Vitenskap, lobbyisme og miljøet - Rachel Carsons Silent Spring fyller 60 år

• Naomi Oreskes, Henry Charles Lea Professor of the History of Science ved Harvard University, USA
• Jeroen van der Sluijs, Senter for vitenskapsteori (SVT), Universitetet i Bergen
• Andrea Saltelli, gjesteforsker ved SVT, UiB og vitenskapelig rådgiver ved UPF-BSM - Barcelona School of Management
• Stéphane Foucart, journalist i Le Monde, Frankrike
• Nina Holland, Corporate Europe Observatory, Belgia
• May-Brith Ohman Nielsen, professor i historie ved Universitetet i Agder og leder av prosjektet Deadly Dreams – The cultural history of poison 1850-2020.

Corporate Europe Observatory

Senter for vitenskapsteori, Universitetet i Bergen

Naomi Oreskes: Paths to a Less Silent Spring

See recent piece in Scientific American.

Jeroen van der Sluijs: Regulatory science and precaution: lessons from the neonicotinoids case

For the last 65 years we have been on a pesticide merry-go-round: successive generations of pesticides are released and subsequently banned a decade or two later once the environmental harm they cause becomes evident. While pesticides are typically replaced by new ones, this new generation of chemicals often raises new and unanticipated risk concerns.
Risks that in retrospect required precautionary action have been systematically overlooked as a result of blind spots in overly reductionist risk assessment protocols. These protocols in are largely shaped by pesticide lobbies. Knowledge about risks that do not fit into such protocols (e.g. academic scientific studies in the peer-reviewed literature and knowledge regarding end-points not covered by the protocols) is often systematically downplayed, marginalised or ignored. Too often, coalitions of concerned scientists and societal actors have needed to step in and ‘break the script’ of routinised assessment and management processes in order to recognise key uncertainties and the potential for serious harm to human, animal and environmental health. Based on the results of the EU-funded project ‘REconciling sCience, Innovation and Precaution through the Engagement of Stakeholders’ (RECIPES), we can learn important lessons for the necessary reforms of environmental risk assessment frameworks and beyond.

Andrea Saltelli: Science and regulatory capture

New frontiers of regulatory capture involving an instrumental use of science have become visible. Here corporate interests from pharma to agro-chemical operate over several epistemic levels, from invalidating the evidence, the methodology or the legitimacy of regulators, all the way up to the more recent use of platform technologies to construct a vision of reality where regulatory 'interference' is to be restrained. What specific responsibilities pertain to scientists overall and to academia specifically?  

Stéphane Foucart: The Guardians of reason

The creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, in 1970, was one of the consequences of the alert launched by Rachel Carson on the damage of the indiscriminate use of pesticides on the environment and public health. Following this model, other countries have created their own agencies in charge of expertise. Initially opposed by the companies, most of these agencies have become over the years allies of the industries generating health and environmental risks. Today, the very existence of these institutions creates confusion between regulatory decisions and scientific consensus.

Nina Holland: Lobbies in action

Corporate lobbies fund and promote science and scientists that are selected or paid to back their narrative and interests. This – they hope – contributes to the credibility of their arguments, that for example manufacture doubt on the harmfulness or confirm claims of economic losses to their sector and to ‘innovation’.

May-Brith Ohman Nielsen: Pushing pesticides onto Norwegian gardens, fields, and forests, 1945-1995

The second and third generations of pesticides were pushed onto Norwegian farmers, family gardeners and foresters by corporate interests, state institutions, branch organisations and broad membership associations, both before and after Silent Spring. How was this done in practice? And how was this system resisting reforms and voices of environmental concern?