Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

De-Facto Science Policy in the Making: How Scientists Shape Science Policy and Why it Matters (or, Why STS and STP Scholars Should Socialize)

  • Published:
Minerva Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Science and technology (S&T) policy studies has explored the relationship between the structure of scientific research and the attainment of desired outcomes. Due to the difficulty of measuring them directly, S&T policy scholars have traditionally equated “outcomes” with several proxies for evaluation, including economic impact, and academic output such as papers published and citations received. More recently, scholars have evaluated science policies through the lens of Public Value Mapping, which assesses scientific programs against societal values. Missing from these approaches is an examination of the social activities within the scientific enterprise that affect research outputs and outcomes. We contend that activities that significantly affect research trajectories take place at the levels of individual researchers and their communities, and that S&T policy scholars must take heed of this activity in their work in order to better inform policy. Based on primary research of two scientific communities—ecologists and sustainability scientists—we demonstrate that research agendas are actively shaped by parochial epistemic and normative concerns of the scientists and their disciplines. S&T policy scholarship that explores how scientists balance these concerns, alongside more formal science policies and incentive structures, will enhance understanding of why certain science policies fail or succeed and how to more effectively link science to beneficial social outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The NSF has, for example, established a program-wide investment area in Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability (SEES).

  2. While this research did not focus specifically on science policy goals for sustainability science, it does illustrate the need to understand how scientists interpret public values and perceive the link between knowledge and social outcomes.

References

  • Allenby, Braden, and Daniel Sarewitz. 2011. The techno-human condition. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barke, Richard P. 1998. Authority in science and technology policy. Minerva 20(1): 116–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barke, Richard P. 2003. Politics and interests in the republic of science. Minerva 41: 305–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Ulrich. 1992. The risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettencourt, L.M.A., and J. Kaur. 2011. Evolution and structure of sustainability science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 108(49): 19540–19545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bliziotis, I., K. Paraschakis, P. Vergidis, et al. 2005. Worldwide trends in quantity and quality of published articles in the field of infectious diseases. BMC Infectious Diseases 5: 16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bocking, Stephen. 2004. Nature’s experts: science, politics, and the environment. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonaccorsi, Andrea, and Cinzia Daraio. 2003. Age effects in scientific productivity. Scientometrics 58(1): 49–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonaccorsi, Andrea, Cinzia Daraio, and L. Simar. 2006. Advanced indicators of productivity of universities: An application of robust nonparametric methods to Italian data. Scientometrics 66(2): 389–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borner, K., C. Chen, and K.W. Boyack. 2003. Visualizing knowledge domains. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST) 37: 179–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, Barry. 2003. Public value mapping of science outcomes: theory and method. Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes. http://www.cspo.org/products/rocky/Rock-Vol2-1.PDF. Accessed on 31 December 2011.

  • Bozeman, Barry, and Daniel Sarewitz. 2005. Public values and public failure in US science policy. Science and Public Policy 32: 119–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, Barry, and Daniel Sarewitz. 2011. Public value mapping and science policy evaluation. Minerva 49(1): 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, B.D. 2005. Trends in the usage of ISI bibliometric data: uses, abuses, and implications. Portal: Libraries and the Academy 5(1): 105–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, Nancy. 1999. The dappled world: A study of the boundaries of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cash, David W., William C. Clark, Frank Alcock, Nancy M. Dickson, Noelle Eckley, David H. Guston, Jill Jäger, and Ronald B. Mitchell. 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100(14): 8086–8091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, Stephen R., et al. 2009. Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the millennium ecosystem assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(5): 1305–1312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, William C. 2007. Sustainability science: A room of its own. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(6): 1737–1738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, William C. 2010. Sustainable development and sustainability science. In report from Toward a Science of Sustainability Conference, Airlie Center, Warrenton, VA.

  • Clark, William C., and Nancy M. Dickson. 2003. Sustainability science: The emerging research program. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100(14): 8059–8061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, William C., and Simon A. Levin. 2010. Toward a science of sustainability: Executive summary. In report from Toward a Science of Sustainability Conference, Airlie Center, Warrenton, VA.

  • Clark, William C., Thomas P. Tomich, Meine van Noordwijk, David Guston, Delia Catacutan, Nancy M. Dickson, and Elizabeth McNie. 2011. Boundary work for sustainable development: natural resource management at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. doi:10.1073/pnas.0900231108.

  • Collingridge, David, and Colin Reeve. 1986. Science speaks to power: The role of experts in policy. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century. 2007. Rising above the gathering storm: energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

  • Cooper, G.J. 2003. The science of the struggle for existence: On the foundations of ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, Heather E. 2009. Science, policy and the value-free ideal. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2009. Global governance of science: Report of the expert group on global governance of science to the EU Science, Economy and Society Directorate. http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/global-governance-020609_en.pdf. Accessed 19 December 2011.

  • Fischer, Frank. 1999. Technological deliberation in a democratic society: The case for participatory inquiry. Science and Public Policy 26: 294–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, Frank. 2000. Citizens, experts, and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, Erik. 2011. Public science and technology scholars: Engaging whom? Science and Engineering Ethics 17(4): 607–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortun, Kim. 2001. Advocacy after Bhopal: Environmentalism, disaster, new global orders. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

  • Friiberg Workshop Report. 2000. Sustainability science. Statement of the Friiberg Workshop on Sustainability Science, Friiberg.

  • Funtowicz, Silvio O., and Jerome R. Ravetz. 1993. Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25(7): 739–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. 1984. The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gieryn, Thomas F. 1978. Problem retention and problem change in science. Sociological Inquiry 48(3/4): 96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gieryn, Thomas F. 1983. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review 48(6): 781–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gieryn, Thomas F. 1995. Boundaries of science. In Handbook of science and technology studies, eds. Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Petersen, and Trevor Pinch. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guston, David H. 2004. Forget politicizing science, let’s democratize science! Issues in Science and Technology 21: 25–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guston, David H. 2010. The anticipatory governance of emerging technologies. Journal of the Korean Vacuum Society 19(6): 432–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guston, David H., and Daniel Sarewitz. 2002. Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society 24: 93–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackett, Edward J. 2005. Essential tensions: Identity, risk, and control in scientific collaboration. Social Studies of Science 35: 787–826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagendijk, Rob, and Alan Irwin. 2006. Public deliberation and governance: Engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe. Minerva 44: 167–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, Garrett. 1993. Living within limits: Ecology, economics, and population taboos. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, D., H. Tomizawa, Y. Saitoh, and S. Kobayashi. 2004. Bibliometric techniques in the evaluation of federally funded research in the United States. Research Evaluation 13(2): 76–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holbrook, J.B. 2005. Assessing the science–society relation: The case of the US National Science Foundation’s second merit review criterion. Technology in Society 27(4): 437–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulme, Michael, Roger A. Pielke Jr., and Suraje Dessai. 2009. Keeping prediction in perspective. Nature Reports Climate Change 3: 126–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, Alan. 2006. The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the ‘new’ scientific governance. Social Studies of Science 36(2): 299–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, Sheila. 1987. Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Social Studies of Science 17(2): 195–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, Sheila. 1990. The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, Sheila. 2001. Image and imagination: The formation of global environmental consciousness. In Changing the atmosphere: Expert knowledge and environmental governance, eds. Paul Edwards, and Clark Miller. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, Sheila. 2003. Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41(3): 223–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, Sheila. 2004. Ordering knowledge, ordering society. In States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order, ed. Sheila Jasanoff. New York: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, Sheila. 2011. Constitutional moments in governing science and technology. Science and Engineering Ethics 17(4): 621–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, Charles I., and John C. Williams. 1998. Measuring the social return to R&D. Quarterly Journal of Economics 113(4): 1119–1135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kates, Robert W. 2011. From the unity of nature to sustainability science: ideas and practice. Center for international development working paper no. 218, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

  • Kates, Robert W., William C. Clark, J. Robert Corell, Michael Hall, Carlo C. Jaeger, Ian Lowe, James J. McCarthy, et al. 2001. Sustainability science. Science 292(5517): 641–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, D.R., and F.B. Golley. 2000. Ecology as a science of synthesis. In The philosophy of ecology: From science to synthesis, eds. D.R. Keller, and F.B. Golley, 1–19. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinchy, Abby J., and Daniel Lee Kleinman. 2003. Organizing credibility: Discursive and organizational orthodoxy on the borders of ecology and politics. Social Studies of Science 33(6): 869–896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingsland, Sharon E. 2005. The evolution of American ecology, 1890–2000. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinzig, Ann, D. Starrett, K. Arrow, S. Aniyar, B. Bolin, P. Dasgupta, P. Ehrlich, et al. 2003. Coping with uncertainty: A call for a new science-policy forum. Ambio 32(5): 330–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, Robert E. 2002. Landscapes and labscapes: Exploring the lab-field border in biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, Philip. 2001. Science, truth and democracy. Cambridge: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kretschmer, H. 2004. Author productivity and geodesic distance in bibliographic co-authorship networks, and visibility on the web. Scientometrics 60(3): 409–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwa, C. 1987. Representations of nature mediating between ecology and science policy: The case of the International Biological Programme. Social Studies of Science 17(3): 413–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyvik, Svein. 2003. Changing trends in publishing behaviour among university faculty, 1980–2000. Scientometrics 58: 35–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lackey, Robert T. 2007. Science, scientists and policy advocacy. Conservation Biology 21(1): 12–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, Bruno. 1993. We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, Bruno. 2004. Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leimgruber, P., C.A. Christen, and A. Laborderie. 2005. The impact of landsat satellite monitoring on conservation biology. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 106(1–3): 81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leshner, A. 2002. Science and sustainability. Science 297(5583): 897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logar, Nathaniel. 2011. Chemistry, green chemistry, and the instrumental valuation of sustainability. Minerva 49(1): 113–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longino, Helen. 1990. Science as social knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loorbach, Derk. 2010. Transition management for sustainable development: A prescriptive, complexity-based governance framework. Governance 23: 161–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubchenco, Jane. 1998. Entering the century of the environment: A new social contract for science. Science 279(5350): 491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marburger, John. 2005. Speech at the 30th annual AAAS forum on science and technology policy in Washington, D.C. http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2005/0421marburgerText.shtml. Accessed 30 December 2011.

  • Maricle, Genevieve. 2011. Prediction as an impediment to preparedness: Lessons from the US hurricane and earthquake research enterprises. Minerva 49(1): 87–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mauleón, E., and M. Bordons. 2006. Productivity, impact and publication habits by gender in the area of Materials Science. Scientometrics 66(1): 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May, R.M. 1981. The role of theory in ecology. Integrative and Comparative Biology 21(4): 903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCullough, Ellen, and Pamela Matson. 2012. Linking knowledge with action for sustainable development: A case study of change and effectiveness. In Seeds of sustainability: Lessons from the birthplace of the Green Revolution in agriculture, ed. Pamela Matson. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, Ryan. 2011. The public value failures of climate science in the US. Minerva 49(1): 47–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mervis, Jeff. 2006. NSF begins a push to measure societal impacts of research. Science 312(5772): 347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, C. 2004. Resisting empire: globalism, relocation, relocalization, and the politics of knowledge. In Earthly politics: local and global environmental governance, eds. Sheila Jasanoff and Marybeth Long Martello. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Miller, Thaddeus R. 2011. Constructing sustainability: A study of emerging research trajectories. Dissertation. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University.

  • Miller, Thaddeus R. 2013. Constructing sustainability science: emerging perspectives and research trajectories. Sustainability Science 8(2): 279–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitman, Gregg. 1992. The state of nature: Ecology, community and American social thought, 1900–1950. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mooney, Harold A., and O.E. Sala. 1993. Science and sustainable use. Ecological Applications 3: 564–565.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. 1999. Our common journey: A transition toward sustainability. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neff, Mark W. 2011. What research should be done and why? Four competing visions among ecologists. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 9(8): 462–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neff, Mark W. In review. Research priorities and the potential pitfall of path dependencies in coral reef science.

  • Neff, Mark W., and Elizabeth Corley. 2009. 35 years and 160,000 articles: A bibliometric exploration of the evolution of ecology. Scientometrics 80(3): 657–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, Richard R. 2003. On the uneven evolution of human know-how. Research Policy 32: 909–922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norton, Bryan G. 2005. Sustainability: A philosophy of adaptive ecosystem management. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny, Helga. 2007. How many policy rooms are there? Evidence-based and other kinds of science policies. Science, Technology and Human Values 32(4): 479–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, and Michael Gibbons. 2001. Re-thinking science:Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Oxford: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Odum, E.P. 1977. The emergence of ecology as a new integrative discipline. Science 195(4284): 1289–1293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, Margaret, et al. 2004. Ecology for a crowded planet. Science 304(5675): 1251–1252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parens, Eric, Josephine Johnston, and Jacob Moses. 2009. Ethical issues of synthetic biology: An overview of the issues. Synthetic Biology project. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. http://www.synbioproject.org/process/assets/files/6334/synbio3.pdf?. Accessed 21 December 2011.

  • Parker, John N., and Edward J. Hackett. 2011. Hot spots and hot moments in scientific collaborations and social movements. American Sociological Review. doi:10.1177/0003122411433763.

  • Picard-Aitken, M., D. Campbell, and G. Côté, G. 2011. Demonstrating a shift toward ecosystem-based research using scientometrics. Presented at the Society for the Social Studies of Science, Cleveland, Ohio. http://www.science-metrix.com/pdf/SM_Picard-Aitken_4S_2011_Shift_Ecosystem.pdf. Accessed 21 December 2011.

  • Polanyi, Michael. 1962. The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva 1: 54–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, D.D.S. 1971. Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, D.D.S. 1986. Little science, big science–and beyond. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Proctor, Robert. 1991. Value free science? Purity and power in modern knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pielke, Jr., Roger A. 2006. When scientists politicize science. Regulation 29(1): 28–34.

  • Pielke, Jr., Roger A. 2007. The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Pielke, Jr., Roger A. 2010. The climate fix: What scientists and politicians won’t tell you about global warming. New York: Basic Books.

  • Prpić, K. 2002. Gender and productivity differentials in science. Scientometrics 55(1): 27–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, Steve. 2000. Prediction and other approaches to climate change. In Prediction: Science, decision making, and the future of nature, eds. Daniel Sarewitz and Roger Pielke, Jr. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

  • Rayner, Steve. 2003. Democracy in the age of assessment: Reflections on the roles of expertise and democracy in public-sector decision making. Science and Public Policy 30: 163–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, Steve. 2010. The Geoengineering Paradox. Geoengineering Quarterly. http://www.oxfordgeoengineering.org/pdfs/geoengineering_quarterly_first_edition.pdf. Accessed 30 December 2011.

  • Rayner, Steve, and Elizabeth Malone, eds. 1998. Human choice and climate change. Columbus, Ohio: Battelle Press.

  • Reid, W.V., et al. 2010. Earth system science for global sustainability: Grand challenges. Science 330: 916–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, Horst W.J., and Melvin M. Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4: 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rip, Arie. 1981. A cognitive approach to science policy. Research Policy 10(4): 294–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rip, Arie. 1985. Commentary: Peer review is alive and well in the United States. Science, Technology and Human Values 10(3): 82–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rip, Arie, and B.J.R. van der Meulen. 1996. The post-modern research system. Science and Public Policy 23: 343–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, Arie, and Rene Kemp. 1998. Technological change. In Human choices and climate change, eds. Steve Rayner, and Elizabeth Malone. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roco, M.C. 2005. International perspective on government nanotechnology funding in 2005. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 7: 707–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sagoff, Mark. 2008. The economy of the earth: Philosophy, law, and the environment, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz, Daniel. 2004. How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science & Policy 7: 385–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz, Daniel. 2011. The dubious benefits of broader impact. Nature 475: 141–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz, Daniel, and Richard Nelson. 2008. Three rules for technological fixes. Nature 456: 871–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz, Daniel, David Kriebel, Richard Clapp, Cathy Crumbley, Polly Hoppin, Molly Jacobs, and Joel Tickner. 2010. The Sustainable Solutions Agenda. Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes and Lowell Center for Sustainable Production, Arizona State University and University of Massachusetts, Lowell.

  • Schoener, T.W. 1986. Mechanistic approaches to community ecology: A new reductionism. Integrative and Comparative Biology 26(1): 81–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoolman, E.D., J.S. Guest, K.F. Bush, and A.R. Bell. 2011. How interdisciplinary is sustainability research? analyzing the structure of an emerging scientific field. Sustainability Science. doi:10.1007/s11625-011-0139-z.

  • Shackley, Simon. 2000. Epistemic lifestyles in climate change modeling. BRIDGES 7(1/2): 99–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapira, P., and J. Youtie. 2006. Measures for knowledge-based economic development: Introducing data mining techniques to economic developers in the state of Georgia and the US South. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 73: 950–965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shils, Edward. 1968. Introduction. In Criteria for scientific development: Public policy and national goals, ed. Edward Shils, pp. iv–v. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Siegel, R.W. 1999. WTEC panel report on nanostructure science and technology: R&D status and trends in nanoparticles, nanostructured materials, and nanodevices. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Adrian, Andy Stirling, and Frans Berkhout. 2005. The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions. Research Policy 34: 1491–1510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stirling, Andy. 2008. “Opening up” and “closing down”: Power, participation and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology and Human Values 33(2): 262–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stirling, Andy. 2009. Direction, distribution and diversity! Pluralising progress in innovation, sustainability and development. STEPS working Paper 32, Brighton: STEPS Centre.

  • Stirling, Andy. 2010. Keep it complex. Nature 468: 1029–1031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, Donald E. 1997. Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington DC: The Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swierstra, Tsjalling, and Arie Rip. 2007. Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: Patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. Nanoethics 1(1): 3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takacs, David. 1996. The idea of biodiversity: Philosophies of paradise. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, Paul B., and Kyle Powys Whyte. 2011. What happens to environmental philosophy in a wicked world? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10806-011-9344-0.

  • Tlili, Anwar, and Emily Dawson. 2010. Mediating science and society in the EU and UK: From information-transmission to deliberative democracy? Minerva 48(4): 429–461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, Stephen. 1964. The complexity of scientific choice: A stocktaking. Minerva 2: 343–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner II, B.L., et al. 2003. A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100(14): 8074–8079.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, H.D., and K.W. McCain. 1998. Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972–1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 49(4): 327–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, C.S., and V.A. Markusova. 2004. Changes in the scientific output of Russia from 1980 to 2000, as reflected in the Science Citation Index, in relation to national politico-economic changes. Scientometrics 59: 345–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worster, Donald. 1994. Nature’s economy: A history of ecological ideas, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, Brian. 1989. Sheepfarming after Chernobyl: A case study in communicating scientific information. Environment 31(2): 10–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, Brian. 2001. Creating public alienation: Expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Science as Culture 10: 445–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziman, J.M. 1987. The problem of “problem choice”. Minerva 25(1): 92–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, Harriet. 1978. Theory choice and problem choice in science. Sociological Inquiry 48(3/4): 65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, Harriet. 1989. The other Merton thesis. Science in Context 3(1): 239–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors owe a debt of gratitude to all of their interview subjects—both ecologists and sustainability scientists–who helped to inform this work. This work has been stimulated in part by the collaborative atmosphere of the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes and the IGERT in Urban Ecology program at Arizona State University. The authors also thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful and insightful comments. This material is based upon work supported by the US National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grant No. 0504248, IGERT in Urban Ecology at Arizona State University, and Grant No. 0345604. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendation expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nohad A. Toulan School of Urban Studies and Planning, Portland State University, PO Box 751-USP, Portland, OR, 97207, USA

    Thaddeus R. Miller

  2. Department of Environmental Science, Allegheny College, 520 N. Main St, Box E, Meadville, PA, 16335, USA

    Mark W. Neff

Authors
  1. Thaddeus R. Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark W. Neff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thaddeus R. Miller.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Miller, T.R., Neff, M.W. De-Facto Science Policy in the Making: How Scientists Shape Science Policy and Why it Matters (or, Why STS and STP Scholars Should Socialize). Minerva 51, 295–315 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-013-9234-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-013-9234-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation