Cautionary Tales for Science‐Based Policy in Deep‐Sea Mining Governance

ABSTRACT This article examines how low‐certainty scientific claims permeate high‐stakes policy debates before rigorous validation. Using deep‐sea mining governance as a focal domain, the study traces high‐visibility narratives, including the “dark oxygen” hypothesis, radioactive risks of polymetallic nodules, projected impacts of sediment plume dispersion, and catastrophic biodiversity loss, to demonstrate how preliminary findings and untested hypotheses can be amplified by media, research institutes, NGOs, and institutional incentives, and subsequently mobilized within the International Seabed Authority (ISA). The analysis reveals that introducing preliminary hypotheses into ISA deliberations without adequate epistemic context complicates the application of the precautionary principle and places policymakers in an untenable position to judge contested science under simultaneous political and temporal pressure. By evaluating the differentiated responsibilities of scientists, journals, NGOs, and policymakers, the article identifies systemic risks in translating speculative findings into governing narratives. Ultimately, the study proposes guiding principles to strengthen the science–policy interface, including clearer distinctions between hypotheses and established evidence, greater reliance on reproducibility and synthesis‐based assessments, enhanced scientific literacy within decision‐making institutions, and independent interdisciplinary review of politically salient claims. With the ISA's General Assembly scheduled for July 2026 to advance the Mining Code, how uncertainty is communicated today may shape regulatory precedents for decades.