Mediating science-intensive policy disputes

Public policy disputes involving complex scientific issues usually entail conflicts not only over those scientific issues, but also over the distribution of gains and losses. The presence of scientific or technical dimensions to a dispute should not be allowed to mask underlying distributional consi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of policy analysis and management 1985-10, Vol.5 (1), p.23-39
Main Authors: Ozawa, Connie P., Susskind, Lawrence
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
ARBITRATION
Chlorides
Conflict
DECISION-MAKING AND GAME THEORY
Dispute settlement
Emissions regulations
Environmental agencies
Environmental aspects
Environmental law
Environmental policy
Lead
Mediation
New York, New York
ORGANIZED COLLECTIVE ARGUMENT
Political debate
Political parties
Public policy
Refuse incinerators
Science
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY POLICY
Science Policy
United States
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5202-3e3dccbba675ed5358b765bbcf22318b4209f8ccae49cc7768aacace665450a73
cites
container_end_page 39
container_issue 1
container_start_page 23
container_title Journal of policy analysis and management
container_volume 5
creator Ozawa, Connie P.
Susskind, Lawrence
description Public policy disputes involving complex scientific issues usually entail conflicts not only over those scientific issues, but also over the distribution of gains and losses. The presence of scientific or technical dimensions to a dispute should not be allowed to mask underlying distributional considerations. On the other hand, science-intensive disputes require special attention. Merely resolving distributional conflicts without incorporating the best scientific judgment will produce unwise and potentially dangerous results. The usual adversarial approach that characterizes the handling of such disputes by agencies and courts is less for creating an understanding of scientific evidence or the resolution of scientific differences. A process of mediation, already applied in a number of significant cases, offers strong promise as a superior approach.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/pam.4050050102
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_61580364</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>3323411</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>3323411</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5202-3e3dccbba675ed5358b765bbcf22318b4209f8ccae49cc7768aacace665450a73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc1v1DAQxS0EEkvplfNKIISEsvgj_jqWChbotlQCxHHkeGeLl2wS7GxL_nscBZXCgZX85Dn83oyfh5AnjC4YpfxV53aLkkqaD6P8HpkxyWmhlDH3yYxyrQqjhX1IHqW0pSNl2Yy8PMd1cH1orubJB2w8FqHpsUnhGuddWwc_zNchdfse02PyYOPqhMe_7yPy5e2bz6fvitXH5fvTk1Xh80BeCBRr76vKKS1xLYU0lVayqvyGc8FMVXJqN8Z7h6X1XmtlnPPOo1KylNRpcUSeT3272P7YY-phF5LHunYNtvsEiklDhSoPgzQnliU_CEpb0pJqkcEX_wWZVkwzw4XK6NN_0G27j03-GGDcaquVFmOWxUT52KYUcQNdDDsXB2AUxrVBXhv8WVs2LCdDxA79LX1TD9tMXvVwDcLJrCGLWTOWYSyzuiwuQFj41u9yJzt1ugk1DgfmwuXJ-V-veDZ5t6lv410vF1SDEFyUjGWsmLCQevx5i7n4Hcb0Er5eLOHTpVyp18sPcCZ-AfwVzHg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1297976737</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Mediating science-intensive policy disputes</title><source>JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection</source><source>Social Science Premium Collection</source><source>ABI/INFORM Global</source><source>Politics Collection</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>BSC - Ebsco (Business Source Ultimate)</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><creator>Ozawa, Connie P. ; Susskind, Lawrence</creator><creatorcontrib>Ozawa, Connie P. ; Susskind, Lawrence</creatorcontrib><description>Public policy disputes involving complex scientific issues usually entail conflicts not only over those scientific issues, but also over the distribution of gains and losses. The presence of scientific or technical dimensions to a dispute should not be allowed to mask underlying distributional considerations. On the other hand, science-intensive disputes require special attention. Merely resolving distributional conflicts without incorporating the best scientific judgment will produce unwise and potentially dangerous results. The usual adversarial approach that characterizes the handling of such disputes by agencies and courts is less for creating an understanding of scientific evidence or the resolution of scientific differences. A process of mediation, already applied in a number of significant cases, offers strong promise as a superior approach.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0276-8739</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1520-6688</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/pam.4050050102</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</publisher><subject>ARBITRATION ; Chlorides ; Conflict ; DECISION-MAKING AND GAME THEORY ; Dispute settlement ; Emissions regulations ; Environmental agencies ; Environmental aspects ; Environmental law ; Environmental policy ; Lead ; Mediation ; New York, New York ; ORGANIZED COLLECTIVE ARGUMENT ; Political debate ; Political parties ; Public policy ; Refuse incinerators ; Science ; SCIENCE &amp; TECHNOLOGY POLICY ; Science Policy ; United States</subject><ispartof>Journal of policy analysis and management, 1985-10, Vol.5 (1), p.23-39</ispartof><rights>Copyright 1985 Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management</rights><rights>Copyright © 1985 Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5202-3e3dccbba675ed5358b765bbcf22318b4209f8ccae49cc7768aacace665450a73</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1297976737/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1297976737?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,11688,11906,21387,21394,27865,27924,27925,33611,33612,33775,33985,33986,36050,36051,36060,36061,43733,43948,44361,44363,58238,58471,74221,74468,74893,74895</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://econpapers.repec.org/article/wlyjpamgt/v_3a5_3ay_3a1985_3ai_3a1_3ap_3a23-39.htm$$DView record in RePEc$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ozawa, Connie P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Susskind, Lawrence</creatorcontrib><title>Mediating science-intensive policy disputes</title><title>Journal of policy analysis and management</title><addtitle>J. Pol. Anal. Manage</addtitle><description>Public policy disputes involving complex scientific issues usually entail conflicts not only over those scientific issues, but also over the distribution of gains and losses. The presence of scientific or technical dimensions to a dispute should not be allowed to mask underlying distributional considerations. On the other hand, science-intensive disputes require special attention. Merely resolving distributional conflicts without incorporating the best scientific judgment will produce unwise and potentially dangerous results. The usual adversarial approach that characterizes the handling of such disputes by agencies and courts is less for creating an understanding of scientific evidence or the resolution of scientific differences. A process of mediation, already applied in a number of significant cases, offers strong promise as a superior approach.</description><subject>ARBITRATION</subject><subject>Chlorides</subject><subject>Conflict</subject><subject>DECISION-MAKING AND GAME THEORY</subject><subject>Dispute settlement</subject><subject>Emissions regulations</subject><subject>Environmental agencies</subject><subject>Environmental aspects</subject><subject>Environmental law</subject><subject>Environmental policy</subject><subject>Lead</subject><subject>Mediation</subject><subject>New York, New York</subject><subject>ORGANIZED COLLECTIVE ARGUMENT</subject><subject>Political debate</subject><subject>Political parties</subject><subject>Public policy</subject><subject>Refuse incinerators</subject><subject>Science</subject><subject>SCIENCE &amp; TECHNOLOGY POLICY</subject><subject>Science Policy</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>0276-8739</issn><issn>1520-6688</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1985</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkc1v1DAQxS0EEkvplfNKIISEsvgj_jqWChbotlQCxHHkeGeLl2wS7GxL_nscBZXCgZX85Dn83oyfh5AnjC4YpfxV53aLkkqaD6P8HpkxyWmhlDH3yYxyrQqjhX1IHqW0pSNl2Yy8PMd1cH1orubJB2w8FqHpsUnhGuddWwc_zNchdfse02PyYOPqhMe_7yPy5e2bz6fvitXH5fvTk1Xh80BeCBRr76vKKS1xLYU0lVayqvyGc8FMVXJqN8Z7h6X1XmtlnPPOo1KylNRpcUSeT3272P7YY-phF5LHunYNtvsEiklDhSoPgzQnliU_CEpb0pJqkcEX_wWZVkwzw4XK6NN_0G27j03-GGDcaquVFmOWxUT52KYUcQNdDDsXB2AUxrVBXhv8WVs2LCdDxA79LX1TD9tMXvVwDcLJrCGLWTOWYSyzuiwuQFj41u9yJzt1ugk1DgfmwuXJ-V-veDZ5t6lv410vF1SDEFyUjGWsmLCQevx5i7n4Hcb0Er5eLOHTpVyp18sPcCZ-AfwVzHg</recordid><startdate>19851001</startdate><enddate>19851001</enddate><creator>Ozawa, Connie P.</creator><creator>Susskind, Lawrence</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</general><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</general><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd</general><general>Wiley</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>DKI</scope><scope>X2L</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>ABKTN</scope><scope>AKNXY</scope><scope>HAGHG</scope><scope>HYQOX</scope><scope>ICWRT</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope><scope>SFNNT</scope><scope>~P2</scope><scope>~P3</scope><scope>7U3</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>7UB</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19851001</creationdate><title>Mediating science-intensive policy disputes</title><author>Ozawa, Connie P. ; Susskind, Lawrence</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5202-3e3dccbba675ed5358b765bbcf22318b4209f8ccae49cc7768aacace665450a73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1985</creationdate><topic>ARBITRATION</topic><topic>Chlorides</topic><topic>Conflict</topic><topic>DECISION-MAKING AND GAME THEORY</topic><topic>Dispute settlement</topic><topic>Emissions regulations</topic><topic>Environmental agencies</topic><topic>Environmental aspects</topic><topic>Environmental law</topic><topic>Environmental policy</topic><topic>Lead</topic><topic>Mediation</topic><topic>New York, New York</topic><topic>ORGANIZED COLLECTIVE ARGUMENT</topic><topic>Political debate</topic><topic>Political parties</topic><topic>Public policy</topic><topic>Refuse incinerators</topic><topic>Science</topic><topic>SCIENCE &amp; TECHNOLOGY POLICY</topic><topic>Science Policy</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ozawa, Connie P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Susskind, Lawrence</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>RePEc IDEAS</collection><collection>RePEc</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Archive Online JSTOR Titles</collection><collection>Periodicals Archive Online Collection 4 (2022)</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 12</collection><collection>ProQuest Historical Periodicals</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 28</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 44</collection><collection>PAO Collection 4</collection><collection>Periodicals Archive Online Collection 4</collection><collection>Social Services Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Journal of policy analysis and management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ozawa, Connie P.</au><au>Susskind, Lawrence</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Mediating science-intensive policy disputes</atitle><jtitle>Journal of policy analysis and management</jtitle><addtitle>J. Pol. Anal. Manage</addtitle><date>1985-10-01</date><risdate>1985</risdate><volume>5</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>23</spage><epage>39</epage><pages>23-39</pages><issn>0276-8739</issn><eissn>1520-6688</eissn><abstract>Public policy disputes involving complex scientific issues usually entail conflicts not only over those scientific issues, but also over the distribution of gains and losses. The presence of scientific or technical dimensions to a dispute should not be allowed to mask underlying distributional considerations. On the other hand, science-intensive disputes require special attention. Merely resolving distributional conflicts without incorporating the best scientific judgment will produce unwise and potentially dangerous results. The usual adversarial approach that characterizes the handling of such disputes by agencies and courts is less for creating an understanding of scientific evidence or the resolution of scientific differences. A process of mediation, already applied in a number of significant cases, offers strong promise as a superior approach.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</pub><doi>10.1002/pam.4050050102</doi><tpages>17</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0276-8739
ispartof Journal of policy analysis and management, 1985-10, Vol.5 (1), p.23-39
issn 0276-8739
1520-6688
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_61580364
source JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection; Social Science Premium Collection; ABI/INFORM Global; Politics Collection; PAIS Index; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; BSC - Ebsco (Business Source Ultimate); Sociological Abstracts
subjects ARBITRATION
Chlorides
Conflict
DECISION-MAKING AND GAME THEORY
Dispute settlement
Emissions regulations
Environmental agencies
Environmental aspects
Environmental law
Environmental policy
Lead
Mediation
New York, New York
ORGANIZED COLLECTIVE ARGUMENT
Political debate
Political parties
Public policy
Refuse incinerators
Science
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY POLICY
Science Policy
United States
title Mediating science-intensive policy disputes
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-03T00%3A55%3A29IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Mediating%20science-intensive%20policy%20disputes&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20policy%20analysis%20and%20management&rft.au=Ozawa,%20Connie%20P.&rft.date=1985-10-01&rft.volume=5&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=23&rft.epage=39&rft.pages=23-39&rft.issn=0276-8739&rft.eissn=1520-6688&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/pam.4050050102&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E3323411%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5202-3e3dccbba675ed5358b765bbcf22318b4209f8ccae49cc7768aacace665450a73%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1297976737&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=3323411&rfr_iscdi=true