Strengthening conservation science as a crisis discipline by addressing challenges of precaution, privilege, and individualism.

Conservation science deals with crises and supports policy interventions devised to mitigate highly uncertain threats that pose irreversible harm. When conventional policy tools, such as quantitative risk assessments, are insufficient, the precautionary principle provides a practical framework and range of robust heuristics. Yet, precaution is often resisted in many policy arenas, especially those involving powerful self-interests, and this resistance is compounded by structures of privilege and competitive individualism in science. We describe key drivers and effects of such resistance in conservation science. These include a loss of rigor under uncertainty, an erosion of crisis response capabilities, and a further reinforcement of privileged interests in conservation politics. We recommend open acknowledgement of the pressures exerted by power inside science; greater recognition for the value of the precautionary principle under uncertainty; deliberate measures to resist competitive individualism; support for blind review, open science, and data sharing; and a shift from hierarchical multidisciplinarity toward more egalitarian transdisciplinarity to accelerate advances in conservation science. Article impact statement: Precautionary principle, privilege structures among disciplines, and culture of individualism link to effective conservation policy making.

Fortalecimiento de las Ciencias de la Conservación como Disciplinas de Crisis Resumen Las ciencias de la conservación tratan con crisis y respaldan a muchas intervenciones políticas para mitigar las amenazas altamente inciertas que representan un daño irreversible. El principio de precaución proporciona un marco práctico y una gama de heurística sólida cuando son insuficientes las herramientas convencionales de políticas como las evaluaciones cuantitativas de riesgo. Aun así, con frecuencia se niega el uso de la precaución en muchas arenas políticas, especialmente en aquellas que involucran intereses propios de mucho poder, y esta negación se agrava con las estructuras de privilegio y el individualismo competitivo presentes en la ciencia. Describimos los factores y efectos clave de dicha resistencia en las ciencias de la conservación. Estos incluyen la pérdida del rigor bajo la incertidumbre, un desgaste de las capacidades de respuesta a la crisis y un reforzamiento más profundo de los intereses privilegiados en las políticas de conservación. Recomendamos que se realice una aceptación abierta de las presiones ejercidas por el poder dentro de la ciencia; un mayor reconocimiento del valor del principio de precaución bajo la incertidumbre; que se lleven a cabo medidas deliberadas para oponerse al individualismo competitivo; que se apoye a las revisiones a ciegas, la ciencia abierta y la difusión de datos; y que se realice un cambio de la multidisciplinariedad jerárquica a una transdisciplinariedad más igualitaria para acelerar los avances dentro de las ciencias de la conservación.

Appraising research policy instrument mixes: a multicriteria mapping study in six European countries of diagnostic innovation to manage antimicrobial resistance.

This article provides prospective appraisal of key policy instruments intended to stimulate innovation to combat antimicrobial resistance (AMR). AMR refers to the ability of microbes to evolve resistance to those treatments designed to kill them, and is associated with the overuse or misuse of medicines such as antibiotics. AMR is an emerging global challenge with major implications for healthcare and society as a whole. Diagnostic tests for infectious diseases can guide decision making when prescribing medicines, so reducing inappropriate drug use. In the context of growing international interest in policies to stimulate innovation in AMR diagnostics, this study uses multicriteria mapping (MCM) to appraise a range of policy instruments in order to understand their potential performance while also highlighting the uncertainties that stakeholders hold about such interventions in complex contexts. A contribution of the article is the demonstration of a novel method to analyse and visualise MCM data in order to reveal stakeholder inclinations towards particular options while exploring interviewees' uncertainties about the effectiveness of each instrument's design or implementation. The article reports results from six European countries (Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK). The findings reveal which policy instruments are deemed most likely to perform well, and why, across stakeholder groups and national settings, with areas of common ground and difference being identified. Importantly, the conclusions presented here differ from prominent policy discourse, with international implications for the design of mixes of policy instruments to combat AMR. Strategic and practical methodological implications also emerge for general appraisal of innovation policy instrument mixes.

'Opening up' the governance of water-energy-food nexus: Towards a science-policy-society interface based on hybridity and humility.

The governance of the nexus between water, energy, and food (hereafter, 'the nexus') is permeated by complex interactions of knowledge at a science-policy-society interface. This paper starts from a literature review to find the main narratives that allow us to understand what is at stake in this interface. By thematically synthesising 19 select articles, we reached three layers of knowledge interaction: 'knowledge application', 'knowledge integration', and 'knowledge transformation'. To avoid misleading simplifications, we discussed the constraints on this debate and some pressures for what we consider as 'closing down' knowledge about the nexus. We then developed a conceptual framework based on the 'technologies of humility' proposed by Jasanoff (2003, 2007) to create opportunities to 'open up' the nexus approach. Finally, we illustrated the four pillars proposed by some studies to describe what we have termed 'nexus of humility': framing, vulnerability, distribution, and learning. These foci seek to enable a humbler appreciation on all sides of the persistent sources of uncertainty, divergence, and conditionality in sustainability governance. This framework also contributes towards necessary transformations of knowledge about nexus and its challenging implementation.

Unpacking sustainabilities in diverse transition contexts: solar photovoltaic and urban mobility experiments in India and Thailand.

It is generally accepted that the concept of sustainability is not straightforward, but is subject to ongoing ambiguities, uncertainties and contestations. Yet literature on sustainability transitions has so far only engaged in limited ways with the resulting tough questions around what sustainability means, to whom and in which contexts. This paper makes a contribution to this debate by unpacking sustainability in India and Thailand in the context of solar photovoltaic and urban mobility experimentation. Building on a database of sustainability experiments and multicriteria mapping techniques applied in two workshops, the paper concludes that sustainability transition scholarship and associated governance strategies must engage with such questions in at least three important ways. First, there is a need for extreme caution in assuming any objective status for the sustainability of innovations, and for greater reflection on the normative implications of case study choices. Second, sustainability transition scholarship and governance must engage more with the unpacking of uncertainties and diverse possible socio-technical configurations even within (apparently) singular technological fields. Third, sustainability transition scholarship must be more explicit and reflective about the specific geographical contexts within which the sustainability of experimentation is addressed.

A collaboratively-derived science-policy research agenda.

The need for policy makers to understand science and for scientists to understand policy processes is widely recognised. However, the science-policy relationship is sometimes difficult and occasionally dysfunctional; it is also increasingly visible, because it must deal with contentious issues, or itself becomes a matter of public controversy, or both. We suggest that identifying key unanswered questions on the relationship between science and policy will catalyse and focus research in this field. To identify these questions, a collaborative procedure was employed with 52 participants selected to cover a wide range of experience in both science and policy, including people from government, non-governmental organisations, academia and industry. These participants consulted with colleagues and submitted 239 questions. An initial round of voting was followed by a workshop in which 40 of the most important questions were identified by further discussion and voting. The resulting list includes questions about the effectiveness of science-based decision-making structures; the nature and legitimacy of expertise; the consequences of changes such as increasing transparency; choices among different sources of evidence; the implications of new means of characterising and representing uncertainties; and ways in which policy and political processes affect what counts as authoritative evidence. We expect this exercise to identify important theoretical questions and to help improve the mutual understanding and effectiveness of those working at the interface of science and policy.

Opening up the politics of knowledge and power in bioscience.

Public engagement is not in tension with science, but actually a way to be more rigorous - as well as more democratic - about social choice of biotechnology.

Science, precaution, and the politics of technological risk: converging implications in evolutionary and social scientific perspectives.

This paper examines apparent tensions between "science-based," "precautionary," and "participatory" approaches to decision making on risk. Partly by reference to insights currently emerging in evolutionary studies, the present paper looks for ways to reconcile some of the contradictions. First, I argue that technological evolution is a much more plural and open-ended process than is conventionally supposed. Risk politics is thus implicitly as much about social choice of technological pathways as narrow issues of safety. Second, it is shown how conventional "science-based" risk assessment techniques address only limited aspects of incomplete knowledge in complex, dynamic, evolutionary processes. Together, these understandings open the door to more sophisticated, comprehensive, rational, and robust decision-making processes. Despite their own limitations, it is found that precautionary and participatory approaches help to address these needs. A concrete framework is outlined through which the synergies can be more effectively harnessed. By this means, we can hope simultaneously to improve scientific rigor and democratic legitimacy in risk governance.

A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society.

This paper addresses the scope for more integrated general analysis of diversity in science, technology and society. It proposes a framework recognizing three necessary but individually insufficient properties of diversity. Based on 10 quality criteria, it suggests a general quantitative non-parametric diversity heuristic. This allows the systematic exploration of diversity under different perspectives, including divergent conceptions of relevant attributes and contrasting weightings on different diversity properties. It is shown how this heuristic may be used to explore different possible trade-offs between diversity and other aspects of interest, including portfolio interactions. The resulting approach offers a way to be more systematic and transparent in the treatment of scientific and technological diversity in a range of fields, including conservation management, research governance, energy policy and sustainable innovation.