This project investigates the process by which scientists attempt to assess and summarize--accurately, fairly, objectively--the scientific knowledge that society needs to make informed judgments about complex issues. How do scientists evaluate the reliability of their colleagues? research, understand its limits and degrees of uncertainty, and come to consensus (or not)? How do scientists respond to the subtle or overt pressures that arise when they know the world is watching the outcome of the process? What factors internal to the process may lead to systematic bias, error, or distortion? Periodically, scientists come together to present scientific information at the request of policy-makers and for the benefit of the general public, particularly in the area of environmental science relevant to policy. Recent examples include the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, the Ozone Trends Panel, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, organized to summarize and assess the state of the art with respect to acid rain, global ozone depletion, and anthropogenic climate change, respectively. Such assessments consume large amounts of time, money, and manpower, and they can play a major role in policy debates. Therefore, it is important to understand how they work (or fail to work). Yet, few scholars have studied them.
Broader Impact
Understanding the internal dynamics of the assessment process puts us in a better position to judge the quality of any particular assessment, as well as to suggest potential means of improvement, and, ultimately, to provide an improved foundation for science-based policy. The presumption that assessments should influence policy assumes that the quality of these assessments is high, but that assumption has rarely been closely examined.
