This article compares two science advisory organizations: the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) and the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES), with a special focus on how their respective policy systems absorb the knowledge delivered for use in decision processes. The science-policy processes of these two organizations differ in important respects; ICES delivers highly specified knowledge to a specified uptake mechanism, while the IPCC produces unspecified knowledge for an unspecified uptake mechanism. Since both environmental governance areas are criticized for lack of needed action, a comparison is of interest asking how this might relate to the organization of science advice. As theoretical resources for this explorative comparison we utilize two approaches from the field of science and technology studies: the co-production approach, which focuses on the entanglements of scientific and political processes, and the systems-theory-oriented multiple-worlds model, which assumes a clear difference in institutional logics between the scientific and the political field. Since the IPCC has been critically analysed by several studies utilizing resources from the two approaches, we contribute with new insights by bringing in ICES, which is a much less studied organization exposing a different science-policy structure. One important finding is that the two theoretical approaches focus on different aspects, exposing ‘links’ and ‘integration’, both of which we argue are important for analysing and assessing science advisory organizations. Moreover, these aspects can be advantageously integrated into a single theoretical framework.

本文比较了两个科学咨询组织：政府间气候变化专门委员会 (IPCC) 和国际海洋探索理事会 (ICES)，特别关注它们各自的政策体系如何吸收在决策过程中使用的知识。这两个组织的科学政策进程在重要方面存在差异； ICES 为指定的吸收机制提供高度指定的知识，而 IPCC 为未指定的吸收机制提供未指定的知识。由于这两个环境治理领域都因缺乏必要的行动而受到批评，因此进行比较很有趣，询问这与科学建议的组织有何关系。作为这种探索性比较的理论资源，我们利用科学技术研究领域的两种方法：共同生产方法，重点关注科学和政治过程的纠缠；以及面向系统理论的多重世界模型，它关注科学和政治过程的纠缠。假设科学领域和政治领域之间的制度逻辑存在明显差异。由于多项研究利用这两种方法的资源对 IPCC 进行了批判性分析，因此我们通过引入 ICES 来贡献新的见解，ICES 是一个研究较少的组织，揭示了不同的科学政策结构。一个重要的发现是，这两种理论方法侧重于不同的方面，揭示“联系”和“整合”，我们认为这两者对于分析和评估科学咨询组织都很重要。此外，这些方面可以有利地整合到单个理论框架中。