Publications

@article{Giampietro2019a,

title = {Facing the tragedy of change in the semiotic process: the role of science},

author = {Mario Giampietro and Zora Kovacic},

url = {http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=104729},

doi = {10.1504/IJSD.2019.104729},

issn = {0960-1406},

year  = {2019},

date = {2019-01-01},

journal = {International Journal of Sustainable Development},

volume = {22},

number = {1/2},

pages = {88},

abstract = {Copyright textcopyright 2019 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd. We offer an interpretation of the concepts of integrity and quality of science based on semiotics. Science is a key component of the semiotic process in society, its role being the selection of representations of relevant events for guiding policy with the ultimate goal of preserving society's identity. The fitness of scientific information depends on the definition of its usefulness and relevance, and, therefore, on the identity of the 'self' of the semiotic process. Several distinct definitions of identity co-exist that are negotiated across levels (individuals, households, communities). Growing feelings of belonging to a post-truth world signal a failure in the preservation of the integrity of the semiotic process: scientific crises are coupled with social and political crises in an impredicative way. It is concluded that science should evolve from being a mere source of facts to a source of insights about how to deal with the tragedy of change.},

keywords = {Integrity and quality in science, Post-normal science, Post-truth world, Science for governance, Semiotic process, Tragedy of change},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Saltelli2017,

title = {What is wrong with evidence based policy, and how can it be improved?},

author = {Andrea Saltelli and Mario Giampietro},

url = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0016328717300472},

doi = {10.1016/j.futures.2016.11.012},

issn = {00163287},

year  = {2017},

date = {2017-08-01},

journal = {Futures},

volume = {91},

pages = {62--71},

abstract = {textcopyright 2017 The Authors The present crisis of science's governance, affecting science's reproducibility, scientific peer review and science's integrity, offers a chance to reconsider evidence based policy as it is being practiced at present. Current evidence based policy exercises entail forms of quantification \textendash often in the form of risk analysis or cost benefit analyses \textendash which aim to optimize one among a set of policy options corresponding to a generally single framing of the issue under consideration. More cogently the deepening of the analysis corresponding to a single view of what the problem is has the effect of distracting from what could be alternative readings. When using evidence based policy those alternative frames become a kind of ‘uncomfortable knowledge' which is de facto removed from the policy discourse. All the more so when the analysis is supported by extensive mathematical modelling. Thus evidence based policy may result in a dramatic simplification of the available perceptions, in flawed policy prescriptions and in the neglect of other relevant world views of legitimate stakeholders. This use of scientific method ultimately generates \textendash rather than resolving \textendash controversies and erodes the institutional trust of the involved actors. We suggest an alternative approach \textendash which we term quantitative story-telling \textendash which encourages a major effort in the pre-analytic, pre-quantitative phase of the analysis as to map a socially robust universe of possible frames, which represent different lenses through which to perceive what the problem is. This is followed by an analysis where the emphasis in not on confirmatory checks or system optimization but \textendash the opposite \textendash on an attempt to refute the frames if these violate constraints of feasibility (compatibility with processes outside human control); viability (compatibility with processes under human control), and desirability (compatibility with a plurality of normative considerations relevant to the system's actors).},

keywords = {Evidence based policy, PNS, Post-normal science, Quantitative story telling, Science and technology studies, Science for governance, STS},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Diaz-Maurin2015,

title = {The unresolved controversy over nuclear power: A new approach from complexity theory},

author = {Fran\c{c}ois Diaz-Maurin and Zora Kovacic},

url = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959378015000163},

doi = {10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.01.014},

issn = {09593780},

year  = {2015},

date = {2015-03-01},

journal = {Global Environmental Change},

volume = {31},

pages = {207--216},

publisher = {Pergamon},

abstract = {We explore the controversy over nuclear power by looking at the plurality of narratives that have emerged throughout its history. We find a lack of consistency between the visions of nuclear power put forward by governments and industry and the experience associated with economic viability, nuclear accidents, waste handling, and so on. We use the conceptual tool of holon from complexity theory to provide a link between the models used for the governance of nuclear power and the realization of those models. The analysis of the holon over time reveals a systemic inconsistency between the way in which the story about nuclear energy is told and the experience gained after implementing nuclear energy according to the story. This inconsistency is due to the incompatible levels of observation used by different social actors endorsing different perspectives. The implementation of nuclear power has been based on the engineering view, focusing on the functioning of the nuclear power plant considered in abstraction from the wider implications of the adoption of this technology on the environment, on the economy, and on society. We cross-check this narrative with the societal metabolism view in order to provide a long term perspective of the interdependencies between nuclear power and the complex socio-economic system in which it is embedded. We conclude that the controversy over nuclear power may be treated as a problem of contrasting beliefs and normative values in clear disjunction from experience. The analysis presented in this paper suggests that more attention should be given to the quality of the narratives used in policy making.},

keywords = {Epistemology, Hierarchy Theory, Historical analysis, Nuclear energy, Science for governance, Technology choice},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Giampietro2015,

title = {Quality assurance of knowledge claims in governance for sustainability: transcending the duality of passion vs. reason},

author = {Mario Giampietro and Sandra G. F. Bukkens},

url = {http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=72662},

doi = {10.1504/IJSD.2015.072662},

issn = {0960-1406},

year  = {2015},

date = {2015-01-01},

journal = {International Journal of Sustainable Development},

volume = {18},

number = {4},

pages = {282},

abstract = {The main problem of quality assurance on knowledge claims lies in the entanglement of normative (value-driven moral stands) and descriptive (narratives about causality) dimensions at different organisational levels of decision-making. Individuals must choose among contrasting legitimate narratives about "the right thing to do" while facing uncertainty about the outcome of their choice. The scientific community faces exactly the same predicament, but without being able to legitimately choose among contrasting value-driven moral stands. At the societal level, existing institutional settings are incapable of guaranteeing the quality of collective choices. Three types of quality control are needed for the proper production and use of knowledge claims for governance: on the usefulness of the chosen problem structuring (relevance); on the pertinence of the scientific representation (plausibility); on the effectiveness of the validation process (fairness). These quality checks are required to legitimise the decision-making process, thus transcending the traditional duality between passion and reason.},

keywords = {Complexity, Integrated assessment, Knowledge claims, Multi-criteria analysis, Quality control, Science for governance, Sustainable Development},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Giampietro2014a,

title = {Footprints to nowhere},

author = {Mario Giampietro and Andrea Saltelli},

url = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1470160X14000387},

doi = {10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.01.030},

issn = {1470160X},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-11-01},

journal = {Ecological Indicators},

volume = {46},

pages = {610--621},

abstract = {Crisp numbers make it to the headlines. However, it is unlikely that a single crisp number can capture a complex issue, such as the analysis of the sustainability of human progress both at the local and the global scale. This paper tackles this standard epistemological predicament in relation to a media-friendly model of man's impact on Nature: the Ecological Footprint (EF). The claim made by the proponents of this analytical tool is that EF makes it possible to check “how much is taken” by the economic process versus “how much could be taken” according to ecological processes. In this paper we argue that the ecological footprint assessment \textendash purportedly useful as an argument against the idea of perpetual growth \textendash is fraught with internal contradictions. Our critical appraisal is based on the lack of correspondence between the semantics \textendash the claim about what the EF accounting does \textendash and the syntax \textendash the EF protocol of accounting that should deliver the purported output. We critically examine the various assumptions used in the approach, showing that the EF is in contradiction with its stated purposes and would lead to paradoxes if its prescriptions were used for policy making. We also contend that the laboriousness of EF computation protocols contrasts with its ultimate fragility. In fact the estimate of carbon footprint due to energy production is what determines the assessment of the planet's deficit of virtual land. We show that this estimate cannot be defended in light of the assumptions and simplifications used for its construction. Our conclusion is that the EF does not serve a meaningful discussion on the modeling of sustainability, and that the same media-friendly narrative about the Earth Overshot day is in the end reassuring and complacent when considering other aspects on man's pressure on the planet and its ecosystems.},

keywords = {Ecological economics, Ecological footprint, Post-normal science, Science for governance, Sustainability indicators, Sustainable Development},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}