To trace the history of science, it's a good idea to follow the money. The source of research funding � government agencies, corporations, foundations or communities � often determines the questions that scientists ask, where they do their research, and who will own the results.
And there are some interesting developments happening in environmental research funding these days. I've written before about some of the impacts of industry funding � an often controversial topic. But there's also the emerging significance of private individuals supporting research.
One such case was reported this week. (It was also the subject of an article last year.) As Mark Hume reports in The Globe and Mail, Eric Peterson and Christina Munck have spent about $70 million over the last decade on environmental research on Canada's Pacific Coast.
There are many implications of this, worth the attention of historians of science and environmental historians. Much of the funding is to support field stations in remote areas where it would be otherwise impossible to do research. This allows a critical mass of science projects to be concentrated in one location, setting up, in effect, a local research ecosystem, generating environmental knowledge that would not otherwise exist. (I wrote about the implications of this recently in the Journal of the History of Biology.)
That these individuals are supporting research on this scale also reflects the key role of science in environmental activism. A quote from the World Wildlife Fund expresses this intersection of science and advocacy:
�We pride ourselves at the World Wildlife Fund in being a science-based conservation organization. We have 50 years of global field work behind us and a proven track record of research, policy development and responsible advocacy. Core to our mission is giving voice to threats to biodiversity and the world�s natural systems that are brought to light by science.�
One of the outcomes of alternative science funding is the formation of a much more pluralistic research landscape, in which support is provided by a variety of agencies: government, universities, industry, environmental organizations and foundations. This, in turn, influences how science is used in environmental debates � and eventually, the consequences of these debates themselves. Various environmental concerns and impacts get attention that might otherwise be ignored. Locations where research is hard to do become centres of science because of support for research stations.
When I gave a talk on this topic at the American Society for Environmental History, I identified various consequences of alternative funding of environmental science, suggesting that it:
� Forced issues on the research agenda that would otherwise be neglected
� Challenged regulatory authorities, by undermining their authority and their decisions regarding priorities
� Catalyzed the involvement of academic scientists in controversial topics
� Encouraged formation of diverse networks of knowledge production
� Led to novel research practices, often forming strong connections with specific places
� Promoted an alternative discourse for industrial management, of a precautionary instead of a managerial approach
At the same time, alternative funding of science can be a conservative force, encouraging research that conforms to standard models of scientific practice. It can also reinforce the idea that environmental controversies themselves are scientific issues � a stance that can divert attention from more difficult political issues, including questions of social and environmental justice.
There's lots more work to be done on the impact of alternative funding of science on what we know about the environment, and on how we manipulate (or protect) it.
No comments:
Post a Comment