3 . Environmental decisions : who knows best ? Home pagePrevious - NextRisky choices , soft d i s a s t e r s P r e f a c e S u m m a r y I n t r o d u c t i o nInformationReferencesWho governs the global environment ? Producing greener , consuming smarterThe programme Neither scientific expertise nor local knowledge can claim to be uniquely true or objective " Who has the knowledge needed to make the best - informed decisions on what ' s best for the environment ? Is it the natural scientist , the person in the street with local knowledge , or the informed citizen ? Can scientific knowledge and subjective value - judgements go hand - in - hand ? The advice of natural and social scientists can strongly influence policy decisions . Over the past decade , however , the exclusive authority of scientific expert knowledge has come into question , particularly where the environment is concerned . The perception that expert knowledge is neutral has been the first domino to fall . Traditional thinking drew a clear line between science and policy . In this conception , research supplied objective and secure analytical knowledge on which policy - makers base value and interest - laden decisions . However , as the research discussed in the last section suggests , the line between science and policy is inevitably blurred . Scientific approaches and results are bound to reflect value judgements and underlying assumptions about society . These assumptions , in turn , are related to the particular positions , locations and interests of expert institutions . Value judgements play a major role in many questions in which environmental science has a say , such as levels of health risk that can be regarded as tolerable , or the relative weight to be attached to local versus global effects of air pollution . Another dilemma is how far future ecological damage ought to affect today ' s decisions . Scientists are not necessarily experts on personal , ethical and religious matters - so why should they have a casting vote in such decisions ? See Box 7 : Whose assumptions count ? In addition , social scientists have underlined the existence and value of alternative forms of expertise . Examples are ' indigenous knowledges ' in the global South , or ' lay expertise ' and ' citizen science ' in the North . These local knowledges are embedded in cultural assumptions and sociopolitical values that can differ emphatically from ' expert ' science . Many expert - led environmental policies have failed and many have encountered local resistance . Such failures call mainstream scientific advice into question and lend greater force to arguments for taking alternative knowledges seriously . Forest policy initiatives are a conspicuous case in point . They have frequently been based on assessments of environmental change that are fundamentally contradicted by judgements from other perspectives , including those of local forest farmers and forest product users . Neither scientific expertise nor local knowledge can therefore claim to be uniquely true or objective . We have to accept that different people and institutions adopt different perceptions , values , interests and knowledges . There are many ways of defining environmental issues . The challenge is to bring together competing sources of expertise in a constructive way , while taking account of the interests of those who possess different kinds of knowledge . See Box 8 : Seeing the woodKey lessons arising from this area of GECP research include : Physical and social scientists should be more explicit about underlying judgements and framing assumptions . Policy - makers should avoid pushing social and natural scientists to give ' scientifically objective ' answers to essentially political questions . Different forms of expertise can provide alternative ways of understanding environmental problems , so testing underlying assumptions . In the face of environmental uncertainty and mixed perspectives within society , policy - making processes increasingly involve negotiation among groups with different knowledges . Box 7 : Whose assumptions count ? Andy Stirling ' s research shows how scientific knowledge embedded in expert assessments can be strongly conditioned by subjective ' framing assumptions ' that reflect particular sets of values and interests . Read more . .. Box 8 : Seeing the wood James Fairhead studied forest cover change in six West African countries , comparing national and international statistics with historical data and information on local knowledge and practices . Read more . .. Previous - Top of page - Next Contents - Summary - Information - References