The politicisation of science in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia: discussion of ‘Scientific integrity, public policy and water governance’

IF 2.4 Q2 WATER RESOURCES
M. Stewardson, N. Bond, J. Brookes, S. Capon, F. Dyer, Michael Grace, P. Frazier, Barry Hart, A. Horne, Alison King, M. Langton, R. Nathan, I. Rutherfurd, F. Sheldon, Ross Thompson, R. Vertessy, G. Walker, Q. Wang, S. Wassens, R. Watts, A. Webb, A. Western
{"title":"The politicisation of science in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia: discussion of ‘Scientific integrity, public policy and water governance’","authors":"M. Stewardson, N. Bond, J. Brookes, S. Capon, F. Dyer, Michael Grace, P. Frazier, Barry Hart, A. Horne, Alison King, M. Langton, R. Nathan, I. Rutherfurd, F. Sheldon, Ross Thompson, R. Vertessy, G. Walker, Q. Wang, S. Wassens, R. Watts, A. Webb, A. Western","doi":"10.1080/13241583.2021.1996681","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Many water scientists aim for their work to inform water policy and management, and in pursuit of this objective, they often work alongside government water agencies to ensure their research is relevant, timely and communicated effectively. A paper in this issue, examining 'Science integrity, public policy and water governance in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia’, suggests that a large group of scientists, who work on water management in the Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) including the Basin Plan, have been subject to possible ‘administrative capture'. Specifically, it is suggested that they have advocated for policies favoured by government agencies with the objective of gaining personal benefit, such as increased research funding. We examine evidence for this claim and conclude that it is not justified. The efforts of scientists working alongside government water agencies appear to have been misinterpreted as possible administrative capture. Although unsubstantiated, this claim does indicate that the science used in basin water planning is increasingly caught up in the politics of water management. We suggest actions to improve science-policy engagement in basin planning, to promote constructive debate over contested views and avoid the over-politicisation of basin science.","PeriodicalId":51870,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Journal of Water Resources","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australasian Journal of Water Resources","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13241583.2021.1996681","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"WATER RESOURCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

ABSTRACT Many water scientists aim for their work to inform water policy and management, and in pursuit of this objective, they often work alongside government water agencies to ensure their research is relevant, timely and communicated effectively. A paper in this issue, examining 'Science integrity, public policy and water governance in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia’, suggests that a large group of scientists, who work on water management in the Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) including the Basin Plan, have been subject to possible ‘administrative capture'. Specifically, it is suggested that they have advocated for policies favoured by government agencies with the objective of gaining personal benefit, such as increased research funding. We examine evidence for this claim and conclude that it is not justified. The efforts of scientists working alongside government water agencies appear to have been misinterpreted as possible administrative capture. Although unsubstantiated, this claim does indicate that the science used in basin water planning is increasingly caught up in the politics of water management. We suggest actions to improve science-policy engagement in basin planning, to promote constructive debate over contested views and avoid the over-politicisation of basin science.
澳大利亚墨累-达令盆地的科学政治化:关于“科学诚信、公共政策和水治理”的讨论
摘要许多水资源科学家的工作目标是为水资源政策和管理提供信息,为了实现这一目标,他们经常与政府水资源机构合作,以确保他们的研究具有相关性、及时性和有效沟通。本期的一篇论文研究了“澳大利亚墨累-达令盆地的科学诚信、公共政策和水治理”,该论文表明,在墨累-达令盆地(MDB)从事水管理工作的一大群科学家,包括盆地计划,可能会受到“行政捕获”。具体而言,有人建议他们支持政府机构青睐的政策,以获得个人利益,例如增加研究资金。我们审查了这一说法的证据,得出结论认为这是不合理的。与政府水务机构合作的科学家们的努力似乎被误解为可能的行政捕获。尽管这一说法没有得到证实,但它确实表明,流域水资源规划中使用的科学越来越多地陷入了水资源管理的政治之中。我们建议采取行动,提高科学政策在流域规划中的参与度,促进对有争议观点的建设性辩论,避免流域科学的过度政治化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
21.90%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: The Australasian Journal of Water Resources ( AJWR) is a multi-disciplinary regional journal dedicated to scholarship, professional practice and discussion on water resources planning, management and policy. Its primary geographic focus is on Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands. Papers from outside this region will also be welcomed if they contribute to an understanding of water resources issues in the region. Such contributions could be due to innovations applicable to the Australasian water community, or where clear linkages between studies in other parts of the world are linked to important issues or water planning, management, development and policy challenges in Australasia. These could include papers on global issues where Australasian impacts are clearly identified.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信