Professor Brendon Swedlow Political Science (POLS) 524
bswedlow@niu.edu 815.753.7061
NIU Spring 2008
Office: 418 Zulauf
Hall M
Hours: MW
Environmental
Science, Law, and Policy
Politics of Risk
Assessment and Regulation
Seminar
Overview
In most areas of American politics, elected officials are the most important
decision-makers. However, the President and Congress, governors and state
legislatures, and mayors and city councils also rely on experts to inform their
decisions or, wittingly or not, to make decisions for them.
Environmental policymaking is one area where many important decisions
are made by unelected officials. Major federal regulatory agencies like the EPA
and FDA are staffed by thousands of civil servants, many of whom are
scientists. With the advice of outside scientists, these agency scientists
assess and help regulate thousands of environmental, health, and safety risks.
In this seminar, we will seek to understand the politics of these and
other scientists and how this politics relates to environmental law and policymaking.
Our particular focus will be on the politics of risk assessment and regulation,
since these activities are the most pervasive idiom in which scientists engage
the legal and policy process.
Environmental risk assessment and regulation in the
Seminar Requirements and Participation
As you know, in graduate seminars learning is advanced by critically reflecting upon our readings and sharing your thoughts with seminar colleagues. In this seminar, we will do this in two ways. First, you will be expected to read assigned materials and (for the most part) to take turns writing short papers (usually 2-3 pages) discussing the readings (for 25% of seminar grade). Second, you will be asked to take turns leading discussion of the week’s readings, and when you’re not leading discussion to participate in it (for 20% of seminar grade). You will also be asked to present research results from your research paper to the seminar. Almost half (45%) of your seminar grade will be determined by actively participating in the seminar in these ways.
As you also know, most graduate seminars also seek to advance learning by requiring you to research and write longer analytical papers. In this seminar, you will be expected to research and write a paper of 25 or more pages that seeks to contribute to scholarly understandings of a topic or topics intersecting this seminar. Research papers may cover but are not limited to research on environmental, health, or safety politics, policies, or law; starred papers, dissertation proposals or chapters intersecting this seminar; and/or comparison of different theoretical or conceptual approaches to explaining topics related to this seminar, such as the politics of environmental, health, or safety science. All types of research papers just described may potentially be pursued through an ongoing comparative research project on risk assessment and regulation that I am undertaking with students.
Research papers will be written in two installments: a five page “down-payment” allowing me to give you direction (worth 15% of your seminar grade) and a 25 page or more final paper incorporating that direction and expanding upon it (worth 40% of your seminar grade). Consequently, more than half (55%) of your seminar grade will be determined by your research paper.
Required
Required readings for the seminar are on e-reserves (for which a URL
will be provided in seminar and on the seminar webpages)
and in the following texts, available at the
Jasanoff, Sheila. (1990). The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers.
Schwarz, Michiel and Michael Thompson.
(1990). Divided We Stand: Redefining
Politics,
Technology, and Social Choice.
Hood, Christopher, Henry Rothstein, and Robert Baldwin.
(2001). The Government of Risk:
Understanding Risk Regulation
Regimes.
Jasanoff, Sheila. (2005). Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in
States.
Required readings also include discussion papers written by your seminar colleagues.
Due Dates for Papers and other Requirements
I will email you some
questions every week to guide writing of discussion papers and reflection on
readings. Discussion papers are due the Saturday night before the Monday
meeting at which the week’s readings will be discussed. Please paste them into
the discussion board dialogue box I will create for that purpose. Discussion
papers can be posted earlier than Saturday night, but will be considered late
if posted later than
March 17 Research Paper Installment #1 Due
(5 pages; 15% of grade), due at beginning of seminar, Monday
May 5 Final Research Paper Due
(at least 20 pages
added to a revised version of your second short research paper; 40% of grade), due
at beginning of final meeting during final exam period, Monday
Please do not…
· ask for extensions on turning in your research papers. Research papers will be graded down one third of a grade per day that they are late. Late discussion papers will not be accepted and will receive F grades (see above).
· ask for an incomplete in the course unless you have a very, very compelling reason to do so.
Definitely do not…
· engage in “academic misconduct,” defined by the NIU Student Judicial Code as the “receipt or transmission of unauthorized aid on assignments or examinations, plagiarism, unauthorized use of examination materials, or other forms of dishonesty in academic matters.”
Department
of Political Science Announcements
Statement Concerning Students with Disabilities
Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, NIU is
committed to making reasonable accommodations for persons with documented
disabilities. Those students with disabilities that may have some impact on
their coursework and for which they may require accommodations should notify
the Center for Access-Ability Resources (CAAR) on the fourth floor of the
WEEK 1 Bjorn Lomborg: A Skeptical Political Scientist
Lomborg, Bjorn. (2001). “Things are getting better.” In Bjorn Lomborg, The Skeptical
Environmentalist: Measuring the
Lomborg, Bjorn. (2001). “Predicament or Progress?” In
Bjorn Lomborg, The Skeptical
Environmentalist: Measuring the
WEEK
2 NO CLASS MONDAY, JAN.
21, MARTIN LUTHER KING DAY
WEEK 3 Lomborg
& Critics on Oil Depletion, Biodiversity Loss, and Global Warming
Lomborg, Bjorn. (2001). “Energy.” In Bjorn Lomborg, The Skeptical
Environmentalist: Measuring the
Lomborg, Bjorn. (2001). “Biodiversity.” In Bjorn Lomborg, The Skeptical
Environmentalist: Measuring the
Lomborg, Bjorn. (2001). “Global warming.” In Bjorn Lomborg, The Skeptical Environmentalist:
Measuring the
WEEK 4 How Do We Know What We
Know? Learning from the Lomborg Controversy
Note: All Week 4 readings can
be found on e-reserves or through this link: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/publications/special/pielke_tse_debate.html
Pielke, Jr., Roger A. and Steve Rayner. (2004). “Editors’
Introduction.” Environmental
Science & Policy, 7: 355-356.
Harrison, Chris. (2004). “Peer Review,
Politics, and Pluralism.” Environmental Science & Policy, 7: 357-368.
Dougherty,
Peter J. (2005). “Comment on ‘Peer Review, Politics, and Pluralism’ by Chris Harrison, Environmental
Science and Policy 7, 357-368.” Environmental
Science & Policy, 8, 191-193.
Oreskes, Naomi. (2004). “Science and Public
Policy: What’s Proof Got To Do With It?” Environmental Science & Policy, 7:
369-383.
Sarewitz, Daniel. (2004). “How
Science Makes Environmental Controversies Worse.” Environmental Science & Policy, 7:
385-403.
Pielke, Jr., Roger A. (2004). “When Scientists
Politicize Science: Making Sense of the Controversy over The Skeptical Environmentalist.” Environmental Science & Policy, 7: 405-417.
Loevbrand, Eva and Gunilla Oeberg. (2005). “Comment on ‘How Science
Makes Environmental Controversies Worse,’ by Daniel Sarewitz,
Environmental Science and Policy, 7, 385-403 and ‘When Scientists Politicise Science: Making Sense of the Controversy over
The Skeptical Environmentalist’ by Roger A. Pielke
Jr., Environmental Science and Policy, 7, 405-417.” Environmental Science & Policy, 8: 195-197.
Sarewitz, Daniel and
Roger A. Pielke, Jr. (2005). “Response to Loevbrand and Oeberg.” Environmental Science & Policy, 8:
199-200.
Herrick, Charles N. (2004). “Objectivity versus Narrative
Coherence: Science, Environmental Policy, and the
WEEK 5 How Do We Know What We
Know? Understanding the Politics of Science
Nelkin, Dorothy. (1995). “Science Controversies: The Dynamics of Public
Disputes in the
Yearley, Steven. (1995). “The Environmental Challenge to
Science Studies.” In Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald
E. Markle, and James C. Petersen, and Trevor Pinch,
eds., Handbook of Science and Technology
Studies, Revised Edition.
Martin, Brian and Evelleen
Richards. (1995). “Scientific Knowledge, Controversy, and Public Decision
Making.” In Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E. Markle, and James C. Petersen, and Trevor Pinch, eds., Handbook of Science and Technology Studies,
Revised Edition.
Swedlow, Brendon. (2007). “Pollution and Purity Claims: Using the
Boundaries of Science to do Boundary-work Among Scientists.” Science and Public Policy, uncorrected
page proofs, pp. 1-11.
Jasanoff, Sheila. (2005). “Prologue”.
In Sheila Jasanoff, Designs on Nature: Science and
Democracy in
Jasanoff, Sheila. (2005). “Why Compare?” In Sheila Jasanoff, Designs on
Nature: Science and
Democracy in
WEEK 6 The
Cultural Construction of Nature and the Natural Destruction of Culture
Coyle, Dennis J. (1994). “’This Land is Your Land, This Land is My Land:’ Cultural Conflict in
Environmental and Land-Use Regulation.” In Dennis J. Coyle
and Richard J. Ellis, eds., Politics,
Policy & Culture.
Ellis, Richard J. and Fred Thompson. (1997). “Culture and the Environment in the Pacific
Northwest.” American Political Science Review, 91, 4: 885-897.
Schwarz, Michiel and Michael Thompson.
(1990). Divided We Stand: Redefining
Politics,
Technology, and Social Choice.
Swedlow, Brendon. (2002). “Toward Cultural Analysis in Policy Analysis: Picking Up Where Aaron Wildavsky Left Off.” Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 4: 267-285.
Swedlow, Brendon. (2006). “The Concept of Culture in STS: Problems Seen, Solutions Cited.” STEP Ahead, 4(1): 3-4.
Slovic, Paul, James Flynn, C.K.
Mertz, Marc Poumadere, and Claire Mays.
(2000). “Nuclear Power and the Public: A Comparative Study of Risk Perception
in
Jasanoff, Sheila. (2005). “Controlling Narratives.” In
Sheila Jasanoff, Designs
on Nature:
Science and Democracy in
pp. 42-67.
WEEK 7 How Do We Know What’s
Dangerous? Risk Assessment and Regulation
Bocking, Stephen. (2004). “Science in a
Risky World.” In Stephen Bocking, Nature’s Experts:
Science, Politics, and the
Environment.
160.
Andrews, Richard N. L. (2006). “Risk-Based Decision Making: Policy, Science, and Politics.” In
Norman J. Vig and Michael E. Kraft, eds., Environmental Policy: New Directions for the
Twenty-First Century, Sixth Edition. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press. pp. 215-
238.
Kaplan, Michael S., Robert Donkers,
Meghan Purvis, Ernie Rosenberg, Jonathan B. Wiener.
(2006). “Who’s Ahead In
Environmental Protection: The United States or the European Union?”
The Environmental Forum.
Swedlow, Brendon, Denise Kall, Zheng Zhou, and James K. Hammitt.
(2007). “Generalizing
about Regulation through Nested Analysis of
Representative Cases.” Working Paper, Northern
Swedlow, Brendon. (2005).
“Study Guide for Risk Regulation Research.” pp. 1-14.
Please Note: This week we will also read one or
more student research papers (from
previous courses) on risk regulation in the
discuss their research results and experiences in class.
Jasanoff, Sheila. (2005). “A Question of
Science and Democracy in
pp. 68-93.
WEEK 8 What Are Risk Regulation
Regimes? Nine British Regimes Compared
Hood, Christopher, Henry Rothstein, and Robert Baldwin. (2001). “What Are Risk Regulation
Regimes? Why Do They Matter?” In Christopher Hood, Henry Rothstein, and Robert Baldwin,
The Government of Risk: Understanding Risk
Regulation Regimes.
Press. pp. 3-19.
Hood, Christopher, Henry Rothstein, and
Robert Baldwin. (2001). “The Comparative Anatomy of
Risk Regulation Regimes.” In Christopher Hood, Henry Rothstein, and
Robert Baldwin, The Government of Risk:
Understanding Risk Regulation Regimes.
Hood, Christopher, Henry Rothstein, and
Robert Baldwin. (2001). “Nine Risk Regulation Regimes
Compared.” In Christopher Hood, Henry Rothstein, and Robert Baldwin, The Government of Risk: Understanding Risk
Regulation Regimes.
Hood, Christopher, Henry Rothstein, and
Robert Baldwin. (2001). “How Far does Context Shape Content in Risk
Regulation Regimes?” In Christopher Hood, Henry Rothstein, and Robert Baldwin, The Government of Risk: Understanding Risk Regulation
Regimes.
Jasanoff, Sheila. (2005). “Unsettled
Settlements.” In Sheila Jasanoff, Designs on Nature:
Science and Democracy in
pp. 94-118.
WEEK 9 NO CLASS MARCH 8-16TH, SPRING BREAK
WEEK 10 What Explains
Differences? Market Failure, Public
Opinion, Interest Groups
Research Paper, Installment #1, (5 pages)
due Monday, March 17th, beginning of
seminar (in hardcopy and posted to discussion
board)
Hood, Christopher, Henry Rothstein, and Robert Baldwin. (2001). “Exploring the ‘Market
Failure’ Hypothesis.” In Christopher Hood, Henry Rothstein,
and Robert Baldwin, The
Government of Risk: Understanding Risk
Regulation Regimes.
pp. 70-89.
Hood, Christopher, Henry Rothstein, and Robert Baldwin. (2001). “Opinion Responsive
Government and Risk Regulation.” In Christopher Hood, Henry Rothstein, and Robert Baldwin,
The Government of Risk: Understanding Risk
Regulation Regimes.
Press. pp. 90-111.
Hood, Christopher, Henry Rothstein, and Robert Baldwin. (2001). “Interests, Lobbies, and
Experts.” In Christopher Hood, Henry Rothstein, and Robert
Baldwin, The Government of Risk:
Understanding Risk Regulation
Regimes.
Hood, Christopher, Henry Rothstein, and
Robert Baldwin. (2001). “Regime Content and Context Revisited: An
Overall Picture.” In Christopher Hood, Henry Rothstein, and Robert Baldwin, The Government of Risk: Understanding Risk
Regulation Regimes.
Jasanoff, Sheila. (2005). “Food for
Thought.” In Sheila Jasanoff, Designs on Nature:
Science and Democracy in
pp. 119-145.
WEEK 11 Scientific Advisory
Committees, Risk Assessment & Regulation at EPA & FDA
Rosenbaum, Walter A. (2006). “Improving Environmental
Regulation at the EPA: The Challenge in Balancing Politics, Policy, and
Science.” In Norman J. Vig and Michael E.
Kraft, eds., Environmental Policy: New
Directions for the Twenty-First Century, Sixth Edition. Washington, D.C.:
Congressional Quarterly Press. pp. 169-192.
Jasanoff, Sheila. (1990). The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers.
Jasanoff, Sheila. (2005). “Natural
Mothers and Other Kinds.” In Sheila Jasanoff, Designs on
Nature: Science and Democracy in
University Press. pp. 146-170.
WEEK 12 Scientific Advisory
Committees, Risk Assessment & Regulation at EPA & FDA
Fiorino, Daniel J. (2006). “Stepping Stones or Just Rocks in
the Stream? The Reinvention Era.” In Daniel J. Fiorino, The New Environmental
Regulation.
Jasanoff, Sheila. (1990). The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers.
Jasanoff, Sheila. (2005). “Ethical Sense
and Sensibility.” In Sheila Jasanoff, Designs on
Nature: Science and Democracy in
University Press. pp. 171-202.
WEEK 13 Judicial Policymaking
and Review of Environmental Regulation
PRESENTATIONS OF YOUR RESEARCH
O’Leary, Rosemary. (2006). “Environmental Policy in the Courts.” In Norman J. Vig and Michael E. Kraft, eds., Environmental Policy: New Directions for the Twenty-First Century, Sixth Edition. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press. pp. 148-168.
McSpadden, Lettie. (2007). “Industry’s Use of the Courts.” In Michael E. Kraft and Sheldon Kamieniecki, eds., Business and Environmental Policy: Corporate Interests in the American Political System. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp. 233-262.
Jasanoff, Sheila. (2005). “Making Something of Life.” In
Sheila Jasanoff, Designs
on
Nature: Science and Democracy in
University Press. pp. 203-246.
WEEK 14 Judicial Policymaking
and Adversarial Legalism
PRESENTATIONS OF YOUR RESEARCH
Swedlow, Brendon. (2003). “Scientists, Judges, and Spotted
Owls: Policymakers in the
Kagan, Robert A. (2004). “American
Courts and the Policy Dialogue: The Role of Adversarial Legalism.” In Mark C.
Miller and Jeb Barnes, eds., Making Policy, Making Law: An Interbranch
Perspective. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. pp. 13-34.
Jasanoff, Sheila. (2005). “The New Social
Contract.” In Sheila Jasanoff, Designs on
Nature: Science and Democracy in
University Press. pp. 225-246.
WEEK 15 Adversarial Legalism
and Environmental Regulation
PRESENTATIONS OF YOUR RESEARCH
Kagan, Robert A. (2001). “Adversarial
Legalism and Regulatory Style.” In Robert A. Kagan,
Adversarial Legalism: The
Kagan, Robert A. (2001). “Economic
Development, Environmental Protection, and Adversarial Legalism.” In
Robert A. Kagan, Adversarial
Legalism: The
Jasanoff, Sheila. (2005). “Civic
Epistemology.” In Sheila Jasanoff, Designs on
Nature: Science and Democracy in
University Press. pp. 247-271.
WEEK 16 How Does Regulation
Matter? Corporate Environmental Performance
PRESENTATIONS OF YOUR RESEARCH
Kagan, Robert A., Neil Gunningham, and Dorothy
Thornton. (2003). “Explaining
Corporate Environmental Performance: How Does Regulation Matter?,” Law and Society
Review 37,
Jasanoff, Sheila. (2005). “Republics of
Science.” In Sheila Jasanoff, Designs on
Nature: Science and Democracy in
University Press. pp. 272-291.
WEEK 17 FINALS WEEK (NO FINAL EXAM, BUT…)
FINAL RESEARCH PAPER DUE AT BEGINNING OF FINAL
EXAM PERIOD, MONDAY, MAY 5,
PRESENTATIONS OF YOUR RESEARCH