Votes and lab coats: democratizing scientific research and science policy
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
On December 19, 1984, the US Department of Energy selected, based on a 10-year research project, ten long-term geologic repository sites for 70,000 mt of nuclear waste. A year later, after taking into account expert reports, President Ronald Reagan reduced the candidate sites to three: Hanford, Washington; Deaf Smith County, TX; and Yucca Mountain in Nevada. In 1987, Congress directed the Department of Energy to study only Yucca Mountain. Despite strong opposition from the people of Nevada, environmentalists, and some senators in Congress, President George W. Bush signed a resolution in July 23, 2002 that gave the go-ahead to establish a nuclear waste facility at Yucca Mountain. The Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the US Geological Survey experts investigated, and often had strong disagreements about, issues regarding the safety of the facility and the standard levels for radiation emission. In 2006, the project budget was drastically cut. The Department
- Carrier, M., D. Howard, and J. Kourany. 2008. The challenge of the social and the pressure of practice. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.
- Collins, H., and R. Evans. 2007. Rethinking expertise. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
- Douglas, H. 2009. Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.
- Epstein, S. 1996. Impure science. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Etzkowitz, H. 2008. The triple helix. New York: Routledge. CrossRef
- Gaskell, G., S. Stares, and A. Allansdottir, et al. 2010. Europeans and biotechnology in 2010: Winds of change. European Commission, Eurobarometer, EUR 24537 Luxembourg: Publications of the European Union.
- Gibbons, M., et al. 1994. The new production of knowledge. London: Sage.
- Hays, S. 2011. Review: The paradox of scientific authority by W. E. Bijker, et al. Review of Policy Research 28: 221–222.
- Irwin, A., and B. Wynne. 1996. Misunderstanding science?. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
- Irzik, G. 2007. Commercialization of science in a neoliberal world. In Reading Polanyi for the 21st century: Market economy as a political project, ed. A. Bugra, and K. Agartan, 135–153. New York: Palgrave MacMillian.
- Kitcher, P. 2001. Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
- Kourany, J. 2010. Philosophy of science after feminism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
- Krimsky, S. 2004. Science in the private interest. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
- Lessig, L. 2011. Republic lost. New York: Grand Central.
- Longino, H.E. 2002. The fate of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- Mirowski, P., and E.-M. Sent. 2008. The commercialization of science and the response of STS. In The handbook of science and technology studies, 3rd ed, ed. E.J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, and J. Wajcman, 635–689. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
- Nowotny, H., P. Scott, and M. Gibbons. 2001. Rethinking science. Cambridge: Polity.
- Popper, K. 1965. The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Harper and Row.
- Radder, H. ed. 2010. The commodification of academic research. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.
- Wolin, S. 2008. Managed democracy and the specter of inverted totalitarianism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- Wynne, B. 1996. May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In Risk, environment and modernity, ed. S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, and B. Wynne, 44–83. London: Sage.
- Ziman, J. 2000. Real science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
- Votes and lab coats: democratizing scientific research and science policy
Volume 22, Issue 1 , pp 45-61
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links