Abstracts

-- Back to conference schedule --

Monday, February 26

2:30 – 4:30 Session 5

5A. Citizen Experts on the Farm, in the Field

Ben Linder Room, Erb Memorial Union

Chair: Laura Morrison, Oregon State University

Differing Views and Similar Perceptions: Enhancing Knowledge Exchange Between Farmers, Soil Protection Agencies, and Researchers

Patricia Fry, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich

In order to suggest new forms of collaboration between farmers and scientists in soil protection I compared their perception of soil quality using qualitative methods like participative observation and narrative interviews. By choosing the local practice of knowledge production as a basis for comparison, a new perspective on the differences and similarities between farmer and scientific perception was found. Farmers’ and scientists’ views differ depending on the aims, methods and contexts of their respective work. The view of farmers is characterized as ‘broad’, the view of scientists as ‘deep’. The view of scientists working at soil protection agencies changes between ‘deep’ and ‘broad’. These findings Ð differing views of farmers and scientists Ð are supported by the theory ‘Denkstil’ by Ludwik Fleck (1935). Similar characteristics of farmer and scientific perception were found. Meaning is generated by the succession of momentary, comparative and contextual perception. Both farmers and scientists recognize soil and plant properties by comparing single observations within space and time. These differences are valued depending on the aim of their work and the context of their observation. These findings -- similar perception of meaning by farmers and scientists -- are supported by the theory of tacit knowledge by Michael Polanyi (1958). Taking seriously the differing views and similar perception of farmers and scientists leads to a better exchange of knowledge in both directions. The notion of trade (Galison 1997) might give a new impulse towards finding forms of knowledge exchange other than doctor-patient or teacher-pupil relationships.

Science and Citizen Task Forces in Farmland Preservation

Katrina Korfmacher, Rochester Institute of Technology & Tomas Koontz, Ohio State University

In a wide range of environmental policy areas, there is an increasing emphasis on community-based environmental management, also known as collaborative environmental management. The purpose of community management is to shift decision-making from government officials to citizens and stakeholders. The goal is to use citizen input, knowledge, and values to design localized solutions that can be effectively implemented by stakeholders and agencies alike. Such approaches have become increasingly common in recent years in environmental policy arenas ranging from fisheries management to watershed protection to land-use planning.

While increased stakeholder and community participation may lead to a more empowered, committed citizenry and greater environmental protection, it raises several questions about the interaction between democracy and science. That is, does the use of science in environmental decision making change when the locus of decision-making is shifted away from agencies with their bureaucratic “experts” to stakeholder groups? Does the credibility of locally-based information increase? Is the capacity to analyze and integrate complex information reduced? Does this make adaptive management and the incremental reduction of uncertainty more or less feasible? What are the overall implications for both democratically and scientifically sound decisions?

These questions are explored in the context of farmland preservation planning by citizen task forces in Ohio. In 1999, rural counties in Ohio were offered a one-time, $10,000 grant to produce a farmland preservation plan in connection with ongoing state efforts to implement farmland preservation. Those counties that accepted the offer convened stakeholder task forces to analyze the status of agricultural lands and resources and to make recommendations for how to protect them. A total of 61 counties submitted plans; this study focuses on ten of these plans that reveal different approaches to the planning process. Analysis of plan documents, combined with task force member interviews, reveal patterns of decision-making processes and policy recommendations.

5B. Theatre for Environmental Awareness: a Participatory Workshop

Gerlinger Lounge, Gerlinger Hall

Presenters: Richard Gale, Sonoma State University and Leslie Bentley, New Mexico Tech

All too often, relationship between people and the environment is presented as a mine field of disciplinary turf wars and conflicting agendas. Academics, activists, citizens, researchers, politicians, and policy makers speak in different languages, utilize different approaches, anticipant different outcomes. True conversations are rare, and the interchange is often little more than a battle of monologues. Yet environmental issues can rarely be grasped completely from any single perspective, and a first step on the road to understanding and awareness might be found in a different kind of dialogue. There is a dialogical tradition in theatre that can illuminate and enlighten in ways that are not available to the other arts, social sciences, or sciences. And there is an affinity between theatre and activism, a natural bridge between the way we experience the space of performance and the way we interact with our environment, that can be utilized to achieve greater understanding and a clearer sense of purpose. This workshop will offer conference participants an opportunity to explore environmental issues and conflicts through a different venue, and our hope is that by developing a physical nomenclature centered on environmental awareness, participants will learn to create a dialogue that goes beyond narrow disciplinary perspectives. While this workshop will make use of specific physical activities taken from Boal's "Theatre of the Oppressed" and other practices, the themes and questions for investigation will spring from and be interrogated by the participants.

5C. Expanding the Focus: Health in the Public’s Interest

Fir Room, Erb Memorial Union

Chair: Sheryl Thornburn Bird, University of Oregon

Toxic Risk and Environmental Justice: Reevaluating Evidentiary Norms

Lori Gruen, Department of Philosophy, Wesleyan University

Environmental justice activists, particularly those living in communities at risk, face the daunting challenge of proving that their various health ailments are caused by the toxics to which they are exposed. In order to be compensated for being placed at risk of exposure or actually being contaminated, communities of color and poor communities must educate themselves about toxic chemicals, collect health data from their community, and review government regulations for toxic substances. Even when they do this, and do it well, they are still denied legal recourse. Currently, in order to hold government or industry responsible for the clean-up of the places where we live, work, and play, an unreasonable burden of proof is placed on the sick, the poor, the poisoned.

I’m trying to argue that the burden of proof is located in the wrong place both from a scientific perspective and from the perspective of social justice. When it comes to exposure to toxic chemicals the “causal” standard is too high; there are too many other environmental variables that most communities at risk are exposed to, variables that cannot be controlled for. In addition, classical epidemiological studies cannot be carried out by poor communities or communities of color in virtue of their lack of access to resources (health resources, financial resources, educational resources). Unfortunately, much of the popular epidemiological work does not establish a strong enough case for government intervention in remediation. New thinking about community based scientific standards is thus more important than ever.

Bringing Environment and Society into Epidemiology: A Multilevel Analysis of Low Birth Weight Births in Missouri

Philip Howard, Department of Rural Sociology, University of Missouri

Epidemiologists often focus on individual-level health-related risk factors, such as smoking, diet and exercise. A "critical" minority of health scientists suggests that more attention needs to be devoted to wider, community-level factors that lead to disease, such as social contexts and environmental exposure to toxics. Until recently, most studies were performed at only one level of analysis. Although data can be collected at many different hierarchical levels (for example students, classrooms, schools, or school districts), methodological constraints required focusing on a single level.

Recent developments in statistical analysis enable researchers to control for risk factors at the micro-level while investigating the influence of macro-level factors. These quantitative models involve the simultaneous integration of data collected at two or more levels of analysis. Compared to single-level analyses, they more closely approximate the complexity of disease etiology and help to avoid a false micro/macro dichotomy. They also open up new challenges, such as uncovering the ways in which variables measured at different levels interact.

The strengths and limitations of multilevel modeling for epidemiologic research are illustrated with study of low birth weight births in the state of Missouri. The results demonstrate that macro- and micro-level variables are both important, as are the relationships between these levels. They also suggest that the science of epidemiology would benefit from an expanded focus. A greater consideration of environmental and social contributors to health and disease need not, and should not, require dismissing the importance of micro-level contributors.

Re-orienting Reproductive Biology from a People's Science Perspective

Swatija Manorama, Vacha Women's Resource Center, Mumbai, India

Scientific research is no longer considered as a separate, virtually autonomous sphere of activity. It is conducted more and more with definite applications in mind and the time gap between lab and production floor has become very small and continues to decrease. Moreover, the presumption of an intrinsic benevolent and progressive nature of science has been proved wrong. There is thus an urgent need for those who are likely to be most affected by scientific activity to inspect and influence the course it takes. Scientific research developed with the collaboration of an informed citizenry is the needed response. It is important to realize the scope of this collaboration, because it involves a discussion about re-orientation, a paradigm shift in the ways in which research questions are asked and research directions are set. In this context, this paper reflects on the reorientation of reproductive biology and the experiences of attempting to situate it within a paradigm of people's science and the feminist movement.

This paper will discuss the People's Science Movement in Maharashtra State, India and its attempt to demystify sexuality and reproductive processes in a culture where such focus is considered taboo. Limitations of the movement will be discussed, such as the necessity of recognizing reproduction as a matter of joint action by men and women and to see sexuality and reproduction as a shared responsibility. If such issues are taken 'seriously' by science, a more fruitful interaction between scientific research and public interest science may emerge.

5D. Nature/Culture Interactions: Dismantling the Realism/Social Constructivism Divide

Walnut Room, Erb Memorial Union

Chair: Sharyn Clough, Rowan University

Who Created Factory Farms? Transitioning from Swine Farming to Pork Production

Dawn Coppin. Department of Sociology, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

An increasing amount of interdisciplinary research has been conducted on the social construction of nature, yet few of these studies have examined the reconfiguration of social life along with and at the same time as nature is being transformed. The purpose of this talk is to explore this mutual construction of nature and society with specific attention to large-scale confinement swine facilities. I aim to show how farmers, pigs, and agribusiness are linked and mutually transformed as the swine industry moves towards intensive confinement. I argue that agricultural change is too often portrayed as a deterministic force that cannot be resisted, when instead the current system is a constantly evolving system that has come about through the active involvement and resistance of many social, natural, and physical entities. Such an approach is more optimistic and highlights the power that each of us has, rather than viewing power as being something that is held and controlled by an elite few. I close with a discussion of the possible consequences that acknowledging the mutual construction of society and nature has for academic and activist pursuits.

Beyond Constructivism – Biological Technoscience

Catharina Landström, New Humanities, University of Western Sydney

This paper argues that insights gained through analysis of biological control is of relevance for issues debated by 'realists' and 'social constructivists'. At stake in this controversy is whether science discovers entities existing prior to, and independently of, the investigation of them or if the entities discovered by science are the results of the investigators social location. I will argue that looking at scientific work that challenges the framing definitions made by 'realists' and 'social constructivists' enables us to think beyond the stalemate of these positions.

'Biological control' refers to research and practices intended to diminish the population size of an organism considered a pest by the introduction of another organism that preys upon it. Contemporary biological control efforts require laboratory and field research as well as political decision-making and socio-technical protocols for use.

In this field the traditional demarcation between intervention and observation is untenable. Without intervention no observation. The temporal sequence of theory, hypothesis, experiment, field trial and application is also irrelevant. Theories about the way a unique ecosystem will change with the introduction of a new species can only have weight after field experiments have been conducted. Taken together this means that the division between controlled space and 'reality out there' is impossible to maintain. The character of the activity apparently makes the boundary between 'science' and 'reality' permeable. This science does not only produce texts about reality it also produces reality.

Bt, Beta Carotene, and the Big MACCs: Commodification and the Destruction of Efficacy

Shepherd Ogden, The Cook’s Garden

On the one hand American agriculture can be seen as a huge success, at least when it is viewed strictly through an economic lens, despite being a natural process. This has led to the industrialism of our entire agro-food system, and the nature of both the scientific and economic views have tended to obscure the costs.

A similar process has occurred in the field of food processing, affecting nutrition and consequently health.

Mass production and distribution requires commodification -- the reduction of diversity to a reproducible, consistent “product” across time and space to achieve their claimed efficiencies and the consequent simplification of both our outer and inner ecologies interferes with natural feedback systems between humans and their environment.

Thus while Americans arguably have one of the highest standards of living in the world, and among the well-off there is little incidence on malnutrition or infectious epidemic disease, there have been mostly hidden costs associated with these benefits: we now have high rates of obesity, heart disease and cancer. We have, essentially, only traded third world diseases for first world diseases.

5E. Perceptions of Environmental Risk: Citizens versus Scientists

Maple Room, Erb Memorial Union

Chair: Gaylen Martin, University of Oregon

Science, Objectivity, and Normative Judgments for Environmental Policy

Heather Douglas, Department of Philosophy, University of Puget Sound

This essay will address what we might mean when we make demands of and on "objectivity" in science used for making environmental policy. The term "objective" has several different meanings, which often get conflated. Do we mean objective, in the sense that we have gained access to real objects in the world? Do we mean objective, in the sense of free of subjective or personal influences? Do we mean objective, in some sense of agreed upon by all (or some key set of) observers? Some areas of science may be able to satisfy several of these definitions adequately, but I will argue that we should not expect the science used for environmental policy-making to be able to satisfy either of the first two definitions. I will detail why science used in risk assessments is not objective in these two senses, pinning hopes on the third definition of objectivity for resolving disputes in this area. Being clear on what we can expect of environmental science will help both citizens and policy-makers make better use of science. It may also redefine what we should expect of scientists, clarifying the role of normative and ethical judgments in science.

Risk Perceptions of Global Climate Change

Tony Leiserowitz, Environmental Studies, University of Oregon

The international debate over global climate change has shifted -- from questions of “Is it happening?” to “ What do we do about it?” World conferences on the issue have convened in Rio de Janeiro (1992), Kyoto (1997), Buenos Aires (1998), Bonn (1999), and the Hague (2000) in the attempt to limit anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in response to scientific warnings of massive, global-scale shifts in the biogeochemical cycles of the present climate system.

The United States is currently the world’s largest consumer of energy and producer of greenhouse gases. American policymakers are reluctant, however, to seriously engage an issue that challenges the fossil fuel consumption driving the economy.

Does the American public perceive global climate change as a real threat? What specifically do they fear about it? Will these risk perceptions translate into strong support for mitigation? The answers to these questions will fundamentally shape the political context within which environmental decision makers struggle to find scientifically appropriate and publicly acceptable solutions to this global problem.

This paper will discuss current research on these questions and highlight the important role of affective imagery in the formation of public risk perceptions.

Risk Assessment and Hazardous Waste Sites: Case Histories in Citizen Involvement

Teresa Sabol Spezio, Environmental Science, University of Oregon

Current risk assessment practices have a tendency to abstract the place-based conditions of perceived risk in interactions between humans and their environments. I will show through case studies of past and present risk assessment practices how the changing methods of risk assessment affect the role of citizens in the decision making process at hazardous waste sites. U.S. EPA's current definition of risk assessment does not include the involvement of the citizens affected. Risk assessment is defined as "one tool used in risk management. It is the process that scientists and government officials use to estimate the increased risk of health problems in people who are exposed to different amounts of toxic substances." U.S. EPA further states that the process of risk assessment is used to "help scientists evaluate the risks associated with emissions of pollutants."

The current methods allow and encourage industry and government to apply information from laboratory studies and other sites to ascertain the perceived risks at the sites. Very few epidemiology studies and other surveys of citizens are performed during the risk assessment process. The use of non-placed-based scientific information in the practice of risk assessment has fundamentally changed the relationship between citizens, industry and government since citizens' perceived and actual risks are usually excluded from the risk assessment equation. With these methods, citizens are forced to become more familiar with the methods of risk assessments and the studies and statistical analysis associated with the process. I propose to briefly explain current risk assessment practices and then present case studies in the changing role of the citizen.

5F. Reconciliation with Nature: Stories from Down Under

Library Browsing Room, Knight Library

Chair: Anna Carr, The Australian National University

Reconciliation in Australia is a unique social configuration within the wider domain of decolonization in settler societies. This panel aims both to stretch the meaning of the term to include ‘nature’ as well as societies, and to examine from an Australian perspective the benefits of enhanced possibilities for meaning.

Australia differs from other major Anglophone settler societies in that settlers made no treaties with Indigenous people. In the absence of formal mechanisms for making peace, Australians are developing informal processes. Particularly at the grass roots level, Australians have developed initiatives that are innovative, open-ended, subject to on-going negotiation, and often inclusive of the non-human world.

Reconciliation with nature, we contend, poses a similar problematic: how to find paths toward peace when you never formally declared war. Each of us will consider different conversations and we welcome dialogue with our international audience. The three papers reflect the many-sidedness of conversations about taking nature seriously, and open up for discussion the idea that conversations of reconciliation must include ‘nature’ as a participant.

Debbie Rose (‘Reconciliation and Indigenous Australians’) will consider Indigenous models for peaceful relationships with nature. Her goal is disruptive; to examine some of the ways in which indigenous ecological knowledge requires settlers to rethink some of their basic assumptions about nature and society.

Libby Robin (‘The strangeness of Australian nature’) will look at the relations between nature and nation as represented in the new National Museum of Australia. She will consider the place of international western science in the definition of strangeness and familiarity in a southern land. One of the key narrative lines in the museum is the shift from Australia as a strange place to a familiar one – the story of settlers coming to feel at home. What happens when acceptance of the landscape entails acceptance of the unreconciled past embedded there?

Anna Carr (‘Science in society: reconciliation?’) will turn to the question of reconciling science with society at a time when trust in science is at a low ebb. She proposes a conversational model of negotiation and partnerships involving nature, professional science, and community science.

-- Back to conference schedule --