Access to knowledge in a world of uncertainty and politicisation

What we know about the world around us is critical to how we can shape it as environmental scientists. Evidence on climate change has made a significant difference to our ability to grapple with environmental challenges. Similarly, understanding the way that policy decisions can affect people, the economy, and the environment is fundamental to finding effective solutions.

Importantly, in both instances it is not enough for that knowledge to exist in isolation, it also needs to be accessible to the right people at the right time. Environmental scientists have had an understanding of changing climate conditions for decades, but effective communication of that evidence has been essential to eliciting a wider response. Key examples, such as the climate stripes produced by the University of Reading, have widely spread knowledge about climate and the environment.

This knowledge is essential to supporting informed decision making, so we benefit significantly from as many people as possible being able to access knowledge. People and communities may not always act on knowledge, and they may not always choose the most environmentally progressive or sustainable choices, yet having knowledge is necessary to make genuinely informed choices, increasing the chance that we collectively get the outcomes we desire.

The quantity and availability of evidence has drastically increased over recent decades, encouraging evidence-led approaches to policy making and the widespread proliferation of knowledge. At the same time, resources and capacity have become increasingly limited, so the sheer vastness of information available has become harder to navigate, causing some people to feel that they have lost their agency to make decisions.

As the totality of evidence has expanded, complexity has also grown, often leading to increased uncertainty. Increased complexity has also made it necessary to distinguish between what policy makers need to know and what the level of detail that the public needs. Where the focus of evidence provision has shifted away from educating society towards a more direct relationship with decision makers, science has become somewhat estranged from the public. 

Likewise, where scientific evidence has presented policy makers with difficult decisions, the provision of evidence has become more contentious, leading to the alienation of science from policy.

As populism has increased its role in global politics over the last 10 years, evidence has become a more controversial aspect of policy, making it increasingly politicised between different groups, some of whom embrace it, while others see it as a lower priority.

Major flashpoints, like climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic, have increased global reliance on scientific evidence and resulted in unprecedented visibility of scientists. In some cases, this has normalised science and its role in decision making, but it has also polarised opinions on science for those who disagreed with policy decisions made on the basis of that evidence.

While the outcome of the COVID-19 pandemic for life sciences has been an overall trend towards increased trust of science and evidence, environmental issues are still subject to polarisation. 

Where scientific evidence is seen as pointing to specific policy choices, those who disagree with the choices are more likely to see the evidence itself as subjective. As there are inevitable subjective questions about the best approach to reaching a sustainable society, this raises serious concerns about excluding groups or compromising the ability to reach a consensus on addressing environmental challenges as misinformation becomes more common.

It also increases the prospect of uncertainty. Disagreements about whether evidence is legitimate make it harder to know who can be trusted, creating anxiety and making difficult decisions even more intractable to resolve. This can exacerbate indecision in the political sphere, creating a feedback loop which errs against action to resolve urgent environmental challenges.

Despite the risks associated with increased politicisation of environmental issues, there are also significant opportunities. The increased attention that comes alongside politicisation offers opportunities for engagement, as long as environmental scientists are prepared for the challenge of overcoming politically sensitive discussions and communicating the evidence.

There are also opportunities to reimagine the role of science in policy and public engagement, finding ways for environmental science to empower, rather than disempower, participatory decision making. Many of those working in the sector have already adapted to these challenges by:

• Developing networks and knowledge communities to promote efficient and effective engagement with the public and decision makers, rather than seeking to compete for limited public attention,
• Supporting the spread of scientific literacies, such as Carbon Literacy and systems literacy to empower the public to identify their own solutions, and
• Using best practice science communication techniques to cut through noise and engage the public with evidence more directly.

Despite positive progress, there is still more that needs to be done to make these approaches uniform, and to ensure that environmental scientists are given the skills they need to handle the ethical and practical challenges associated with bridging the accessibility gap between evidence and the public.