Mapping of habitats is central to preserve biodiversity in Norway. This article describes the historic development of the methodology used to classify and assign value to nature types, a process that has been going on for almost ten years. A positivistic view of science has characterized the process, especially over the last few years, both among the authorities and in central specialist fora. This article discusses several challenges related to the development of the methodology. It is especially critical of Parliament’s demand for value-free methodology, which it argues is in fact impossible. Further, it discusses the need to employ expert opinion and to describe uncertainty. It also criticizes the lack of analyses that expose possible model errors of the methodology. This is especially applicable with respect to relevance and precision, where high precision in the method may increase the risk of failing to achieve the objective. The article concludes that sufficient focus has not been placed on the challenges that appear in the intersection between natural science and practical management during the development of the new methodology for habitat mapping. This process has demonstrated the importance of broad competence, of being open about choices and acknowledging the consequences of these, and of having enough patience to develop a good methodology.
{"title":"Kartlegging og verdisetting av naturtyper","authors":"Geir Gaarder, Kristin Wangen","doi":"10.23865/NOASP.63.CH9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23865/NOASP.63.CH9","url":null,"abstract":"Mapping of habitats is central to preserve biodiversity in Norway. This article describes the historic development of the methodology used to classify and assign value to nature types, a process that has been going on for almost ten years. A positivistic view of science has characterized the process, especially over the last few years, both among the authorities and in central specialist fora.\u0000This article discusses several challenges related to the development of the methodology. It is especially critical of Parliament’s demand for value-free methodology, which it argues is in fact impossible. Further, it discusses the need to employ expert opinion and to describe uncertainty. It also criticizes the lack of analyses that expose possible model errors of the methodology. This is especially applicable with respect to relevance and precision, where high precision in the method may increase the risk of failing to achieve the objective.\u0000The article concludes that sufficient focus has not been placed on the challenges that appear in the intersection between natural science and practical management during the development of the new methodology for habitat mapping. This process has demonstrated the importance of broad competence, of being open about choices and acknowledging the consequences of these, and of having enough patience to develop a good methodology.","PeriodicalId":126889,"journal":{"name":"Interessekonflikter i forskning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129480252","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
I. Bay-Larsen, Erlend A. T. Hermansen, Tone G. Bjørndal
In this chapter we explore how the geographical position of the marginal ice zone in the Barents Sea became the center of a hot political debate. In 2015, new data sets on the retreat of sea ice were introduced by the Norwegian government, indicating how petroleum drilling could take place without conflicting with the vulnerable ice ecosystem. In the public debate that followed, four different definitions of the ice edge zone were introduced, each providing different geographical positions of the ice edge. These multiple definitions directly corresponded to various political views on the exploration of petroleum in the Barents Sea. The analysis shows how ethical principles connected to scientific rigor and independence may be put on trial when conflicts of interests escalate in policy debates. This chapter demonstrates the mismatch between ethical ideals and practice in knowledge-based management, and discusses what their democratic implications might be.
{"title":"Den menneskeskapte iskanten – Om vitenskapelig sannhetssøken og uavhengighet i en kunnskapsbasert forvaltning","authors":"I. Bay-Larsen, Erlend A. T. Hermansen, Tone G. Bjørndal","doi":"10.23865/NOASP.63.CH6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23865/NOASP.63.CH6","url":null,"abstract":"In this chapter we explore how the geographical position of the marginal ice zone in the Barents Sea became the center of a hot political debate. In 2015, new data sets on the retreat of sea ice were introduced by the Norwegian government, indicating how petroleum drilling could take place without conflicting with the vulnerable ice ecosystem. In the public debate that followed, four different definitions of the ice edge zone were introduced, each providing different geographical positions of the ice edge. These multiple definitions directly corresponded to various political views on the exploration of petroleum in the Barents Sea. The analysis shows how ethical principles connected to scientific rigor and independence may be put on trial when conflicts of interests escalate in policy debates. This chapter demonstrates the mismatch between ethical ideals and practice in knowledge-based management, and discusses what their democratic implications might be.","PeriodicalId":126889,"journal":{"name":"Interessekonflikter i forskning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134604756","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
With the increased importance of patenting in emerging science and technology, publically funded research has also become increasingly influenced by commercial interests. In the wake of such developments central concerns within research ethics and patent ethics has gained new relevance. However, this has not materialized in research and patent policy debates in Norway. This paper provides an argument for the relevance of the rekindling of patent and research policy issues related to ethical and societal concerns for public research institutions in Norway. Further, due to an increasingly technocratic decision-making model of the patent system, important ethical and societal issues are left unanswered by current policy. This paper will focus on two aspects of current patent policy and practice. Firstly, the increased importance of commercial interests in research policy during the last 30 years has changed the incentives of public research. Secondly, patent law and the patent system has established a particular decision-making framework for how ethical and societal aspects of patents are addressed, particularly within the biopatent areas. This is exemplified with the evaluation of the AquaBounty-case in the Ethics Committee for Patent Cases. Furthermore, I discuss the relevance of the ethical responsibility of Norwegian public research institutions in current patent policy and how a range of complex ethical and societal issues evade public attention.
{"title":"Interesse- og verdikonflikter i skjæringspunktet mellom patentetikk og forskningsetikk","authors":"A. B. Hanssen","doi":"10.23865/noasp.63.ch3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23865/noasp.63.ch3","url":null,"abstract":"With the increased importance of patenting in emerging science and technology, publically funded research has also become increasingly influenced by commercial interests. In the wake of such developments central concerns within research ethics and patent ethics has gained new relevance. However, this has not materialized in research and patent policy debates in Norway. This paper provides an argument for the relevance of the rekindling of patent and research policy issues related to ethical and societal concerns for public research institutions in Norway. Further, due to an increasingly technocratic decision-making model of the patent system, important ethical and societal issues are left unanswered by current policy. This paper will focus on two aspects of current patent policy and practice. Firstly, the increased importance of commercial interests in research policy during the last 30 years has changed the incentives of public research. Secondly, patent law and the patent system has established a particular decision-making framework for how ethical and societal aspects of patents are addressed, particularly within the biopatent areas. This is exemplified with the evaluation of the AquaBounty-case in the Ethics Committee for Patent Cases. Furthermore, I discuss the relevance of the ethical responsibility of Norwegian public research institutions in current patent policy and how a range of complex ethical and societal issues evade public attention.","PeriodicalId":126889,"journal":{"name":"Interessekonflikter i forskning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132752288","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Researchers are increasingly challenged to adjust to interests defined outside their own disciplinary boundaries. This follows from more or less explicit expectations to seek interdisciplinary collaboration and partnership within the private and public sectors. How can researchers identify and handle conflicts of interest in this situation? To answer this question, we first defend the validity of the traditional ideal of disinterested research. This ideal still provides a key guideline for identifying conflicts of interest in research: the freedom of research. This freedom should not, however, be misunderstood as disciplinary confinement or as freedom to ignore societal interests. We suggest that the crucial issue is the freedom and duty to be oriented towards the subject matter itself.
{"title":"Interessekonflikter i forskning: Om forskningens saksorienterte forpliktelse","authors":"Rune Nydal, Berge Solberg, Bjørn K. Myskja","doi":"10.23865/noasp.63.ch1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23865/noasp.63.ch1","url":null,"abstract":"Researchers are increasingly challenged to adjust to interests defined outside their own disciplinary boundaries. This follows from more or less explicit expectations to seek interdisciplinary collaboration and partnership within the private and public sectors. How can researchers identify and handle conflicts of interest in this situation? To answer this question, we first defend the validity of the traditional ideal of disinterested research. This ideal still provides a key guideline for identifying conflicts of interest in research: the freedom of research. This freedom should not, however, be misunderstood as disciplinary confinement or as freedom to ignore societal interests. We suggest that the crucial issue is the freedom and duty to be oriented towards the subject matter itself.","PeriodicalId":126889,"journal":{"name":"Interessekonflikter i forskning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131649649","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This chapter analyzes the establishment of ecosystem-based petroleum management in Norway since 2001. Based on interviews with researchers involved in the processes and document analysis, it is argued that research has a much less autonomous role for policy development than the public debate presupposes. Rather than being a scientific corrective to policy, research is deeply intertwined with political decision-making and management processes. This is often the case when research is to inform policymakers. What is particular in this case, is the organization of research. The core research institutions are themselves hybrids, as the boundary between science and policy is drawn within these institutions. This way of organizing research is resource-effective, flexible and secure policy-relevant knowledge creation. However, it also reduces researchers’ autonomy, it puts limits on when and how they choose to participate in public debates, and it can create a false impression of knowledge consensus. The prevailing organization of research makes it easier to define policy decisions as “knowledge-based”, but at the same time potentially limits the quality of knowledge available to the public. Rather than asking for “purer” knowledge production, we need to discuss the consequences of different ways of organizing policy-relevant knowledge creation.
{"title":"Forskning for politikk: Om uavhengighet i direktoratsektoren","authors":"Gisle Andersen","doi":"10.23865/NOASP.63.CH7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23865/NOASP.63.CH7","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter analyzes the establishment of ecosystem-based petroleum management in Norway since 2001. Based on interviews with researchers involved in the processes and document analysis, it is argued that research has a much less autonomous role for policy development than the public debate presupposes. Rather than being a scientific corrective to policy, research is deeply intertwined with political decision-making and management processes. This is often the case when research is to inform policymakers. What is particular in this case, is the organization of research. The core research institutions are themselves hybrids, as the boundary between science and policy is drawn within these institutions. This way of organizing research is resource-effective, flexible and secure policy-relevant knowledge creation. However, it also reduces researchers’ autonomy, it puts limits on when and how they choose to participate in public debates, and it can create a false impression of knowledge consensus. The prevailing organization of research makes it easier to define policy decisions as “knowledge-based”, but at the same time potentially limits the quality of knowledge available to the public. Rather than asking for “purer” knowledge production, we need to discuss the consequences of different ways of organizing policy-relevant knowledge creation.","PeriodicalId":126889,"journal":{"name":"Interessekonflikter i forskning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128830712","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Actors who seek to restrict scientists’ academic freedom often believe they have legitimate reasons for doing so, and this belief often relies on misunderstandings regarding the nature and rationale of freedom in science. This chapter explains principles of freedom in science, why these principles matter, and how they can be protected when interests conflict. The authors distinguish between four freedoms in science: freedom of subject, freedom of source, freedom of interpretation, and freedom of speech. These freedoms each serve their scientific purpose and are – each to their own degree – important to the legitimacy of science. The authors argue that the freedoms of interpretation and speech, especially, must be absolute in science. This chapter delves particularly into the freedom of speech, because interested parties frequently attack this freedom when they fight over knowledge presented to the public. The authors draw on their experiences from the Norwegian scientific community to exemplify how problems of academic freedom may arise and eventually be solved.
{"title":"Forskerens frihet når interesser vil styre","authors":"Stig Strandli Gezelius, Klaus Mittenzwei","doi":"10.23865/NOASP.63.CH2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23865/NOASP.63.CH2","url":null,"abstract":"Actors who seek to restrict scientists’ academic freedom often believe they have legitimate reasons for doing so, and this belief often relies on misunderstandings regarding the nature and rationale of freedom in science. This chapter explains principles of freedom in science, why these principles matter, and how they can be protected when interests conflict. The authors distinguish between four freedoms in science: freedom of subject, freedom of source, freedom of interpretation, and freedom of speech. These freedoms each serve their scientific purpose and are – each to their own degree – important to the legitimacy of science. The authors argue that the freedoms of interpretation and speech, especially, must be absolute in science. This chapter delves particularly into the freedom of speech, because interested parties frequently attack this freedom when they fight over knowledge presented to the public. The authors draw on their experiences from the Norwegian scientific community to exemplify how problems of academic freedom may arise and eventually be solved.","PeriodicalId":126889,"journal":{"name":"Interessekonflikter i forskning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125629368","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This essay problematizes roles in environmental impact assessments (EIAs), with the Norwegian EIA regulations as the outset for discussions about trust, legitimacy and quality in EIAs. While Norwegian regulations formerly included rules for the organisation of EIA and defined clear roles for its execution, the current regulations lack definitions of roles, and instead focus on procedure and topical quality. The lack of focus on roles in EIA regulations are in stark contrast to concern for impartiality in public decision-making in general. The paper includes examples of actors assuming more than one role in an EIA process. They are for instance combining the roles of developer and expert assessor, NGO and expert assessor. I argue why this mixing of roles can weaken important objectives for EIAs, such as being participatory, transparent and credible. The Nordic countries organise the EIA processes differently. In Sweden and Denmark, regional state authorities lead and organise EIAs, while in Norway this is left to the developer. The various models provide a good basis for further discussion on how to best organise EIAs to ensure their independence and credibility. More research is needed to reveal the underlying causes of the organisational changes in Norwegian EIA, e.g. within the framework of post-normal science, asking questions not only about good or bad quality, but also the more interesting what kind of quality EIAs should possess.
{"title":"Økt legitimitet til konsekvensutredninger i Norge – Kan økt bevissthet om organisering og endrede roller styrke tilliten til ordningen?","authors":"Øystein Aas","doi":"10.23865/noasp.63.ch8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23865/noasp.63.ch8","url":null,"abstract":"This essay problematizes roles in environmental impact assessments (EIAs), with the Norwegian EIA regulations as the outset for discussions about trust, legitimacy and quality in EIAs. While Norwegian regulations formerly included rules for the organisation of EIA and defined clear roles for its execution, the current regulations lack definitions of roles, and instead focus on procedure and topical quality. The lack of focus on roles in EIA regulations are in stark contrast to concern for impartiality in public decision-making in general. The paper includes examples of actors assuming more than one role in an EIA process. They are for instance combining the roles of developer and expert assessor, NGO and expert assessor. I argue why this mixing of roles can weaken important objectives for EIAs, such as being participatory, transparent and credible. The Nordic countries organise the EIA processes differently. In Sweden and Denmark, regional state authorities lead and organise EIAs, while in Norway this is left to the developer. The various models provide a good basis for further discussion on how to best organise EIAs to ensure their independence and credibility. More research is needed to reveal the underlying causes of the organisational changes in Norwegian EIA, e.g. within the framework of post-normal science, asking questions not only about good or bad quality, but also the more interesting what kind of quality EIAs should possess.","PeriodicalId":126889,"journal":{"name":"Interessekonflikter i forskning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124981607","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Major value conflicts have been played out in the media about farmed salmon in Norway. One of the main controversies is whether salmon lice from aquaculture pens significantly affect the survival of wild salmon at stock level. Research related to this topic, which is key to knowledge-based management of aquaculture in Norway, has been criticized. The quality of this research has been claimed to be low and not applicable, and even claims of misconduct have been expressed. Besides conflicting interests, we argue that uncertainty is the core of the controversy. In this chapter we look at statements in selected texts from articles, reports and the media which can be linked to uncertainty and quality in research related to the effects of salmon lice. We discuss these statements in terms of qualitative aspects of uncertainty in knowledge. Further, we discuss the roles of these uncertainties in terms of selected principles within research ethics: in communication of uncertainty, the precautionary principle and quality of research.
{"title":"Kunnskapsbasert forvaltning og dilemmaer knyttet til usikkerhet","authors":"Maiken Bjørkan, Kjellrun Hiis Hauge","doi":"10.23865/NOASP.63.CH5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23865/NOASP.63.CH5","url":null,"abstract":"Major value conflicts have been played out in the media about farmed salmon in Norway. One of the main controversies is whether salmon lice from aquaculture pens significantly affect the survival of wild salmon at stock level. Research related to this topic, which is key to knowledge-based management of aquaculture in Norway, has been criticized. The quality of this research has been claimed to be low and not applicable, and even claims of misconduct have been expressed. Besides conflicting interests, we argue that uncertainty is the core of the controversy. In this chapter we look at statements in selected texts from articles, reports and the media which can be linked to uncertainty and quality in research related to the effects of salmon lice. We discuss these statements in terms of qualitative aspects of uncertainty in knowledge. Further, we discuss the roles of these uncertainties in terms of selected principles within research ethics: in communication of uncertainty, the precautionary principle and quality of research.","PeriodicalId":126889,"journal":{"name":"Interessekonflikter i forskning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122839947","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Lately, we have seen several overt attempts from politicians and corporate interests to steer research in the directions they prefer. However, such attempts are always met with outrage and resistance, and they lead to extensive public debate. We contend that more subtle and hidden control over research is exercised on a day-today basis, yet it is rarely discussed. Research programs and new research centers are often designed based on premises that are no less political than clumsy attempts at controlling scientists. Programs are designed to stimulate economic growth, energy production, commodification, job creation, a more effective government, etc. These premises are rarely articulated and almost never discussed. Many Norwegian and EU research programs will automatically exclude research that questions them. This means that only research that is “useful” for particular interests is funded. The claim that this form of “usefulness” is universally good is in fact strongly political. This hidden political control impairs our possibilities to conduct research to facilitate alternative societal development trajectories and serve civic society. It should be discussed much more openly and critically than is the case today.
{"title":"Den skjulte styringen","authors":"K. Skogen, Audun Ruud, Olve Krange","doi":"10.23865/noasp.63.ch4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23865/noasp.63.ch4","url":null,"abstract":"Lately, we have seen several overt attempts from politicians and corporate interests to steer research in the directions they prefer. However, such attempts are always met with outrage and resistance, and they lead to extensive public debate. We contend that more subtle and hidden control over research is exercised on a day-today basis, yet it is rarely discussed. Research programs and new research centers are often designed based on premises that are no less political than clumsy attempts at controlling scientists. Programs are designed to stimulate economic growth, energy production, commodification, job creation, a more effective government, etc. These premises are rarely articulated and almost never discussed. Many Norwegian and EU research programs will automatically exclude research that questions them. This means that only research that is “useful” for particular interests is funded. The claim that this form of “usefulness” is universally good is in fact strongly political. This hidden political control impairs our possibilities to conduct research to facilitate alternative societal development trajectories and serve civic society. It should be discussed much more openly and critically than is the case today.","PeriodicalId":126889,"journal":{"name":"Interessekonflikter i forskning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129063265","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：