DOCSLIB.ORG

Using Science As Evidence in Public Policy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

This PDF is available from The National Academies Press at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13460 Using Science as Evidence in Public Policy ISBN Kenneth Prewitt, Thomas A. Schwandt, and Miron L. Straf, Editors; 978-0-309-26161-6 Committee on the Use of Social Science Knowledge in Public Policy; Center for Education; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and 110 pages Education; National Research Council 6 x 9 PAPERBACK (2012) Visit the National Academies Press online and register for... Instant access to free PDF downloads of titles from the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL 10% off print titles Custom notification of new releases in your field of interest Special offers and discounts Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. Request reprint permission for this book Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Using Science as Evidence in Public Policy Committee on the Use of Social Science Knowledge in Public Policy Kenneth Prewitt, Thomas A. Schwandt, and Miron L. Straf, Editors Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Using Science as Evidence in Public Policy THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by Contract No. SES-0630359 between the National Acad- emy of Sciences and the National Science Foundation; by Contract No. 7275 with the William T. Grant Foundation; by Contract No. 2006-7875 with the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation; and by Contract No. 20070001 with the Spencer Foundation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-26161-6 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-26161-9 Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334- 3313; http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2012 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America Suggested citation: National Research Council. (2012). Using Science as Evidence in Public Policy. Committee on the Use of Social Science Knowledge in Public Policy, K. Prewitt, T.A. Schwandt, and M.L. Straf, Editors. Division of Behavioral and Social Sci- ences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Using Science as Evidence in Public Policy The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a man- date that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the Na- tional Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Using Science as Evidence in Public Policy Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Using Science as Evidence in Public Policy COMMITTEE ON THE USE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE KNOWLEDGE IN PUBLIC POLICY Kenneth Prewitt (Chair), School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University, New York George W. Bohrnstedt, American Institutes for Research (emeritus), Palo Alto, CA Norman M. Bradburn, National Opinion Research Center and Harris Graduate School of Public Policy Studies, University of Chicago Alicia L. Carriquiry, Department of Statistics, Iowa State University Nancy D. Cartwright, London School of Economics and Political Science and Department of Philosophy, University of California, San Diego Harris Cooper, Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University Michael J. Farrell, New York City Police Department, New York Stephen E. Fienberg, Department of Statistics and the Heinz College, Carnegie Mellon University Sheila S. Jasanoff, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University Robert L. Jervis, Department of Political Science, Columbia University Robert E. Litan, Bloomberg Government, Washington, DC Ann Morning, Department of Sociology, New York University Robert A. Pollak, John M. Olin School of Business, Washington University Stephen H. Schneider,* Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies, Stanford University Thomas A. Schwandt, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Sidney Verba, Department of Government, Harvard University Miron L. Straf, Study Director Melissa Lee Sands, Consultant Jonathan R. Dolle, Research Associate Mary Ann Kasper, Senior Program Assistant *Died in July 2010. v Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Using Science as Evidence in Public Policy Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Using Science as Evidence in Public Policy Preface he Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education (DBASSE) of the National Research Council (NRC) in 2005 Testablished a standing committee to consider questions of how to strengthen the quality and use of social science research and to lay a foun- dation for the continuous improvement in the conduct of social science research and its applications to public policy. The standing committee was to identify areas of significant interest to those in the policy, research, and practitioner communities. That committee convened a number of workshops and discussion meetings and met with a variety of researchers engaged in research on evidence for public policy, and it also consulted with policy makers about the usefulness of social science research to their work. As a result of those workshops and meetings, the committee concluded that it should give less attention to how the social sciences produce knowledge about policy, and focus, instead, on the settings and conditions that affect whether social science knowledge is used in policy making. To carry out the task identi- fied, the NRC in 2009 set up the Committee on the Use of Social Science Knowledge in Public Policy. This new committee decided to propose a framework for research on how policy makers make use of scientific knowledge and how the results of that research might lead to improved policy making and improved prepara- tion of students in policy schools for careers in the policy world. This report is the result of the work of the committee. vii Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Using Science as Evidence in Public Policy viii PREFACE In acknowledging the many people who made our work possible, we begin with thanks to members of the original standing committee (who are not members of the present committee),
Recommended publications
  • Science, Technology, Policy Fellowship Program Step Into Our Community and Shape Science for Society!

    Science, Technology, Policy Fellowship Program Step Into Our Community and Shape Science for Society!

    STeP Science, Technology, Policy Fellowship Program Step into our community and shape science for society! A LANDMARK PROGRAM OF THE INTER-AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH (IAI) 2021 IAI WHO WE ARE The Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI) is an intergovernmental organization supported by 19 countries in the Americas, dedicated to pursuing the principles of scientific excellence, international cooperation, capacity building, and the full and open exchange of scientific information to increase the understanding of global change phenomena and their social-economic implications. The IAI enables a well-informed, inclusive and sustainable America, which collaboratively meets the challenges posed by global change by supporting flexible science-based policies and actions. History of the IAI In 1992, 12 nations of the Americas came together in Montevideo, Uruguay to establish the IAI. The 12 governments, in the Declaration of Montevideo, called for the Institute to develop the best possible international coordination of scientific and economic research of global change in the Americas. Since then, 7 additional nations have acceded to the treaty, and the IAI has now 19 parties in the Americas. IAI INTER-AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, POLICY FELLOWSHIP The Science, Technology, Policy (STeP) Fellowship Program is an innovative landmark program of the IAI to enhance human and institutional capacities in IAI member countries and to support the provision of expert scientific advice to policy makers for the development of public policy relevant to global change. Fellows in the STeP program are placed at host government or private organizations to engage first-hand with policy and decision-makers and facilitate the uptake of scientific knowledge into policy processes.
  • Science and Public Policy Journal Impact Factor

    Science and Public Policy Journal Impact Factor

    Science And Public Policy Journal Impact Factor demagnetiseAerobiosis Frederic ducally lyings and boyishly, allegretto, she he dwindled lean his dozenher monolatries very tautologously. cursings hazardously. Bifariously puffiest, Maxwell indenture world and beans tautonym. Preterite Max We can sometimes peek at the institutional and advocate in identifying terrorist activity and science public policy impact journal includes only Journal on Policy a Complex Systems is licensed under a Creative. If a publisher's editorial policy not business practices negatively impact air quality network a journal or its role in the surrounding literature of difficulty subject the. PLOS Home. The mission of replace New England Journal of Public Policy of hand-in-hand burden the mission of UMass Boston To due the missile and address the issues of a. Spanning all authors and public. And 3 the impacts of policies aimed specifically at crisis management. Factors Journal Of Public Administration Research And Theory J-PART. Canadian Public Policy UTP Journals. The Central European Journal of asylum Policy CEJPP is certain open-access multidisciplinary. It rush the official journal of the tug for Advancement of Violence and Injury Research SAVIR. The Journal of particular Policy Governance JSPG is an internationally recognized open-access peer-reviewed publication that serves as a tongue for. With noticeable differences were they are no other aspects of a shadow of the wrong standard operating units of journal and science public policy. Strengthening Forensic Science family the United States A Path. What time an impact factor for scientific journals? Is the journal of the UK Joint University Council JUC Public Administration Committee PAC PPA aims to.
  • Matthew J. Sobel

    Matthew J. Sobel

    February 11, 2019 MATTHEW J. SOBEL Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University 10900 Euclid Ave. Cleveland, OH 44106-7235 Phone: (216) 368-6003 E-mail: [email protected] CURRENTLY Case Western Reserve University: William E. Umstattd Professor Emeritus of Industrial Economics Professor Emeritus of Operations, Weatherhead School of Management HONORS 2014 Distinguished Fellow, MSOM (Manufacturing and Services Operations Management Society) 2014 Best Paper Award, iFORM (Interface of Finance, Operations, and Risk Management) 2014 Theodore M. Alfred Distinguished Service Faculty Award (Case Western Reserve University) 2004 Fellow, INFORMS (Institute for Operations Research and Management Science) 1986 University Lead Award, Society of Manufacturing Engineers 1983 Lanchester Prize Honorable Mention, Operations Research Society of America Sigma Xi (science) Alpha Pi Mu (industrial engineering) RESEARCH (CURRENT) Coordination of operations with finance Stochastic optimization Preference theory and its applications EDUCATION Stanford University Ph.D., Operations Research, 1967 Columbia University A.M., Mathematical Statistics, 1964 Columbia University B.S., Industrial Engineering, 1960 Columbia College A.B., Liberal Arts, Pre-engineering, 1959 LEADERSHIP RESPONSIBILITY Chair, Department of Economics, Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, 2012 – 2013 (Acting Chair, July –December 2013). Chair, Department of Operations, Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, 1999-2006. Dean, W. Averell Harriman School for Management and Policy, State University of New York at Stony Brook, 1992 - 1995; Acting Dean 1991-1992. Coordinator of management science and operations management (and information systems until 1983), College of Management, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1978 - 1986. Co-Coordinator of the master's degree Management Science concentration, School of Organization and Management, Yale University, 1976 - 1977.
  • Technology, Development and Economic Crisis: the Schumpeterian Legacy

    Technology, Development and Economic Crisis: the Schumpeterian Legacy

    CIMR Research Working Paper Series Working Paper No. 23 Technology, development and economic crisis: the Schumpeterian legacy by Rinaldo Evangelista University of Camerino Piazza Cavour, 19/F, 62032 Camerino (IT) +39-0737-403074 [email protected] June 2015 ISSN 2052-062X Abstract This contribution aims at highlighting the complex, non-linear and potentially contradictory nature of the relationships between technological progress, economic growth and social development, in particular within the context of market based economies. The main (provocative) argument put forward in the paper is that the recent neo-Schumpeterian literature, while providing fundamental contributions to our understanding of innovation, has contributed to the rising of a positivistic reading of the relationship between technology, economy and society, with technology being able to guaranty strong economic growth and (implicitly) social welfare. This is confirmed by the fact that, contrary to other influential heterodox economic schools and Schumpeter himself, in the recent neo- Schumpeterian literature technology is only rarely associated to macroeconomic market failures such as systemic crises, structural unemployment, and the growth of social and economic inequalities. It is also argued that the emergence of a “positivistic bias” in the neo-Schumpeterian literature has been associated to the dominance of a supply-side and micro-based view of the technology-economy relationships. Key words: Technology, Innovation, Schumpeter, Development, Crisis JEL codes: B52, O00, O30. 2 1. Introduction There is no doubt that the last economic crisis, with its depth, extension and length, could have, at least in principle, the potentiality of shaking at the fundamentals the dominant neo-liberal economic thinking and policy framework.
  • Technology Policy and the Environment

    Technology Policy and the Environment

    SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT « Technology Policy and the Environment What is the role of technology and technology policy in addressing environmental concerns and realising sustainable development goals? To consider this question, a Workshop on Technology Policy Technology Policy and the Environment was held in Paris on 21 June 2001 as part of the OECD Horizontal Programme on Sustainable Development. This brochure contains a summary of the workshop discussions, which and the Environment focused on the contributions of economic theory and modelling to understanding technology/ environment relationships. Participants debated the role and design of technology policy in addressing environmental problems and developed a list of recommendations for future OECD work. The insights gained at the workshop will contribute to further OECD analysis on technology and sustainable development. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT www.oecd.org 2000 Technology Policy and the Environment ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT Pursuant to Article 1 of the Convention signed in Paris on 14th December 1960, and which came into force on 30th September 1961, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shall promote policies designed: – to achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of living in Member countries, while maintaining financial stability, and thus to contribute to the development of the world economy; – to contribute to sound economic expansion in Member as well as non-member countries in the process of economic development; and – to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis in accordance with international obligations. The original Member countries of the OECD are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States.
  • Lessons from the History of UK Science Policy

    Lessons from the History of UK Science Policy

    Lessons from the History of UK Science Policy August 2019 2 Science Policy History Foreword The British Academy is the UK’s national body for the humanities and social sciences. Our purpose is to deepen understanding of people, societies and cultures, enabling everyone to learn, progress and prosper. The Academy inspires, supports and promotes outstanding achievement and global advances in the humanities and social sciences. We are a fellowship of over 1000 of the most outstanding academics, an international community of leading experts focused on people, culture and societies, and are the voice for the humanities and social sciences.1 The British Academy aims to use insights from the past and the present to help shape the future, by influencing policy and affecting change in the UK and overseas. Given this, the Academy is well-placed to bring humanities and social science insight from the past into policymaking for the present and the future. One way to do this is in using historical insights to inform policymaking – ‘looking back to look forward’. To support these efforts, the Academy’s public policy team in collaboration with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, has undertaken a new programme of work on policy histories. The policy histories series develop historical analyses for individual policy areas. These analyses are used to provide: • a structured, rigorous and objective account of the history of a given policy area and the significance of key milestones in context, • an informed basis for analysis and insights from the timelines as well as dialogue and discussion about what history can tell us about the future.
  • Japanese Technology Policy: History and a New Perspective

    Japanese Technology Policy: History and a New Perspective

    DPRIETI Discussion Paper Series 01-E-001 Japanese Technology Policy: History and a New Perspective HARAYAMA Yuko RIETI The Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry http://www.rieti.go.jp/en/ RIETI Discussion Paper Series 01-E-001 JAPANESE TECHNOLOGY POLICY: HISTORY AND A NEW PERSPECTIVE Yuko Harayama Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry August 2001 Abstract The last decade of the 20th century was marked by the emergence of a "knowledge-based economy," with governments in most OECD countries intensifying their commitment to the underlying research and development activities. Japan is no exception. The Japanese government affirmed setting the objectives of a "Nation Based on Science and Technology" as the fundamental policy goal in 1980 and since then it has implemented several laws and policy packages in the fields of science, technology, industry and higher education, with the common denominator being "Industry-University- State cooperation." This policy orientation has been consolidated by the Science and Technology Basic Law, introduced in 1995, which gave the government legal competence in science and technology. This trend tends to reinforce stereotypic images of the Japanese innovation system, such as the "government picking up technological paths" or "industry and government working hand-in-hand." Does this perception reflect reality? This study attempts to clarify this by examining: · How the technology policy evolved during the postwar period in Japan; · What its impact was on the private sector's decision on R&D activities; · What the underlying philosophy was of the government's R&D policies, if one existed; · What the new perspective is.
  • Science and Public Policy: What's Proof Got to Do With

    Science and Public Policy: What's Proof Got to Do With

    Environmental Science & Policy 7 (2004) 369–383 Science and public policy: what’s proof got to do with it? Naomi Oreskes Department of History and Science Studies Program, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0104, USA Abstract In recent years, it has become common for opponents of environmental action to argue that the scientific basis for purported harms is uncertain, unreliable, and fundamentally unproven. In response, many scientists believe that their job is to provide the “proof” that society needs. Both the complaint and the response are misguided. In all but the most trivial cases, science does not produce logically indisputable proofs about the natural world. At best it produces a robust consensus based on a process of inquiry that allows for continued scrutiny, re-examination, and revision. Within a scientific community, different individuals may weigh evidence differently and adhere to different standards of demonstration, and these differences are likely to be amplified when the results of inquiry have political, religious, or economic ramifications. In such cases, science can play a role by providing informed opinions about the possible consequences of our actions (or inactions), and by monitoring the effects of our choices. © 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Environmental policy; Science policy; Scientific proof; Uncertainty; Values; Politics; Lomborg 1. Introduction centive for manipulation and misrepresentation of informa- tion. This is particularly true in the domain of environmental The heart of Bjørn Lomborg’s recent critique of envi- policy. ronmentalism is that many assertions of the environmen- Lomborg assures us that everyone is for the environment— tal movement are unproven and therefore provide no good just as everyone is for world peace and against hunger—but grounds for sensible public policy.
  • What Is a Science Diplomat?

    What Is a Science Diplomat?

    The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 15 (2020) 409-423 brill.com/hjd What Is a Science Diplomat? Lorenzo Melchor Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology (FECYT), Madrid, Spain; former FECYT Science Adviser in the Spanish Embassy in London, United Kingdom [email protected] Received: 22 May 2020; revised: 4 July 2020; accepted: 21 July 2020 Summary The COVID-19 crisis has shown how countries initially responded to a global chal- lenge on their own, instead of relying on a multilateral science diplomacy — based response. Although, science diplomacy has received great attention for the past de- cade, its meaning and the nature of the diverse practitioners involved remain elusive. Science diplomacy is a transboundary field sitting across national borders, policy frameworks and stakeholders of all natures and professional backgrounds. But what is a science diplomat? What science diplomacy roles formally exist? Who can become a science diplomat? What knowledge and skills are required? This practitioner’s essay proposes a typology of science diplomacy practitioners who bring science, technology, innovation, foreign policy and the international political system altogether closer in either institutionalised or non-institutionalised roles, and it also provides guidance for pursuing a career in science diplomacy. These science diplomats may promote na- tional competitiveness but also facilitate multilateral responses to global challenges. Keywords science diplomacy – science diplomat – science counsellor – science attaché – science adviser – science advice – science-policy interface – knowledge diplomacy – COVID-19 © Lorenzo Melchor, 2020 | doi:10.1163/1871191X-bja10026 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0Downloaded license. from Brill.com10/01/2021 11:43:18AM via free access 410 Melchor 1 Introduction1 The COVID-19 outbreak has caused a profound global public health and socio- economic crisis.
  • Advancing Science Communication.Pdf

    Advancing Science Communication.Pdf

    SCIENCETreise, Weigold COMMUNICATION / SCIENCE COMMUNICATORS Scholars of science communication have identified many issues that may help to explain why sci- ence communication is not as “effective” as it could be. This article presents results from an exploratory study that consisted of an open-ended survey of science writers, editors, and science communication researchers. Results suggest that practitioners share many issues of concern to scholars. Implications are that a clear agenda for science communication research now exists and that empirical research is needed to improve the practice of communicating science. Advancing Science Communication A Survey of Science Communicators DEBBIE TREISE MICHAEL F. WEIGOLD University of Florida The writings of science communication scholars suggest twodominant themes about science communication: it is important and it is not done well (Hartz and Chappell 1997; Nelkin 1995; Ziman 1992). This article explores the opinions of science communication practitioners with respect to the sec- ond of these themes, specifically, why science communication is often done poorly and how it can be improved. The opinions of these practitioners are important because science communicators serve as a crucial link between the activities of scientists and the public that supports such activities. To intro- duce our study, we first review opinions as to why science communication is important. We then examine the literature dealing with how well science communication is practiced. Authors’Note: We would like to acknowledge NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center for provid- ing the funds todothis research. We alsowant tothank Rick Borcheltforhis help with the collec - tion of data. Address correspondence to Debbie Treise, University of Florida, College of Journalism and Communications, P.O.
  • The Future Is Now: Science and Technology Policy in America Since 1950

    The Future Is Now: Science and Technology Policy in America Since 1950

    History Books History 2007 The uturF e is Now: Science and Technology Policy in America Since 1950 Alan I. Marcus Amy Bix Iowa State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/history_books Part of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine Commons Recommended Citation Marcus, Alan I. and Bix, Amy, "The uturF e is Now: Science and Technology Policy in America Since 1950" (2007). History Books. 7. http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/history_books/7 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the History at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in History Books by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONTENTS Introduction 7 Chapter I In the Beginning 13 Chapter 2 Coming Apart 61 Chapter 3 From Malaise to Morning in America 153 Chapter 4 Oscillations and Perturbations through Manipulations: Rise of the New Politics 203 Coda 287 Endnotes 293 Index 309 5 I NTRDDUCTI ON cience and technology are the essential building blocks of con­ Stemporary American society and governance. "Smart" bombs and other sophisticated weapons replace countless soldiers. Hybrid seeds, biotechnology, and fertilizers are the basis of agricultural pro­ ductivity. Job creation, global competitiveness, and the American standard of Jiving stand as the consequence of scientific insight and technological application. Acquisition of knowledge and provision of information and communication, whether through electronic impulses or on land, rest on science and technology. The effects of science and technology are immediate and abun­ dant.
  • Forget Politicizing Science. Let's Democratize Science!

    Forget Politicizing Science. Let's Democratize Science!

    DAVID H. GUSTON Forget Politicizing Science. Let's Democratize Science! Since the publication last year by them of being somewhat insincere, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Ca.) of a in the same way that Louis, the report alleging that the Bush ad- Science advising in Vichy Prefect of Police in Casa- ministration has been inappropri- blanca, was "shocked, shocked" ately manipulating scientific re- government is to find gambling in the back room ports and advisory committees, unavoidably at Rick's, even as he collected his science policy has become an issue own winnings. From the $120 bil- with surprisingly long political political, but we lion for scientific R&D that the legs. The administration dismissed must make a government provides, to the petty Waxman's report as a partisan dis- power plays that plague depart- tortion and a politicization of sci- concerted effort to mental governance, science is ence in its own right. But this ensure that it is deeply political. Asking whether charge became somewhat harder science is politicized distracts us to sustain with the publication of democratic. from asking. "Who benefits and a like-minded report by the Union loses from which forms of politi- of Concerned Scientists and a let- cization?" and "What are the ap- ter, signed by a left-leaning but still propriate institutional channels for bipartisan group of scientists, again and Technology Policy, eventually political discourse, influence, and alleging that the administration has responded with his own defen- action in science?" Arguing over inappropriately played politics with sively toned report. The political whether science is politicized ne- the findings of government scien- right also took aim with a critique glects the more critical question: tists and with appointments to fed- of leftist science in Politicizing Sci- "Is science democratized?" eral scientific advisory panels.