Skip to main content

Scientific opinion in policymaking: the case of climate change adaptation

Policy Sciences volume 47, pages 121–139 (2014)Cite this article

Abstract

The urgent need for policy decisions often outpaces scientific discovery. At such times, policymakers must rely on scientific opinion. This is the case with many aspects of current climate policy, especially those involving untested but potentially necessary adaptations to reduce vulnerability to climate change. Unfortunately, scientific opinion is not currently defined, measured, or used in a standardized way, which often allows for the accidental or intentional dissemination of misinformation and the marginalization of science where science could be most beneficial. In this article, we argue that scientific opinion can be usefully measured by systematic surveys of scientists that employ standards similar to those that govern public opinion surveys, including systematic decisions about target populations, sampling frames, and sampling techniques. We demonstrate this approach with the methodology for a study of scientific opinion on a potential adaptation to climate change, the managed relocation of species. We show that survey results may be used to corroborate other types of information, refine or contradict other information, and offer novel insights into emerging issues, such as adaptations to climate change, that are currently not addressed with any other type of available information.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Notes

  1. Adding “expert opinion” or “scientific consensus” to the search criteria along with “scientific opinion” produces slightly more results but clouds the issue even further.  These search terms are mostly undefined and used inconsistently to reference the opinions of all sorts of professionals, not just scientists, and the terms are used in passing, rather than as the central focus of the articles. Compare this lack of results in the scholarly literature to a keyword search on “scientific opinion” in the New York Times, which produces 107 results since 1969, 29 of them from 2000 through 2012.

References

  • Aber, J. (2001). Editorial: Reaching scientific consensus and informing public policy. BioScience, 51(9), 699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adger, W. N., Agrawala, S., Monirul Qader Mirza, M., Conde, C., O’Brien, K., Pulhin, J., et al. (2007). Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity. In M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, C. E. Hanson, (Eds.), Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 717–743. Available at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter17.pdf.

  • Agrawala, S. (1998a). Context and early origins of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Climatic Change, 39(4), 605–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawala, S. (1998b). Structural and process history of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Climate Change, 39(4), 621–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Association for Public Opinion Research. (2010). Code of Professional Ethics and Practices. Available at http://www.aapor.org/AAPOR_Code_of_Ethics/4249.htm. Accessed 13 June 2013.

  • American Association for Public Opinion Research. (2011). Best practices. Available at http://www.aapor.org/Best_Practices1.htm. Accessed 7 June 2013.

  • Anderegg, W., James, R. L., Prall, W., Harold, J., & Schneider, S. H. (2010). Expert credibility in climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(27), 12107–12109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnell, N. W., Tompkins, E. L., & Adger, W. N. (2005). Eliciting information from experts on the likelihood of rapid climate change. Risk Analysis, 25(6), 1419–1431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, S. (2010). Moving beyond the linear model of expertise? IPCC and the test of adaptation. Regional Environmental Change, 11(2), 297–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, L., et al. (2007). Climate change 2007: Synthesis report. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bicknell, J., Dodman, D., & Satterthwaite, D. (2009). Adapting cities to climate change: Understanding and addressing the development challenges. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw, G. A., & Borchers, J. G. (2000). Uncertainty as information: Narrowing the science-policy gap. Conservation Ecology, 4(1), 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bray, D. (2010). The scientific consensus of climate change revisted. Environmental Science & Policy, 13(5), 340–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bray, D., & von Storch, H. (2007). The perspectives of climate scientists on global climate change: A survey of opinions. GKSS-Forschungszentrum Geesthact GmBH, 11.

  • Bray, D., & von Storch, H. (2008). CliSci2008: A survey of the perspectives of climate scientists concerning climate science and climate change. Available online at http://coast.gkss.de/staff/bray/surveyintro.html. Accessed 7 June 13.

  • Burgmann, M. (2005). Risks and decisions for conservation and environmental management. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Camacho, A. E. (2010). Assisted migration: Redefining nature and natural resource law under climate change. Yale Journal on Regulation, 27, 171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or internet-based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(6), 821–836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, R. M., Louis, H. J., & Goossens, L. H. J. (2004). Expert judgment elicitation for risk assessments of critical infrastructures. Journal of Risk Research, 7, 643–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doran, P. T., & Zimmerman, M. K. (2009). Examining the scientific consensus on climate change. Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union, 90, 22–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doria, M., Boyd, E., Tompkins, E. L., & Adger, W. N. (2009). Using expert elicitation to define successful adaptation to climate change. Environmental Science & Policy, 12(7), 810–819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischlin, A., Midgley, G. F., Price, J. T., et al. (2007). Ecosystems, their properties, goods, and services. In M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, & C. E. Hanson (Eds.), Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (pp. 211–272). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, S. (2004). Kuhn v. Popper: The struggle for the soul of science. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, B. S., Gardner, C., Linnane, A., & Hawthorne, P. J. (2010). The good, the bad and the recovery in an assisted migration. Plos One 5 (art. e14160). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014160.

  • Henry, G. T. (1990). Practical sampling. Applied social research methods series, Vol. 21. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

  • Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Hughes, L., McIntyre, S., Lindenmayer, D. B., Parmesan, C., Possingham, H. P., et al. (2008). Assisted colonization and rapid climate change. Science, 321(5887), 345–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inhofe, J. (2003). Inhofe delivers major speech on the science of climate change (Press release). Office of Senator Inhofe. 2003-07-28. (Accessed on April 9, 2012).

  • Inhofe, J. (2012). The greatest hoax: How the global warming conspiracy threatens your future. Washington, DC: WND Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC. (2007). Summary for policymakers. In M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, & C. E. Hanson (Eds.), Climate change: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (pp. 7–22). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson, D. (1996). Scientific uncertainty and the political process. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 545, 35–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Javeline, D., Hellmann, J.J, Castro Cornejo, R., & Shufeldt, G. (2013). Expert opinion on climate change and threats to biodiversity. Bioscience. 63, 8 (August):666–673.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplowitz, M. D., Hadlock, T. D., & Levine, R. (2004). A comparison of web and mail survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(1), 94–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R. L., & von Winterfeldt, D. (1991). Eliciting probabilities from experts in complex technical problems. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 38(3), 191–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, A. C. (2009). Science in environmental policy: The politics of objective advice. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. S. (1986). Response effects in the electronic survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50(3), 402–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krehbiel, K. (1992). Information and legislative organization. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambright, W. (2008). Government and science: A troubled, critical relationship and what can be done about it. Public Administration Review, 68(1), 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell, H. D. (1971). A preview of policy sciences. New York: American Elsevier Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawler, A. (2002). Battle Over IPCC chair renews debate on US climate policy. Science, 296(5566), 232–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemons, J. (1996). Scientific uncertainty and environmental problem solving. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lempert, R. J., Nebojsa Nakicenovic, N., Daniel Sarewitz, D., & Michael Schlesinger, M. (2004). Characterizing climate change uncertainties for decision-makers. Climatic Change, 65, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lentsch, J., & Weingart, P. (Eds.). (2011). The politics of scientific advice: Institutional design for quality assurance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, D., & Lasswell, H. D. (1951). The policy sciences: Recent development in scope and method. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichter, S. R. (2008). Climate scientists agree on warming, disagree on dangers, and don’t trust media’s coverage of climate change. Accessed from the statistical assessment service at George Mason University, May 2011, Available at http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html.

  • Lodge, D. M., Williams, S., MacIsaac, H. J., Hayes, K. R., Leung, B., Reichard, S., et al. (2006). Biological invasions: Recommendations for U.S. policy and management. Ecological Applications, 16(6), 2035–2054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (1994). Who controls? Information and the structure of legislative decision making. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 19(3), 361–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maclean, I. M. D., & Wilson, R. J. (2012). Recent ecological responses to climate change support predictions of high extinction risk. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,. doi:10.1073/pnas.1017352108.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2000). Challenging global warming as a social problem: An analysis of the conservative movement’s counter-claims. Social Problems, 47(4), 499–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2003). Defeating Kyoto: The conservative movement’s impact on U.S. climate change policy. Social Problems, 50(3), 348–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGarrity, T. O., & Wagner, W. E. (2008). Bending science: How special interests corrupt public health research. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenney, D., Pedlar, J., & O’Neill, G. (2009). Climate change and forest seed zones: Past trends, future prospects and challenges to ponder. Forestry Chronicle, 85, 258–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLachlan, J. S., Hellmann, J. J., & Schwartz, M. W. (2007). A framework for debate of assisted migration in an era of climate change. Conservation Biology, 21(2), 297–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLean, I., Blais, A., Garand, J. C., & Giles, M. (2009). Comparative journal ratings: A survey report. Political Studies Review, 7, 18–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. A., & Booker, J. M. (Eds.). (2001). Eliciting and analyzing expert judgment: A practical guide. Philadelphia, PA: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics; American Statistical Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, D. (2008). Doubt is their product: How industry’s assault on science threatens your health. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monastersky, R. (2005). The number that’s devouring science. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 14 October.

  • Mooney, C. Z. (2005). The Republican war on science. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, M. G., Adams, P., & Keith, D. W. (2006). Elicitation of expert judgments of aerosol forcing. Climatic Change, 75(1–2), 195–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, M. G., & Henrion, M. (1990). Uncertainty: A guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, M. G., & Keith, D. W. (1995). Subjective judgments by climate experts. Environmental Science and Technology, 29(10), 468A–476A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss, R. H., & Schneider, S. H. (2000). Uncertainties in the IPCC TAR: recommendations to lead authors for more consistent assessment and reporting. In Pachauri, Rajendra K., Taniguchi, T., & Katsumasa T. (Eds.), Guidance papers on the cross cutting issues of the third assessment report, World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, pp. 33–51.

  • Mueller, J. M., & Hellman, J. J. (2008). An assessment of invasion risk from assisted migration. Conservation Biology, 22(3), 562–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2009). A survey of attitudes and actions on dual use research in life sciences. A report from the Committee on Assessing Fundamental Attitudes of Life Scientists as a Basis for Biosecurity Education.

  • Nelson, M. P., & Vucetich, J. A. (2009). On advocacy by environmental scientists: What, whether, why, and how. Conservation Biology, 23(5), 1090–1101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheimer, M., O’Neill, B. C., Webster, M., & Agrawala, S. (2007). Climate change: The limits of consensus. Science, 317(5844), 1505–1506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oreskes, N. (2004a). Beyond the ivory tower: The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, 306(5702), 1686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oreskes, N. (2004b). Science and public policy: What’s proof got to do with it? Environmental Science & Policy, 7(5), 369–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oreskes, N. (2007). The scientific consensus on climate change: How do we know we’re not wrong. In: J. F. C. DiMento & P. Doughman (Eds.), Climate change: What it means for us, our children, and our grandchildren.

  • Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2010). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. New York: Bloomsbury Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patt, A. (2007). Assessing model-based and conflict-based uncertainty. Global Environmental Change, 17(1), 37–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pielke, R. A. (2007). The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, S. (2006). What drives environmental policy? Global Environmental Change, 16(1), 4–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reilly, J., Stone, P. H., Forest, C. E., Webster, M. D., Jacoby, H. D., & Prinn, R. G. (2001). Uncertainty and climate change assessments. Science, 293(5529), 430–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, D. M., Hellmann, J. J., McLachlan, J. S., Sax, D. F., Schwartz, M. W., Gonzalez, P., et al. (2009). Multidimensional evaluation of managed relocation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(24), 9721–9724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, S., Vedlitz, A., Cowman, D., & Zahran, S. (2010). Climate change: A profile of US climate scientists’ perspectives. Climatic Change, 101(3–4), 311–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santorum, R. (2009). The elephant in the room: Challenging science dogma. As with evolution, the ‘consensus’ on climate change has become an ideology. Accessed from http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/rick_santorum/20091217_The_Elephant_in_the_Room__Challenging_science_dogma.html. Accessed 9April 2012.

  • Scheufele, D. A., Corley, E. A., Dunwoody, S., Shih, T.-J., Hilllback, E., & Guston, D. H. (2007). Scientists worry more about some risks more than the public. Nature Nanotechnology, 2(December), 732–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulte, K. M. (2008). Scientific consensus on climate change? Energy & Environment, 19(2), 281–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, M., Hellmann, J., McLachlan, J., Sax, D., Borevitz, J., Brennan, J., et al. (2012). Managed relocation: Integrating the scientific, regulatory, and ethical challenges. BioScience, 62(8), 732–743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shackley, S., & Wynne, B. (1996). Representing uncertainty in global climate change science and policy: Boundary-ordering devices and authority. Science, Technology and Human Values, 21(3), 275–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheehan, K. B. (2001). E-mail survey response rates: A review. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 6(2).

  • Smith, D. (2005). Political science. New York Times Magazine, 4, 37–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Talbert, J. C., Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (1995). Nonlegislative hearings and policy change in congress. American Journal of Political Science, 39(2), 383–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, C. D., Cameron, A., Green, R. E., Bakkenes, M., Beaumont, L. J., et al. (2004). Extinction risk from climate change. Nature, 427, 145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Sluijs, J. P., van Est, R., & Riphagen, M. (2010). Beyond consensus: reflections from a democratic perspective on the interaction between climate politics and science. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2(5–6), 409–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Veken, S., Hermy, M., Velland, M., Knapen, A., & Verheyen, K. (2008). Garden plants get a head start on climate change. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 6, 212–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitt, P., Havens, K., Kramer, A. T., Sollenberger, D., & Yates, E. (2010). Assisted migration of plants: Changes in latitudes, changes in attitudes. Biological Conservation, 143, 18–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, K. D. (2004). Memo: Appropriate number of experts for the PM EJ Project. Memo to Jim Neumann, Henry Roman, and Tyra Gettleman, IEC, November 11.

  • Willis, S. G., Hill, J. K., Thomas, C. D., Roy, D. B., Fox, R., Blakeley, D. S., et al. (2009). Assisted colonization in a changing climate: A test-study using two UK butterflies. Conservation Letters, 2, 45–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodall, C. W., Nowak, D. J., Likens, G. C., & Westfall, J. A. (2010). Assessing the potential for urban trees to facilitate forest tree migration in the eastern United States. Forest Ecology and Management, 259, 1447–1454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zickfeld, K., Levermann, A., Morgan, M. G., Kuhlbrodt, T., Rahmstorf, S., & Keith, D. W. (2007). Expert judgments on the response of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation to climate change. Climatic Change, 82, 3–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the University of Notre Dame’s Institute for Scholarship in the Liberal Arts, College of Science, Faculty Research Program, and Strategic Research Investment and by the National Science Foundation [Grant Number OCI-1029584]. The authors wish to thank Jessica Hellmann, Geoffrey Layman, Jason McLachlan, Dov Sax, and Richard Taylor for thoughtful feedback on earlier drafts.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, University of Notre Dame, 217 O’Shaughnessy Hall, Notre Dame, IN, 46556, USA

    Debra Javeline & Gregory Shufeldt

Authors
  1. Debra Javeline
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gregory Shufeldt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Debra Javeline.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Javeline, D., Shufeldt, G. Scientific opinion in policymaking: the case of climate change adaptation. Policy Sci 47, 121–139 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-013-9187-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-013-9187-9

Keywords

  • Scientific opinion
  • Science policy
  • Climate change
  • Adaptation
  • Managed relocation