Quality: Washington, DC.
12.
Collier, A. (1994) Critical Realism. Verso: London.
13.
Daston, L. (1992) Objectivity and the Escape from Perspective. Social Studies of Science22(4): 597-618.
14.
DeGregori, T. (2001) Agriculture and Modern Technology: A Defense. Iowa State Press: Ames.
15.
DeGregori, T. (2004) The Origins of the Organic Agriculture Debate. Iowa State Press: Ames.
16.
Demeritt, D. (2001) The Construction of Global Warming and the Politics of Science. Annals of the Association of American Geographers91(2): 307-37.
17.
Dobzhansky, T. (1937) Genetics and the Origin of Species. Columbia University Press: New York.
18.
Feldman, S. (2004) The Culture of Objectivity: Quantification, Uncertainty, and the Evaluation of Risk at NASA. Human Relations57(6): 691-718.
19.
Feyerabend, P. (2000) The Conquest of Abundance. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
20.
Fischer, F. (2000) Citizens, Experts, and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge. Duke University Press: Durham.
21.
Fox-Keller, E. (1985) Reflections on Gender and Science. Yale University Press: New Haven.
22.
Freudenburg, W. (2005) Seeding Science, Courting Conclusions: Re-examining the Intersection of Science, Corporate Cash, and the Law. Sociological Forum20(1): 3-33.
23.
Freudenburg, W. and Buttel, F. (1999) Expert and Popular Opinion Regarding Climate Change in the United States. R. Coppock et al. (eds) Climate Change Policy in Germany and the United States , pp. 49-57. German-American Academic Council Foundation: Washington, DC.
24.
Freudenburg, W. and Gramling, R. (2002) Scientific Expertise and Natural Resource Decisions: Social Science Participation on Interdisciplinary Scientific Committees. Social Science Quarterly83(1): 119-36.
25.
Fuller, S. (2002) Knowledge Management Foundations. Butterworth-Heinemann: Woburn.
26.
Fuller, S. (2006) The Philosophy of Science and Technology Studies . Routledge: New York.
27.
Gieryn, T. (1983) Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists . American Sociological Review48(6): 781-95.
28.
Gieryn, T. (1995) Boundaries of Science. S. Jasanoff et al. (eds.) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, pp. 393-443. Sage: Thousand Oaks .
29.
Gillespie, B., Eva, D. and Johnston, R. (1979) Carcinogenic Risk Assessment in the United States and Great Britain. Social Studies of Science9(3): 265-301.
30.
Gitlin, T. (1980) The Whole World is Watching. University of California Press: Berkeley.
31.
Glantz, S.,Slade, J.,Bero, L.,Hanauer, P. and Barnes, D. (eds) (1996) The Cigarette Papers. University of California Press: Berkeley.
32.
Haack, S. (2003) Defending Science - Within Reason: Between Scientism and Cynicism. Prometheus: Amherst .
33.
Haack, S. (2005) Trial and Error: The Supreme's Court's Philosophy of Science. American Journal of Public Health95(S1): S66-73.
34.
Haraway, D. (1991) Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. Routledge: New York.
35.
Harding, S. (1991) Whose Science? Whose Knowledge?: Thinking from Women's Lives. Cornell University Press: Ithaca.
36.
Hendry, A., Vamosi, S., Latham, S., Heibuth, J. and Day, T. (2000) Questioning Species Realities. Conservation Genetics1(1): 67-76.
37.
Hey, J. (2001) Genes, Categories, and Species: The Evolutionary and Cognitive Causes of the Species Problem. Oxford University Press: New York.
38.
Huber, P. (1999) Hard Green: Saving the Environment from Environmentalists: A Conservative Manifesto. Basic Books: New York.
39.
Isacc, N., Mallet, J. and Mace, G. (2004) Taxonomic Inflation: Its Influence on Macroecology and Conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution19(9): 464-9.
40.
Jasanoff, S. (1986) Risk Management and Political Culture. Russell Sage Foundation: New York.
41.
Jasanoff, S. (1987a) Contested Boundaries in Policy-Relevant Science . Social Studies of Science17(2):195-230.
42.
Jasanoff, S. (1987b) Cultural Aspects of Risk Assessment in Britain and the United States. B. Johnson and V. Covello (eds) The Social and Culture Construction of Risk: Essays of Risk Selection and Perception , pp. 359-97. Reidel: Dordrecht.
43.
Jasanoff, S. (1995) Product, Process, or Programme: Three Cultures and the Regulation of Biotechnology. M. Bauer (ed.) Resistance to New Technology, pp. 311-31. Cambridge University Press:Cambridge.
44.
Jasanoff, S. (1999) The Songlines of Risk. Environmental Values8(2): 135-52.
45.
Jasanoff, S. (2005a) Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and United States. Princeton University Press: Princeton.
46.
Jasanoff, S. (2005b) Law's Knowledge: Science for Justice in Legal Studies. American Journal of Public Health95(S1): S49-S58.
47.
Jasanoff, S. and Wynne, B. (1998) Science Knowledge and Decision Making. S. Rayner and E. Malone (eds) Human Choice and Climate Change, pp. 1-112. Battelle Press: Columbus.
48.
Kapustka, L. and Landis, W. (1998) Ecology: The Science Versus the Myth. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment4(4): 829-38.
49.
Kitcher, P. (2001) Science, Truth, and Democracy. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
50.
Kleinman, D. (1995) Politics on the Endless Frontier: Post-War Research Policy in the United States. Duke University Press: Durham.
51.
Kraft, M.E. (2000) US Environmental Policy and Politics. Journal of Policy History12(1): 17-42.
52.
Kuhn, T.S. (1970[1962]). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions . University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
53.
Lackey, R. (2001) Values, Policy, and Ecosystem Health. BioScience51(6): 437-43.
54.
Lancaster, J. (2000) The Ridiculous Notion of Assessing Ecological Health and Identifying the Useful Concepts Underneath. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment6(2): 213-22.
55.
Latour, B. (1992) Give me a Laboratory and I Will Raise the World . M. Biagol (ed.) The Science Studies Reader, pp. 258-75. Routledge: New York .
56.
Law, J. and Urry, J. (2004) Enacting the Social. Economy and Society33(3): 390-410.
57.
Lomborg, B. (2001) The Skeptical Environmentalist. Cambridge University Press:Cambridge.
58.
McAfee, K. (2003) Corn Culture and Dangerous DNA: Real and Imagined Consequences of Maize Transgene Flow in Oaxaca. Journal of Latin American Geography2(1): 18-42.
59.
McCright, A. and Dunlap, R. (2000) Challenging Global Warming as a Social Problem: An Analysis of the Conservative Movement's Counter-Claims. Social Problems47(4): 499-522.
60.
McCright A. and Dunlap, R. (2003) Defeating Kyoto: The Conservative Movement's Impact on US Climate Change Policy. Social Problems50(3): 348-73.
61.
Mayr, E. (1970) Populations, Species, and Evolution. Harvard University Press: Cambridge.
62.
Mol, A. (2002) The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice . Duke University Press: Durham .
63.
Mulkay, M. (1976) Norms and Ideology in Science. Social Science Information15(4): 637-56.
64.
Oreskes, N. (1999) The Rejection of Continental Drift: Theory and Method in American Earth Science. Oxford University Press : New York.
65.
Oreskes, N. (2004a) Science and Public Policy: What's Proof Got to Do with It? Environmental Science and Policy7(5): 369-83.
66.
Oreskes, N. (2004b) Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Science306(5702): 1686.
67.
Quist, D. and Chapela, I. (2001) Transgenic DNA Introgressed into Traditional Maize Landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico. Nature414(6863): 541-3.
68.
Rayner, S. (2003) Democracy in the Age of Assessment: Reflections on the Roles of Expertise and Democracy in Public-Sector Decision Making. Science and Public Policy30(3): 163-70.
69.
Rosenberg, A. (1994) Instrumental Biology or The Disunity of Science . University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
70.
Rowlands, I. (1993) The Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol: Report and Reflection. Environment35(6): 25-34.
71.
Sarewitz, D. (1996) Frontiers of Illusion. Temple University Press: Philadelphia.
72.
Sarewitz, D. (2004) How Science Makes Environmental Controversies Worse . Environmental Science and Policy7(5): 385-403.
73.
Scalera, G. and Karl-Heinz, J. (eds) (2003) Why Expanding Earth: A Book in Honour of Ott Christoph Hilgenberg. INGV Publishers : Rome.
74.
Scott, D. (2003) Science and the Consequences of Mistruct: Lessons from Recent GM Controversies. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics16(6): 569-82.
75.
Shackley, S., Young, P., Parkinson, S. and Wynne, B. (1998) Uncertainty, Complexity and Concepts of Good Science in Climate Change Modelling: Are GCMs the Best Tools?Climate Change38(2): 159-205.
76.
Taylor, P. and Buttel, F. (1992) How Do We Know We Have Global Environmental Problems? Science and the Globalization of Environmental Discourse. Geoforum3(3): 227-41.
77.
Timmons Roberts, J. (2001) Global Inequality and Climate Change. Society and Natural Resources14(6): 501-9.
78.
Vaughan, D. (1996) The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA. University of Chicago Press : Chicago.
79.
Warner, K. (1986) Selling Smoke: Cigarette Advertising and Public Health. [Health Policy Monograph Series] APHA: Washington, DC.
80.
Wilson, E. (1992) The Diversity of Life. Harvard University Press: Cambridge.
81.
Wynne, B. (2001) Creating Public Alienation: Expert Cultures of Risk and Ethics on GMOs. Science as Culture10(4): 445-81.
82.
Wynne, B. (2002) Risk and Environment as Legitimatory Discourses of Technology: Reflexivity Inside Out? Current Sociology50(3): 459-77.
83.
Yearly, S. (1996) Sociology, Environmentalism, Globalization: Reinventing the Globe. Sage: London.
