Are we ready to be wrong? Extended peer community for quality science-advice in uncertainty

Abstract

This paper delves into the challenges of achieving inclusion within science-advice institutions, particularly focusing on the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). It explores the normative and practical implications of broadening the epistemic space to incorporate diverse ways of knowing in uncertain contexts. Traditional science-advice often relies on strict quantification and institutionalized expertise, limiting the recognition of alternative perspectives. The study proposes an alternative view rooted in post-normal science, advocating for the adoption of an extended peer community model. Despite ICES's efforts to enhance stakeholder engagement through its Stakeholder Engagement Strategy, gaps remain in effectively valuing epistemic diversity. By analyzing a historical case involving the revision of fishing quotas for Northeast Atlantic mackerel, the paper illustrates the limitations of strict quantification in addressing complex and uncertain problems. It recommends a participatory approach informed by post-normal science principles and incorporates the concept of “epistemic injustice” in Miranda Fricker’s work (Fricker, 2003, 2007) to the discussion to underscore the ethical imperative of inclusive decision-making. Ultimately, the paper advocates for post-normal science approaches to better address contemporary challenges in science-advice institutions when the problem is deeply uncertain and complex.