44

SOCTEC 2
Science, Technology and Society 2
Master Lecture: Dr. Robert Javier
Department of Psychology, 4F South Wing Old Library DLSU-M

Topic 4: Science and Governance: the interplay between science, technology and
governance and the prospects for science based governance, the role of epistemic
communities, science-policy connections, the role of science and science-based institutions
in policy making.

Key Concept Points for Understanding:

Science and technology are important inputs to the development process, specifically
in political and economic development. They perform a significant role in the
development of the state and of capitalism. In this context, the scientist became an
important national resource for development.
However, there is a prevailing perception that scientists, whose work is important in
identifying and analyzing problems confronting the state and its citizens, find difficulty
in becoming useful in identifying solutions. Scientists are seen to be isolated in their
ivory towers, lost in their explorations and unmindful of the problems of the real world,
thereby rendering them too detached from the policy-making process,
In the same context, while science and technology have marched across the face of
history, altering societies, and have created profound changes in our lives, the scientist
and the technologist are nevertheless still perceived by most citizens as politically
irrelevant, if not useless.
The Philippines, just like any other country, is confronted with many serious problems,
most of which have diverse causes and even more diverse consequences. These
problems together threaten the security of society and its peoples.
o Poverty threatens the security of our economy
o Conflict among groups, especially between anti and pro Government forces,
and between ethnic groups, the rebellion in Mindanao and the insurgency
problemare serious threat to our nations political security.
o Agricultural problems caused both by human and natural factors pose serous
threats to our food security.
o Continuing pressures on the environment resulting from the needs of
development have led to environmental degradation, and have severely
threatened our environmental security.
The State, which is the institution whose main function is to oversee the welfare of its
citizen, is confronted with these serious problems. What complicates the situation is
the fact that these problems emerge in the context of globalization, wherein a global
system of market forces and the demands of global partners could provide limits to the
options of an independent and sovereign state like the Philippines.
Traditionally, the state was considered to be the only institution with the sole
responsibility to administer the countrys vast resources to promote the welfare of the
people and to pursue the common good. Recently, however, civil society institutions
and non-government institutions, such as NGOs, as well as the private sector, have
increasingly participated, either as direct service providers, or as partners of the state in
development interventions designed to address the various issues and concerns, from

45

poverty reduction, to environmental management, to political rights. This has led to an

institutionalization of the essence of governancein which both the state and civil
society are now involved in governing society to maintain social order and to address
the problems of development.
Ideally, society responds to public problems, such as those associated with the
development process, through the formulation and implementation of public policy.
Traditionally, the policy process has been usually seen as a domain of the politician.
However, this is not entirely correct. The policy-making process involves the
participation of three key actors:
o The policy maker, who is usually an elected politician, or public officer who is
accountable directly to the voters, or someone who is appointed by a public
authority. The policy maker is assumed to be serving the public interest when
s/he makes decisions as to what policy should be adopted vis--vis a particular
problem.
o The policy advocate, who is usually a group representing a sector of civil
society. The main work of the advocate is to mobilize support in favor or
against an issue or a policy, and to influence the nature and content of public
policy through various techniques of political advocacy and mobilization.
o The policy analyst, who is usually an individual who has technical background
on a particular issue. The analyst contributes to the policy process by making
an objective assessment of the nature and causes of a problem, as well as in
analyzing the impacts of a policy proposal or of an existing public policy.
While there may be scientists who become politicians, since they are also citizens, and
while some scientists become advocates (something which some scientists, particularly
those who adhere strictly to the science work ethic of neutrality and detachment, will
not be comfortable with), the natural domain of a scientist is policy analysis. Scientists
have the technical capability to act as policy consultants, or to participate in technical
policy working groups, and act as advisers to policy makers.
Science-Governance interplay
o Participation is an important aspect of governance, which has been defined in
the context of development and democratization. A core principle that has
emerged is a focus on rights-based mechanisms which seek to mainstream the
participation of and focus on the rights and needs of marginalized sectors,
including women, the poor, indigenous peoples and children.
o Governments address the challenges of globalization, such as the impacts of
market liberalization on the lives of these marginalized sectors. In this context,
policies emerge no longer through top-down mechanisms, but through venues
which enable these sectors to organize to affect fundamental policy changes.
Thus, a space emerges where alternative political actors and processes
challenge traditional politics in addressing social issues using democratic,
gender-equal, and participatory perspectives.
o An important ingredient that has to be mainstreamed in this alternative type of
politics is to recognize the role of a deconstructed science in the process of
governance.
o It is of common knowledge that development problems require both political as
well as technological solutions. Ideally, scientific knowledge leads to the
development of technologies that are used in the development process.

46
o
o

o
o

Science has been seen as a neutral, and therefore an apolitical force.

However, this view is not at all accurate.
As pointed out in SOCTEC1, science, while projecting itself in the context of an
ethic of neutrality, is actually a political domain in which power relations
influence the production of truth. Scientific knowledge is produced as
influenced by certain rules, rules that are by nature exclusionary. Thus, science
emerges in the context of an alienating, mostly male and elite dominated
world, wherein the production of knowledge is prone to elite control, both
within countries as well as transnationally in the global community.
For example, biotechnology is largely in the hands of transnational science-
industry complexes. Big corporations sequester control over scientific
knowledge, and even traditional knowledge, through the mechanisms of
patenting. When traditional knowledge is patented, it effectively leads its
alienation from the indigenous societies in which they are located and nurtured.
Another issue is that governance mechanisms fail to effectively utilize science
in problem solving and policy-making.
On the other hand, scientists, particularly those in the natural sciences but
including even some social scientists, are unable to translate their research into
readable forms that can become accessed by policy makers and advocates
who are not technically equipped. Many scientists are perceived to be too
detached from political realities.
This weak link between science and policy in the national context is further
worsened by lack of state support for scientific research. This leads to a
situation wherein scientists become dependent on external funds coming from
transnational sources, most of which carry their own agenda.
The weakness of the science-policy linkage is also attributable to the cultural
difference between politicians and policy makers and civil society advocates (or
those actors who are directly involved in the policy and governance domain) on
the one hand, and the scientists on the other. This constrains the development
of science-based governance mechanisms for addressing problems of society.
It is therefore important to point out that while there are now mechanisms that
enable the mainstreaming of participatory and alternative politics in
governance, there is still much to be done to mainstream science, and more
importantly, a deconstructed science in governance. This mainstreaming will
enable the critical engagement by alternative political movements the
exclusionary, elitist and patriarchal discourse that dominates Western science,
even as it also enables a critical engagement of the exclusionary, elitist and
patriarchal discourse that equally dominates traditional politics. Thus, the are
two important tasks:
The development of mechanisms to mainstream science in governance
The development of mechanisms to deconstruct science
It is, therefore, clear that we need a new kind of science, one that would be
more involved in policy and governance. This can only be achieved if one begins
to see science no longer as a neutral domain of knowledge, but is more as a
prescriptive activity that emerges to respond to the issues and problems of
society.
The following table compares the features of this new science to the old
science

47


Old Science

New Science

Emphasis on individual researcher
Emphasis on teams of researchers
Academic control over research
Research direction shaped by
direction
interaction with users
Curiosity and discipline driven
Problem and issue-based, multi- and
inter-disciplinary
Problems defined to minimize
Problems all contain large and
uncertainty in results
pervasive uncertainties
Local organizational knowledge base Diverse sources of knowledge and
networks of information
Quality judged by peer review
Judgment by users and peers
Apparent disinterest of researchers
Researchers are partisans (value
(value free)
laden)
Communication by scientific articles
Diverse forms of communication
Linear logic from results to action
Highly non-linear relationship
between results and action
Stakes are low
Stakes are high
Source: Lebel (2000), Synthesis Report, Chiang Mai Workshop on Sustainability
Science, drawn from the presentation of Robert Wasson

o

Fortunately, there is evidence that the link between science and policy is now
beginning to be institutionalized. Many NGOs have taken up science-based
advocacy in the areas of the environment, sustainable agriculture, global
warming, and public health, among others.
At the global level, this linkage is now seen in the emergence of many
international agreements, particularly with respect to the environment.
Examples of this are the various global conventions on the environment, such
as the Convention on Biological Diversity or the UN Framework Conference for
Climate Change.
It is interesting to point out that there has been an increasing participation of
scientists and academics in providing critical inputs to the formulation of these
global institutional arrangements, otherwise known as global environmental
regimes. There is now a growing acceptance of the idea that while global
governance is the expertise of trained diplomats, the crafting of meaningful
and valid agreements is also dependent on the work of scientists.
The linkage between policy and science has led to the emergence and
development of epistemic communities which simply refers to a community
of science-based policy analysts who are familiar both with the natural sciences
as well as with governance processes.
More specifically, epistemic communities are transnational associations of
knowledgeable experts in technical fields, and are organized as networks of
people whose existence is established and maintained through repeated
interaction in various settingsinternational meetings and conferences, joint
research projects, and involvement in international and nongovernmental

48

organizations. The growing success of epistemic communities in recent years is

largely a result of the globalization of information, through developments in
information technology and the internet, in which web-based and internet-
dependent virtual communities of science emerge.
The challenge now is how to replicate, and at the same time engage, this global
development at the local level, within states. This is necessary to address the
crucial task of linking science-based governance to the democratization process
at the national and local level.
There is now a potential to realize this, considering the fact that there are
already networks in civil society with science-based connections, and that there
are also now a growing number of natural scientists more directly involved in
policy advocacy. These scientists appreciate their roles in the development of
alternative governance systems and sustainable development processes.

REFERENCES:

Aronowitz, Stanley. 1988. Science as Power: Discourse and Ideology in Modern Society.
Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
Carter, Neil. 2001. The Politics of the Environment: Ideas, Activism, Policy. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Contreras, A. P. 2002. Locating the Political in the Ecological: Globalization, State-Civil Society
Articulations, and Environmental Governance in the Philippines. Manila, Philippines: De
La Salle University Press.
Dore, John. 2003. The Governance of Increasing Mekong Regionalism. In Social Challenges
for the Mekong Region. Mingsarn Kasoa-ard and John Dore, Eds. Chiang Mai: Social
Research Institute, Chiang Mai University.
Escobar, A. 1998. Whose Knowledge, Whose Nature? Biodiversity, Conservation, and the
Political Ecology of Social Movements, Journal of Political Ecology 5, 5382.
Haas, Peter M. 1992. Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy
Coordination, International Organization, 46, 1, pp.1-37.
Ham, C. and M. Hill. 1984. The Policy Process in the Modern Capitalist State. New York: St.
Martins Press.
Laungaramsri, P. 2000. Redefining Nature: Karen Ecological Knowledge and the Challenge to
the Modern Conservation Paradigm, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Washington.
Lebel, Louis. 2000. Synthesis Report of Chiang Mai Conference on Sustainability Science.
Pertierra, Raul. 2003. Science, Technology and Everyday Culture in the Philippines. Quezon City:
Institute of Philippine Culture.
Stott, P. 1999. Tropical Rain Forest: A Political Ecology of Myth-Making. London: The Institute of
Economic Affairs.
Stone, D. 1997. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. London; W.W. Norton and
Company
Viotti, Paul R. and Mark V. Kauppi. 2001. International Relations and World Politics: Security,
Economy and Identity. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.