Border skirmishes between science and policy: Autonomy, responsibility, and values (original) (raw)
Related papers
Boundaries between Science and Policy: Descriptive Difficulty and Normative Desirability
2005
In the debate over the role of science in environmental policy, it is often assumed that science can and should be clearly demarcated from policy. In this paper, I will argue that neither is the case. The difficulty of actually differentiating the scientific arena from the policy arena becomes apparent the moment one attempts to actually locate the boundary. For example, it is unclear whether scientific summaries to be used by regulatory agencies are in the realm of science or policy. If science, then should the authors consider the regulatory implications of uncertainties? If policy, then what is the relevance of a peer review of the document solely by scientists? This descriptive problem is only accentuated by a normative problem: should we try to keep the two realms distinct? The traditional answer has been yes, for the primary reason that the science should not be infected by the social and ethical values so prevalent in the policy realm. I will argue that, to the contrary, social and ethical values are desirable components of scientific reasoning. Indeed, on closer examination, the norms for values in reasoning are the same for science and policy. If I am correct, the pressure to delineate science from policy abates.
A cognitive approach to science policy
Research Policy, 1981
Recent work in the social studies of science has emphasized the importance of studying both the social and cognitive wsgects of the evolution of scientific specialties and disciplines. This has implications for science policies that aim at the direction of scientific fields toward external goals: the cognitive state and dynamics of the fiefd have to be taken into acount. Such a cognitive approach to science policy has been elaborated by a nunjber of German science scholars. The three-phase model of scientific developn,ents and the rinalization thesis of the Starnberg group is discussed, and the policy imprications are critically reviewed. A group based in the University of Bielefeld has published case studies designed to trace the role of c:ognitive factors in explaining the impac: of science policy qrogrammes on scientific fields. It turns out that mutual adaptation processes occ!Ir in the tours: of formulating the programmes vdhlf:h reduce conflict and resistance. In conclusion, z~~n~e :>e,Pspectives for further work are noted.
2000
This book combines political-economic, sociological and historical approaches to provide a coherent framework for analysing the changing relationship between politics and science in the United States. Fundamental to this relationship are problems of delegation, especially the integrity and productivity of sponsored research: politicians must see that research is conducted with integrity and productivity, and scientists must be able to show it. A science policy regime changes when solutions to these problems change. After World War II, the 'social contract for science' assumed that the integrity and productivity of research were automatic and, despite many challenges, that contract endured for four decades. However in the 1980s, as rich empirical studies show, cases of misconduct in science and flagging economic performance broke the trust between politics and science. New 'boundary organizations', in which scientists and nonscientists collaborate to assure the integr...