Working Together Across
Disciplines
Challenges for the Natural and
Social Sciences
David Chandler and Wyn Grant
Main projects
• Environmental and regulatory sustainability of
biopesticides – RELU 1, £350k (PAIS + HRI)
• Governance of livestock diseases – RELU 3,
£1m + (PAIS, Economics, Law, Biological
Sciences)
• Environmental footprint of horticulture –
Defra, £100,000
• REBECA policy action – European
Commission
Interdisciplinarity trend
• RELU programme
• Appointment to BBSRC panel
• Willingness of BBSRC to fund social
scientists
• Establishment of International Science
Policy Centre by Royal Society
• Collaboration with biological scientists
achievable – superstring theory!
Why collaboration is needed
• Many global problems can only be
addressed by such collaboration:
– climate change, GM technology, stem
cell therapy
• Emphasis on evidence-based policymaking.
• More public scrutiny of natural science.
Understanding & communication
• Scientists must become better
communicators.
• Public understanding of
scientific process (Hails & Dale,
2005).
• Social scientists need to
understand natural science &
vice versa..
• Public value of science
(Wilsdon et al., 2005)
The challenge for social &
natural scientists
• To develop a common
language & effective
methodological framework.
• A key aim of the RELU
programme & our project
on biopesticides in
particular.
The obstacles
• Endogenous features of disciplines
– e.g. ‘stick to what you know’, perceived
theoretical incompatibilities.
• Lack of a common framework within which to
conduct research.
• Structural features of universities and RAE.
• Training and professional regulation.
Political science and biology:
the possibilities of partnership
• UK political science defined by
eclecticism: ‘junction subject’
• Political science has drawn on
social biology (W J M Mackenize).
• Punctuated equilibrium models
draw on evolutionary biology.
(Baumgartner & Jones)
The opportunities of
partnership
• Political scientists interested in
interactions between entities & setting.
• Political science & biology have an
interest in adaptation to environment.
• Heightened importance of environment
& life science issues creates new
opportunities for collaboration.
Warwick: the learning curve
• Biologists thought that political
scientists may be identified with a
particular political position.
• Political scientists had little
awareness of molecular or systems
biology.
• Use theories to drive and test
hypotheses in similar ways.
The practical solution
• Reading literature from the other
discipline and presenting it to team
meetings.
• Allowed understanding of
methodologies and vocabularies.
• Political scientists write more
discursively.
Political & biological sciences:
Some similar challenges
• Debate in biological science about what
constitutes a species – ‘lumpers’ and ‘splitters’
• Similar taxonomic dilemmas in study of politics.
• Unit of analysis issues relate to risks of
committing individual or ecological fallacies.
• Scaling up problem in biology.
Some similarities & differences
• Both disciplines use comparison
• Controlled experiments norm in
biology, role of model species.
• Human behaviour more diverse:
no model plant (Arabidopis
thlania) use the concept of the
median voter but not identify one
(the search for ‘Worcester
woman’).
What each discipline gains
• Political science can help with
translating natural science evidence into
policies.
• Can help natural scientists to appreciate
constraints faced by decision-makers.
• Political scientists need scientific advice
to participate effectively in highly
technical regulatory debate.
What each discipline gains (2)
• Knowledge of scientists about decisionmaking & policy networks could be
placed in a more systematic framework
• Political science helped biologists to be
more deductive and theoretically
guided.
• A very positive experience thanks to the
project team.
Thanks to:
Justin Greaves, Gillian Prince & Mark Tatchell
Thanks for your attention