Scientists often bring issues to the policy agenda, translating scientific questions into everyday language and political terms. When Roger Revelle characterized the Earth as “a spaceship” in testimony to Congress in 1957, he framed the issue of the Earth’s climate vulnerability much more effectively than a technical discourse could. This book examines the influence of scientists on environmental policymaking and makes the argument that scientists’ neutrality often varies during the policymaking process. The author divides the policy process into three stages: agenda setting, legislation, and ... More

Scientists often bring issues to the policy agenda, translating scientific questions into everyday language and political terms. When Roger Revelle characterized the Earth as “a spaceship” in testimony to Congress in 1957, he framed the issue of the Earth’s climate vulnerability much more effectively than a technical discourse could. This book examines the influence of scientists on environmental policymaking and makes the argument that scientists’ neutrality often varies during the policymaking process. The author divides the policy process into three stages: agenda setting, legislation, and implementation — and compares scientists’ influence on acid rain and climate change policy at these different stages over the course of several decades. She finds that scientists face more pressure to remain objective as policymaking processes advance and become more formalized, and thus, are more likely to engage in advocacy and persuasion in the earlier, less formal, agenda-setting stage of the process. In the later, more structured legislative and implementation phases, scientists — always wanting to appear neutral — surrender the role of persuader to others. The book cites theoretical work in political science and science studies and on empirical evidence from scientific reports, news coverage, congressional hearings, and interviews. Focusing on comparable cases and considering scientists’ participation in them over time, the author examines how the context of decision-making affects scientists’ policy influence and emphasizes the many pathways by which scientific meaning is constructed in public settings.