|
What's New? Why Use MM? About Us Services Clients Communities Businesses Schools Researchers Contact Us Models Publications In Progress Site Map Home Links |
Forward for Mediated Modeling; a system dynamics approach
to environmental consensus building In this volume Marjan van den Belt articulates a promising method for meeting a fundamental challenge of the 21st century- integrating science and democracy. The problem is not a new one. Humans have engaged in discourse to make collective decisions throughout the history of our species. Indeed, group deliberation may be as much a defining characteristic of Homo sapiens as any of our morphological traits. Much of that deliberation was to make decisions about the environment, such as, where, when and how to gather and hunt. We can imagine discussions around the campfire engaging indigenous ecological models-When will various kinds of fruits or nuts be ripe? Where will the animals be? What predators (both competitors and threats) might be encountered? Some part of these debates was undoubtedly about values-trading off different food types and habitat qualities based on preferences, expressing different degrees of aversion to the risks of predators and so on. But I expect that much of the debate was about the quality of the models used to understand the environment-who had the right answers to questions about the environment? So in one sense, democratic deliberation around models of environmental processes is basic to the human adaptive complex. But the Enlightenment, whatever its benefits, led to an estrangement of science and democracy even as it promoted both. The 20th century has amply demonstrated that neither science nor democracy can enhance human welfare in the absence of the other. This was recognized and clearly articulated by John Dewey in his prescient analysis, The Public and Its Problems (1923). The eminent social theorist Jürgen Habermas also has examined the dysfunctional relationships between science and democracy. He notes that in some cases there is an illusion that science alone is sufficient to make public decisions, a pathology labeled "technocratic." In other cases, science is used primarily to legitimate decisions made on other grounds, a pathology labeled "decisionistic." Habermas calls for an approach grounded in Dewey's pragmatist arguments. He advocates an honest integration of scientific understanding with democratic discourse-decision making that is both fair and competent in the broadest sense of those terms. In the 1970s and 1980s a number of scholars, including John Dryzek, John Forester, Ortwin Renn and I, drew on Habermas to argue that environmental decisions must be grounded in both sound science and fair and competent public discourse processes. We proposed that good science and good public discourse must be intertwined. In the 1990s, this idea gained much influence, reflected in both growing concern with public involvement on the part of environmental agencies and in important policy documents, such as the U.S. National Research Council's Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society (1996). Now there is a broad consensus that scientific analysis and public deliberation must be integrated. The challenge for the 21st century becomes how to integrate science and deliberation. At the heart of this challenge is the problem of getting ordinary citizens, the public in Dewey's sense, to engage with environmental science. Few of us, unless we are trained in the sciences of uncertainty and complexity, are very successful at unpacking probabilities and the dynamics of non-linear systems. Yet bringing technical information to bear seems at first antithetical to having broad and meaningful public participation. The public is naïve of the science underpinning most environmental problems. I don't believe this should make us cynical about the capabilities of the average citizen. It's true that the public does poorly on the "pop quizzes" that are too often used to assess public understanding of science in surveys. But this seeming ignorance shows a canny rationality on the part of the public. Acquiring and retaining information has costs. Most items used to assess public understanding of science, while they seem important, even foundational, to scientists are not the kind of information used in making day-to-day decisions by most members of the public. As Sherlock Holmes once said to Dr. Watson (clearly pulling Watson's leg): "...you say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or my work." (A Study in Scarlet, Chapter 2, Page 2). For most of the public, holding detailed scientific knowledge about environmental problems would be a waste of time unless such knowledge is part of an avocation, such as birding, or unless their community is faced with a decision regarding the problem. Since most citizens do not have a natural history hobby and have no direct input to public environmental decisions, knowing much about environmental science might be edifying, but it is not terribly useful. We can't expect people to study for a quiz for a course they are not taking. In contrast, hobbyists and those who can influence a consequential decision often display impressive scientific understanding. Unfortunately, the latter kind of expertise usually emerges only in times of intense conflict when options have been reduced to a "yes" or "no" on a specific proposal. By that time the chance for creative solutions has been lost, and whatever decision is taken the outcome will be costly and unsatisfactory to many. Our greatest opportunities arise when the public actually has a chance to influence a decision early enough that creative and flexible solutions can be proposed. Indeed, we need to move from thinking about decisions as isolated events to a process of governance. To realize this opportunity we have to answer a number of difficult questions: How can the public be engaged in a way that leads to competent deliberation using the best available science? How can the science be engaged while taking proper account of the limits to our knowledge and the uncertainties inherent in even the best analysis? How can a process make use of quantitative information while giving proper weight to qualitative information? How can the public discourse help understand the limits of the models and the need for further research? How can the discourse proceed in ways that are respectful of all viewpoints while encouraging learning and change on the part of individuals and groups? How can a process move towards consensus and a decision while not forcing premature and fragile agreement? In order to integrate science and democracy in environmental governance, we must be able to implement answers to these questions. The admonitions to use deliberative processes have been heard for two decades, but we don't know how to practice what has been preached. Mediated Modeling offers a practice that respects both scientific analysis and public discourse. In this volume, van den Belt deploys one of the most broadly integrative tools in the sciences-systems dynamics-in the service of public discourse. Her discussion of mediated modeling shows that it can be both robust and subtle. It acknowledges the tentative and partial character of all systems models. It is thoughtful about the process of interaction with a model, and, more important, the process by which discourse leads to changes in the perspectives of participants. And in perhaps the most important contribution of the book she not only proposes a methodology but shows how it can be implemented in a variety of contexts. Every environmental problem is unique in its details, every public discourse has its own dynamics and context. There is no single approach that will yield good results everywhere. It is only by learning from experiments conducted in different situations that we can develop better methods. Van den Belt's contribution is rich with consideration of the contexts in which mediated modeling has facilitated analysis and deliberation and how we can learn from that variation. As you read Mediated Modeling you will learn about a flexible and innovative tool for linking science and democratic process. But equally important, you will be challenged to think deeply about the fundamental issues of the 21st century-how to link our growing scientific understanding with our hopes for fair and competent governance processes. It is a book that is at the same time practical and thought-provoking-a rare and refreshing combination. Thomas Dietz Chair, U.S. National Research Council Committee on Human Dimensions of Global Change Professor of Sociology and Crop and Soil Sciences Director of the Environmental Science and Policy Program Associate Dean, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, College of Natural Science, College of Social Science Michigan State University |