Oxford – Page 17 – a sibilant intake of breath

Categorizing thesis sources

I am splitting the literature review chapter for my thesis into two sections: the first about general materials relating to the role of science in environmental policy, and the second about the specific case studies. This bit is for the beginning of the general section, intended both to demonstrate the scope of appropriate materials and put them into a kind of comprehensible framework:

Within the realm of the general scholarship about expertise, legitimacy, and the application of science to the development of political solutions to environmental problems, there is a spectrum of discussion. At one end is the work most explicitly and restrictively concerned with questions within science itself. The deliberations of Popper, Kuhn, and their colleagues are frequently of this nature. The next band in the spectrum is work that relates to the social roles of scientists, within a broader social context. Here, the work of Haas on epistemic communities is particularly important. So too are deliberations within the scientific community itself over what it means to be a scientist. At a still-lengthening wavelength are explicit discussions about the political role that scientists should play: how, for instance, they should present their findings to policy makers, and whether it is appropriate to adopt political stances. Next come discussions about the same question, only from the political – rather than the scientific – point of view. How do politicians and political theorists view the process of delegation to scientists and scientific bodies? Finally, there are the most explicitly political and philosophical questions about things like the nature of international justice and the relationship between humanity and nature. In the following extended discussion, I will employ this organizational structure: moving from the high energy, short-wavelength considerations of science from within to the long wave questions of abstract political theory, keeping in mind the reality that these discussions are entangled with one another at many points.

What do you think of the metaphor? Too simplistic for a work of this sort, or useful as a means of categorizing? If I had to place myself on this spectrum, I would probably be in the yellow band: closer to red than to green. Most of the reading I have been doing – and a lot of what interests me most – is in the blue to violet range, though blaring red is not without appeal.

Also, it should be noted that I have far more sources of the first kind (general) than of the second (case study specific). This has a lot to do with how people keep suggesting the former and not the latter. Anyone who knows of any especially good writing on either the Stockholm Convention on POPs or the Kyoto Protocol is strongly encouraged to let me know about it. The library resources at Oxford, especially on Stockholm, are a bit patchy.

Fewer than 100 days left for the thesis

Week two of Hilary begins tomorrow. That means thirteen more weeks until the thesis is due. There will also be two more significant research papers that need to be written, in the next seven weeks. Collectively, that will be about 36,000 researched, written, and edited words.

This week, I should probably concentrate on secondary sources directly related to the scientific basis for Stockholm and Kyoto.

Uncertainty and morality

Speaking with Professor Henry Shue today about some of the normative issues that arise from science based policymaking, uncertainty was an area of particular interest. Specifically, when policy makers are required to make decisions under conditions of uncertainty, what special moral obligations arise as the result. An example of such uncertainty is the magnitude of harm likely to result from climate change.

To me, it seems that two types of duties arise fundamentally from such uncertainty. The first is an investigative duty. This falls upon policy makers directly, in the form of obligations to develop a reasonable understanding of the issues at hand, and it manifests itself through delegation to experts who can conduct more rigorous and comprehensive research. Within this obligation, there are specific rules of procedure embedded: for instance, a willingness to keep an open mind. Without such an approach, evidence will simply be discounted (Kuhn’s SoSR is helping me to refine my thinking about these procedural rules). A more contentious component of this obligation has to do with resources. It seems like more should be devoted to problems that: (a) have a greater potential impact and (b) have a greater effect upon the constituents to whom the policy maker is responsible. The second criterion there has both a moral basis (because of the nature of representative legitimacy) and a practical basis (because it would be a waste of time for the Inuit Circumpolar Conference to focus their resources on desertification in Africa).

The second type of duty is to take preventative action and/or action to mitigate the damage that will be done by what has become inevitable. Deciding how much to allocate in total, as well as how to subdivide it, is tricky both for practical and moral reasons. Both prevention and mitigation have distributive consequences; they also involve arbitration between competing rights. Do people, for instance, have the right to live in areas more likely to flood, due to climate change, or do they just have the right to live in comparable conditions anywhere? Who has the duty to provide the material requirements of satisfying such rights? When it comes to climate change, the idea that people have a right to that which they have simply owned or done for a long time is problematic, not least because many such ‘legacy’ activities contribute to the problem at hand.

While I certainly cannot provide answers to any of these questions here, I can hopefully do so in the thesis. Indeed, the three big areas of moral discussion that keep cropping up are: (a) dealing with uncertainty (b) social roles and (c) the nature of ‘technical’ solutions to environmental problems. All three offer the chance to delve into some of the moral complexities concealed within the idea of science-driven policy.

Note to self: look up Trevor Pinch and Sheila Jasanoff, within the ‘Science, Technology, and Society’ school of research in the United States.

First law seminar

As expected, the first international law seminar was extremely interesting. The conversation between the two instructors, law students, IR students, and one serving military officer should make for an excellent exchange of ideas. Already, some of the positions taken about the role and nature of law have been unfamiliar in an enlightening way.

The location is also an appealing element: the class is set in an elegant seminar room in All Souls College that lights up nicely as the 11:00am to 1:00pm class progresses.

Trinity 2006 supervision report

I got my official evaluation from Dr. Hurrell for Trinity 2006 today (the term before the summer break). To be precise, I got one for a Mr. Iilnckyj. I just hope they get it right on the diploma:

Milan has continued to make very good progress. He achieved a strong pass in the QT exam and has identified a very interesting topic for his MPhil thesis – the role of science in global environmental policy. His Research Design Essay represented an excellent start in developing the project and narrowing down to a viable set of questions to be addressed. His work for the core seminar has also been very solid, with essays on unipolarity, the end of the Cold War, decolonization, and the Middle East.

I wonder what will be said about Michaelmas of this year, given that I barely saw my supervisor during that eight week span and submitted no academic work to him whatsoever (you don’t write papers specifically for your supervisor in the second year of the M.Phil).

My supervision reports from Michaelmas and Hilary 2006 are also online.

Blogging less of a priority

Today was really busy, as most days in the immediate future seem likely to be. As such, expect me to retreat a bit from writing excessively much here. This is a somewhat anxious time, and anxiety is best dealt with in less public places.

PS. This site and Papa Fly Productions have now been upgraded to WordPress 2.0.7. Here’s hoping that more than ten days pass before they need to issue another security fix. Thankfully, the installation seems to have been painless.

Bursting inbox

One can always identify the start of an Oxford term by an explosion of the number of messages in your inbox: since Sunday, mine has jumped from about six to about fifty. This is especially acute given that I immediately delete (or file as ‘School Spam’) all of the dozens of irrelevant messages sent to me. For instance, frequent notices that the fire alarms in various parts of Wadham College are being tested.

At least they provide a semi-productive way to take breaks between bouts of dense but interesting reading for international law. I think this course is going to be my most interesting seminar at Oxford so far.

At the cusp of Hilary

Term starts tomorrow, so today was spent preparing: reducing the level of chaos in my room (discovering some very old, half-completed paperwork in the process), acquiring reading materials related to my international law course next term, and generally making ready for the eight weeks ahead.

Monday, I have a ‘collection’ with the Warden, in which I am to convince him that I am upholding academic standards and otherwise being a proper grad student. I have heard of other colleges holding these, but Wadham did not last year. At a whopping five minutes, I think I will be able to survive the onslaught.

At 9:00am on Tuesday, there is the first of the lectures on Pullman’s His Dark Materials Trilogy; this, I shall make an effort to attend, if only to try and recalibrate my brain to termish schedules. In the evening, I have the Wadham Sustainability Forum, which I know very little about but was invited to by someone especially interesting. Then, we have the first OUSSG meeting (which I still need to publish additional details about on the website).

Wednesday morning, I have my first International Law seminar. The rest of the week will be filled out with lectures, law readings, and thesis work. Hopefully, the structured days that accompany term-time will create more definite spaces in which progress can be made.

PS. Recent revelations have made the iPhone (discussed before) not at all interesting. Apple is not allowing third party applications, and the thing doesn’t really run OS X. I saw it as more exciting as a platform for clever hacks than as a device in itself. While these restrictions will probably be circumvented, they show that Apple wants to issue a shiny toy that will make Cingular masses of money, rather than a genuinely revolutionary mobile communication device.

Sandwich economics

The following is a factor price breakdown for the combination that comprises more than 80% of my lunches (n=28):

The cheese in question is either Cheshire or Wensleydale: certainly the two best foodstuffs that I have experienced for the first time while in England.

The surprising factor is clearly the cost of tofu. That said, I do use about 62.5g worth per sandwich. It still seems unfair that the least tasty part of the sandwich should cost the most. If I do end up going to London this weekend – as now seems highly likely – I can pick up some much lower cost tofu in the small Chinatown there.

Logic and ethics

Without warning, my failed states paper has grown to include Venn diagrams and predicate logic. This is what happens when you realize that one sentence could be expressed more comprehensibly through the use of a few symbols, then allow yourself to run with it. The paper (previously mentioned here and here) now includes branched formulations such as:

(h) Any state within the international system has the:

obligation

option

to intervene in a failed state, so as to:

help it return to a non-failed status

protect the human rights of those within it

cause the cessation of large scale violations of human rights, ie. genocide

Of course, the whole point is to prove that you cannot reduce normative considerations in international relations to such crude formulas. Logic is not a substitute for judgment, in the consideration of how to act in response to weak or criminal states. Also, any consideration of how to act morally in the international arena will involve the examination of multiple justifications and counter-justifications, weighing the importance of certain moral claims against alternatives. Logic doesn’t really help us with that.

It does, however, help with the writing of a paper that is at least likely to stand out from the rest of those submitted on the topic. I knew that symbolic logic course I took at UBC would be useful for more than just the Law School Admission Test.