Environmental History and Science at the World Congress

Guimar�es -- world capital of environmental history (Source: Feliciano Guimar�es)

I've seen some great presentations so far at the World Congress of Environmental History, here in beautiful Guimar�es.  And part of the challenge of choosing panels to attend has been the abundance of papers discussing science and other forms of knowledge.  Environmental historians are obviously thinking seriously about the history of science and the politics of knowledge.

Here are a few talks I've seen that presented interesting perspectives on science and environmental history:

Peter Alagona discussed the shifting baselines concept.  As originally conceived by Daniel Pauly, a fisheries scientist, this concept suggests that perceptions of environmental change are influenced not only by current conditions, but by fading memories of the past � including the loss of knowledge of earlier environments.  The result is that the standard for evaluating "acceptable" environmental change keeps shifting: for example, we forget how there used to be lots of big fish, and so today we are content with smaller fish.  Peter outlined lots of interesting implications of this concept: about how we understand nature, evaluate the reliability of evidence, compose narratives of environmental change, and relate knowledge to action.

Two talks about the Antarctic examined science in interesting ways.  Peder Roberts gave a great talk that included an analysis of the role of scientists in postwar Antarctic geopolitics and resource claims, noting how national claims to the continent have been asserted through scientific activity, and, raising a different theme, how perceptions of the "pristine" nature of the Antarctic contributed to the continent's role in measuring global environmental change.

And Sebastian Grevsm�hl gave a terrific paper about the formation of knowledge about the ozone "hole" over the Antarctic during the 1980s.  He compared the work of British and American atmospheric scientists, seeking to explain a paradox: although British scientists were pursuing a more modest "local" approach to study of the ozone layer, and American NASA scientists, with their access to much greater resources, were pursuing a global approach, the British were first to identify the hole.  This work, of course, received enormous attention, provoking action that led to the Montreal Protocol and controls on CFC production.  Sebastian demonstrated the value of examining the practices and material cultures of scientists � and not just the knowledge they produce.

Jonathan Peyton and Matt Dyce gave an interesting pair of papers that examined different aspects of how environmental and engineering knowledge is used in the evaluation of resource projects, and how resources themselves are mapped and evaluated through various technological means, including aerial photography and GIS � invoking the notion of "professional vision".

Simone Schleper examined the International Biological Programme's conservation section during the 1960s, outlining the contrasting approaches to applying ecological knowledge proposed during its early years.  One approach, proposed by Max Nicholson was a universal, systems-based approach modeled after surveys by the Nature Conservancy; the other approach, sponsored by UNESCO, allowed for more input of local expertise.

And finally, one panel offered several perspectives on science and the international environment.  Shoko Mizuno surveyed the early days of science and international development, including the 1949 United Nations Scientific Conference on the Conservation and Utilization of Resource.  The episode raises interesting issues about the relation between colonial science and emerging postwar resource management perspectives � particularly the contentious issue of defining resources themselves as either a global issue for experts, or one that requires local knowledge.  Hans Schouwenburg presented an interesting statistical analysis of 21 international conservation conferences between 1913 and 1992, tracking where the 4000 participants came from (at first from western Europe, but increasingly from the United States), who they were (scientific experts dominated after the 1950s, along with economists and lawyers), and gender divisions (almost entirely male until fairly recently).  Hrvoje Petric discussed anti-dam and development activism on the Drava and Mura rivers in central Europe since the 1980s, and the eventual formation of a five-nation biosphere reserve; while he didn't focus on expertise, he did note that ecologists also participated in these efforts.  And Johan G�rdebo examined Swedish and European experience with remote sensing, with interesting conclusions about how images from space are interpreted, often in unexpected and serendipitous ways � a case study of how scientific data can have a life of its own.

There are many other papers listed in the conference program that deal with the production, application, and contestation of science and knowledge � far more than one person can experience!  (I was also impressed by the attention given to these topics at another environmental history conference earlier this year.)  Five themes seem to have been especially evident in talks I've seen here in Guimar�es:

�      Understanding, and critiquing, assertions of the authority of science

�      The assumptions embedded in knowledge regarding the appropriate relations between science and society

�      The political and economic roles of scientific knowledge

�      The processes by which knowledge is constructed � both their cognitive and material/technological dimensions

�      The role of experts in defining and contesting the scale of environmental issues and phenomena.

So I think it's safe to say that environmental history is getting serious about its relationship with the history of science and STS.  Perhaps it's time to talk about co-habiting?