Torbjørn Gundersen

Postdoctoral Fellow - Sosiologi og samfunnsgeografi

Norwegian version of this page

Email torbjorn.gundersen@sosgeo.uio.no

Username

Visiting address Moltke Moes vei 31 Harriet Holters hus 0851 Oslo

Postal address Postboks 1096 Blindern 0317 Oslo

Press photo Download business card

Academic interests

Gundersen's main academic interest concerns the proper role of science in democratic society and trust in scientific experts. He is also interested in empirical studies of science, climate science in particular. Gundersen's other main interest is the ethics of applied artificial intelligence and he is engaged in a research project at Oslo Metropolitan University about machine learning, professional accountability, and human values.

He is currently part of the project PERITIA • Policy, Expertise and Trust (peritia-trust.eu) and will contribute to Work Package 3 about trust and science advice mechanisms.

Background

Gundersen has a PhD from Oslo Metropolitan University with a philosophy of science monograph about the proper role of scientific expertise in public policymaking, focusing on the case of climate science. He has also been a visiting scholar at the Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science, LSE and at ARENA Centre for European Studies, UiO.

Gundersen is also a fellow at the Centre for Advanced Study (CAS) at The Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters as a part of the project What is a Good Policy? Political Morality, Feasibility, and Democracy (GOODPOL).

Tags: Expertise, artificial intelligence, Climate Science

Bærøe, Kristine; Gundersen, Torbjørn; Henden, Edmund & Rommetveit, Kjetil (2022). Can medical algorithms be fair? Three ethical quandaries and one dilemma. BMJ Health & Care Informatics. 29(1), p. 1–6. doi: 10.1136/bmjhci-2021-100445.
Gundersen, Torbjørn; Alinejad, Donya; Branch-Smith, Teresa; van Dijck, José; Duffy, Bobby & Hewlett, Kirstie [Show all 11 contributors for this article] (2022). A New Dark Age? Truth, Trust, and Environmental Science. Annual Review Environment and Resources. ISSN 1543-5938.
Gundersen, Torbjørn & Holst, Cathrine (2022). Trusted, but not trustworthy? Science advice in an environment of trust. Social Epistemology. ISSN 0269-1728.
Gundersen, Torbjørn (2021). Values in expert reasoning: A pragmatic approach. In Eriksen, Erik Oddvar (Eds.), The Accountability of Expertise: Making the Un-Elected Safe for Democracy. Routledge. ISSN 9781003175490. p. 155–172. doi: 10.4324/9781003175490.
Gundersen, Torbjørn (2020). Value-Free yet Policy-Relevant? The Normative Views of Climate Scientists and Their Bearing on Philosophy . Perspectives on Science. ISSN 1063-6145. 28(1), p. 89–118. doi: 10.1162/posc_a_00334. Full text in Research Archive
Bærøe, Kristine & Gundersen, Torbjørn (2019). Social impact under severe uncertainty: The role of neuroethicists at the intersection of neuroscience, AI, ethics, and policy-making . AJOB Neuroscience. ISSN 2150-7740. 10(3), p. 117–119. doi: 10.1080/21507740.2019.1632965.
Gundersen, Torbjørn (2018). Scientists as experts: A distinct role? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. ISSN 0039-3681. 69, p. 52–59. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2018.02.006. Full text in Research Archive Show summary
The role of scientists as experts is crucial to public policymaking. However, the expert role is contested and unsettled in both public and scholarly discourse. In this paper, I provide a systematic account of the role of scientists as experts in policymaking by examining whether there are any normatively relevant differences between this role and the role of scientists as researchers. Two different interpretations can be given of how the two roles relate to each other. The separability view states that there is a normatively relevant difference between the two roles, whereas the inseparability view denies that there is such a difference. Based on a systematic analysis of the central aspects of the role of scientists as experts – that is, its aim, context, mode of output, and standards, I propose a moderate version of the separability view. Whereas the aim of scientific research is typically to produce new knowledge through the use of scientific method for evaluation and dissemination in internal settings, the aim of the expert is to provide policymakers and the public with relevant and applicable knowledge that can premise political reasoning and deliberation.

View all works in Cristin

Mlonyeni, Philip Maxwell Thingbø & Gundersen, Torbjørn (2021). Norway: How ethics is taught.
Gundersen, Torbjørn (2021). Kommentar til Åsa Wikforss.
Bærøe, Kristine & Gundersen, Torbjørn (2021). Translational Ethics: Justified Roles of Bioethicists Within and Beyond Lifecycles of Artificial Intelligence Systems in Health...
Gundersen, Torbjørn & Smeby, Jens-Christian (2020). profesjon. Store Norske Leksikon (Nettutgaven).
Gundersen, Torbjørn (2020). The future of medical AI: the role of medical doctors .
Holst, Cathrine & Gundersen, Torbjørn (2020). Trustworthy science advice mechanisms.
Bærøe, Kristine & Gundersen, Torbjørn (2020). Regjeringens strategi for kunstig intelligens svikter på vesentlige punkter. Aftenposten (morgenutg. : trykt utg.). ISSN 0804-3116.
Jenssen, Dag & Gundersen, Torbjørn (2019). Stor sjanse for at verdiene blir med på lasset. Intervju med Torbjørn Gundersen. [Business/trade/industry journal]. Dyade.
Gundersen, Torbjørn (2019). The proper role of moral and political values in expert reasoning: towards a pragmatic view.
Frøjd, Elise Koppang & Gundersen, Torbjørn (2018). Bør klimaeksperter flagge egne meninger? [Internet]. Forskning.no.
Osland, Oddgeir; Mausethagen, Sølvi; Gundersen, Torbjørn & Larsen, Lars Erik (2018). Lærernes etiske råd bør videreføres – dette bør gjøres bedre. Utdanning.no.
Gundersen, Torbjørn (2018). Kan eksperter være verdifrie? Verdifrihetsidealet og den empiriske innvendingen. Norsk sosiologisk tidsskrift. ISSN 2535-2512. 2(5), p. 421–428. doi: 10.18261.
Gundersen, Torbjørn (2018). Hva er profesjonsetikk? Rådets funksjon og rolle.
Gundersen, Torbjørn (2018). Kunnskapsbasert politikkutforming – en samtale med Cass Sunstein. Nytt Norsk Tidsskrift. ISSN 0800-336X. 35, p. 301–305. doi: 10.18261.
Gundersen, Torbjørn (2018). Ekspertens verdier – bør de få plass? [Internet]. Oslomet.no.
Gundersen, Torbjørn (2018). Bør klimaeksperter flagge egne meninger? [Internet]. forskning.no.
Gundersen, Torbjørn (2017). How Climate Scientists View the Expert Role: The Value-Free Ideal, Moral Responsibility, and Relevance.
Gundersen, Torbjørn (2016). Scientists as experts in policymaking – a separable role?
Gundersen, Torbjørn (2016). Forskeres rolle som eksperter.
Gundersen, Torbjørn (2015). Klimaeksperters selvforståelse.
Tellmann, Silje Maria & Gundersen, Torbjørn (2015). Skjulte strateger eller overbeviste fagpersoner? Replikk til Martiniussen. Nytt Norsk Tidsskrift. ISSN 0800-336X. p. 96–97.
Tellmann, Silje Maria & Gundersen, Torbjørn (2015). Om ekspertrollen i offentlige utvalg.
Tellmann, Silje Maria & Gundersen, Torbjørn (2014). Klima - ekspertenes ansvar? Nytt Norsk Tidsskrift. ISSN 0800-336X. p. 189–195.
Osland, Oddgeir & Gundersen, Torbjørn (2013). Dannelse i praksis - om forholdet mellom akademisk dannelse og profesjonsdannelse.
Mausethagen, Sølvi; Gundersen, Torbjørn; Larsen, Lars Erik & Osland, Oddgeir (2018). Evaluering av lærerprofesjonens etiske råd. OsloMet - storbyuniversitetet.
Gundersen, Torbjørn (2018). Values and the role of scientists in policymaking. OsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University. ISSN 978-82-8364-120-2.
Gundersen, Torbjørn (2018). How Climate Scientists View the Expert Role: Value-freedom, Responsibility, and Relevance. ARENA Centre for Europan Studies Oslo. 2018(2). Show summary
How scientific experts should relate to non-epistemic values is a key issue in current philosophy of science. This paper seeks to widen the philosophical debate by exploring how scientists themselves understand their role as experts and that role’s relation to values. I present findings from interviews with climate scientists who have participated as authors in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). A main finding is that the climate scientists subscribe to the value-free ideal in their role as experts. Yet their views on the moral responsibility of scientists and the aim of providing policy-relevant output challenge the value-free ideal. The paper suggests ways in which their normative views and lines of reasoning can illustrate, expand, and revise the philosophical discussion on the question of non-epistemic values in science.

View all works in Cristin

Published Sep. 4, 2020 3:43 PM - Last modified Dec. 11, 2020 9:27 AM