Last year I co-guest edited a special issue of Environmental Science and Policy on various dimensions of the debate over The Skeptical Environmentalist. Several comments responding to papers in that special issue have now been published, and we have set up a special WWW page for them:

1. Peter Dougherty, an editor at Princeton University Press, provides a commentary (PDF) on Chris Harrison’s paper (Chris edited TSE) Dougherty writes,

“The major point Chris Harrison makes in his account of the publication of Lomborg is that the reaction on the part of the book’s fiercest critics “went beyond the usual unpicking of a thesis and concentrated instead on the role of the publisher in publishing the book at all.” This is a highly unusual, but not unheard of, state of affairs in university press publishing. It invites a publisher to explore the considerations leading up to the publishing decision, and in this case the same publisher’s actions in defending its decision after the book’s publication. In both cases, Harrison’s account reflects a high degree of professionalism on the part of Cambridge University Press.”

2. Eva Lövbrand and Gunilla Öberg comment on papers by Dan Sarewitz and one that I wrote. They write (PDF),


“We agree that the linear model of science policy interplay is sadly outdated and in need of replacement, but fear that a renewed demarcation between the realms of facts and value conflicts rather will reinforce than challenge the logic that it rests upon. In order to move forward, we argue that it is necessary to instigate a reflexive and philosophically informed discussion about the situated and provisional nature of scientific advice in environmental policy-making among scientists themselves and those making use of scientific results.”

Dan and I write a response (PDF),

“But okay, let us imagine a world in which this ideal discussion between natural scientists and decision makers is actually taking place, with the result that all participants in the conversation understand that knowledge is “situated and provisional,” and that facts and values, science and notscience, are not clearly delineated. In this world, are we to expect that the newly enlightened scientists would then initiate “a public discussion about the limits to scientific inquiry and hence [open] up for social monitoring and scrutiny of scientific results [sic]“? Presumably, these enlightened scientists would no longer worry about where their funding will come from, and they would, moreover, be willing to cede their considerable authority to a bunch of social scientists.”

You can find the whole series here.