We need more social scientists who dare to engage in criticism of all sides

Critical analysis from within environmental science can be extremely unpopular and even damaging for an academic career. But it is as necessary and as it is urgent, says Myanna Lahsen. Even if the criticism seems to get the research too close to the other side.

 

One of your most cited works is about ‘seductive simulations.’ What is this?

For this work, I looked at computer models created to project global climate changes. I examined how scientists can be seduced by their own models - thinking of them as "truth machines” - and how they communicate their work, often downplaying uncertainties. I interviewed modellers who acknowledged this and described a culture where strictly recognizing limits to their own models can be unpopular because it might suggest that their colleagues’ models are also limited. Also, emphasis on what matters changes. For example, when the issue of aerosols in the air couldn’t be resolved, they were dismissed as unimportant, but when tools improved, aerosols became central.

You began this work in the 1990s when criticism of science intensified, especially environmental science. Why did you do that, and how was it received?

I was curious about what drove climate scepticism - religion, politics, geography? In 1994, I studied at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Colorado, where I observed climate science discussions and IPCC events, often over lunch with staff. This was a time when anti-environmental attacks were intensifying. Many at NCAR—an institution committed to presenting science as objective and neutral—were uneasy about a cultural anthropologist studying them. One time, when a conservative voice cited my work in the Wall Street Journal, a colleague told me: “Congratulations, but it must be concerning that you were cited by a conservative.” Soon after, Fred Singer, a leading climate contrarian, contacted me asking for more. I sent him articles where I critique his side and role in distortions in the debate. I never saw him subsequently using my work and authority. I’ve always looked critically in all directions, especially at things quietly suppressed—I think that’s essential.

A real fear could be that internal criticism is fodder for climate change deniers. Is that something you worry about?

Climate deniers invent stories when they don’t have the ammunition, so in that sense, it doesn’t matter as much as feared. More dangerous is suppressing critique: that’s just not science. We need transparency – about      the less rosy sides of the picture. To protect science from politicization and societies from technocracy, democracy-undermining depoliticization, and blindspots, we don’t just ask: what is being produced, but also what is not being produced? What science gets sidelined? I’m not saying “bring out all the dirt”, but there’s too much at stake not to conduct a critical analysis. I’m not criticizing science itself—it’s still the most rigorous form of knowledge production we have—but this fortress mentality helps maintain a climate and research agenda that sustains the status quo. Science is not addressing why it’s failing to have the desired impact, and this is why we need critical analysis from social science. An illustration of this is that we are embarking on the 7th IPCC assessment report, three decades past the first one, and emissions are still rising. The public is generally convinced of the reality of the threat but doesn’t know how to change course. One reason for this is the nature of the discussions that exclude the public by being very technical - even though core forces and decisions are political and normative and therefore should involve and empower the public and more decisive, democratic interventions.

A related point is that foreclosing critical analysis of mainstream climate science can backfire and be extremely dangerous. Can you give an example of that?

Today, there is a push for geo-engineering and the method of solar radiation management (SRM) to reduce sunlight and artificially manage global temperature. This involves injecting reflective particles into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight into space, and it’s a convenient message for people in power because it’s some sort of magic wand that can keep the global temperature from rising. The lesson being that humans can keep emitting without changing anything. But the method is inherently uncontrollable and incredibly dangerous, and we don’t know the consequences—other than that we would have to keep injecting these chemicals into the air forever. Top experts are signing petitions saying that we should not develop this technology. But—and here is the point—the exact same models used to project climate change are used to defend solar radiation management. This means that all the uncertainties—previously downplayed—suddenly become important. So, it becomes problematic for the environmental side, as they have maintained that these models are greater truth machines.

Today, you are in Brazil. Is the role of social science different here?

When I arrived at the Brazilian Institute for Space Research, my immediate boss at that time made me sign that I would not study any of the work done here at the institute. This illustrates how sensitive the topic is. I also arrived with a grant from the United States, but the same boss wanted me to relinquish it, thinking that U.S. money must come with a U.S. agenda. In Brazil, science is sometimes seen as politics by other means, especially social science, and therefore it gets suppressed - by cutting funding. Below the surface, there is sometimes even a perception that the climate change agenda is invented and used by the Global North to suppress the Global South. People responsible for developing Brazilian climate policy have told me they don’t like the IPCC because they see it as playing politics with science. I’ve also attended UN meetings in the Amazon where the Brazilian government had nothing to say about natural science but explicitly stated that they wanted to control what kinds of social science were funded. This is because social sciences tend to critique policy more often than other sciences, and they don’t want that. They don’t want social scientists like Philip Fearnside in Manaus to say the government is violating indigenous rights or not doing as much to avoid deforestation as it claims. For these and other reasons, environmental social science in Brazil is not strong.

What will you look for during the upcoming COP30?

Brazil wants to highlight its rare metals because the country has a lot of what the world needs for renewable energy. But an interesting point is how well-equipped Brazil is to handle this and who will pay the price. In Brazil, there is often a small group of winners while the costs are borne by the rest of the country. We’ve seen this with soy and meat, which are exported for the benefit of the few but at a huge cost to the public. In Bahia, European-made windmills are being installed, violating the rights of local communities, who are losing the ability to live in and from the land use, without adequate compensation and ability to defend their needs, including dwindling freshwater resources, which the erection of the windmills also impact. Recently, lawmakers in Brazil approved oil exploration at the mouth of the Amazon River, despite agreements made at COP28 to avoid such actions. The government will likely justify this by claiming that fossil fuel proceeds will fund transformation towards renewable energy.

About Myanna Lahsen

Myanna is a cultural anthropologist and STS scholar researching the social and political dimensions of science, development, and sustainability in Brazil, the U.S., and beyond. She is a Senior Researcher at Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research (INPE) and has held positions at Harvard, NCAR, Wageningen, and Linköping University. Her work bridges science and policy, advising journals, shaping global research agendas, and informing international climate and sustainability debates.

August 25th, 2025.