Science and issue advocacy in a forestry debate in Northern Finland

Scientists can use a number of strategies to inform policymakers. They can be “honest brokers” by communicating a variety of management options and opening up discussion about a range of uncertainties, or they can be “issue advocates” by arguing for specific management options. This article looks at a forestry debate between two groups of scientists in northern Finland and maps their argumentative strategies. Three strategies are distinguished relating to: (1) the state of the resource and its indicators; (2) scalar framing; and (3) future uncertainties due to climate change. Use of these strategies revealed polarized arguments about risks and sustainability, but seemed not to provide middle ground proposals for management options. This can be explained, we argue, because the conflict situation produces an easily polarized debate where it is a risk to play “honest broker”. It seems that the deeper scientists go in the defence of the preferred management option, the more they reduce their ability to provid...