De-Facto Science Policy in the Making: How Scientists Shape Science Policy and Why it Matters (or, Why STS and STP Scholars Should Socialize)
- 924 Downloads
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.
KeywordsScience and technology policy Science and technology studies Social outcomes Social processes Ecology Sustainability science
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.
- 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
- Beck, Ulrich. 1992. The risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Bocking, Stephen. 2004. Nature’s experts: science, politics, and the environment. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.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.
- 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Clark, William C. 2010. Sustainable development and sustainability science. In report from Toward a Science of Sustainability Conference, Airlie Center, Warrenton, VA.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.Google Scholar
- 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.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. 2000. Citizens, experts, and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
- Fortun, Kim. 2001. Advocacy after Bhopal: Environmentalism, disaster, new global orders. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Friiberg Workshop Report. 2000. Sustainability science. Statement of the Friiberg Workshop on Sustainability Science, Friiberg.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. 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
- Hardin, Garrett. 1993. Living within limits: Ecology, economics, and population taboos. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.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
- 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.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
- 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
- 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
- Longino, Helen. 1990. Science as social knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.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.
- 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
- 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.Google Scholar
- Miller, Thaddeus R. 2011. Constructing sustainability: A study of emerging research trajectories. Dissertation. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University.Google Scholar
- 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. In review. Research priorities and the potential pitfall of path dependencies in coral reef science.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
- 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.
- 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.Google Scholar
- Pielke, Jr., Roger A. 2007. The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Pielke, Jr., Roger A. 2010. The climate fix: What scientists and politicians won’t tell you about global warming. New York: Basic Books.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.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.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
- Sagoff, Mark. 2008. The economy of the earth: Philosophy, law, and the environment, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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.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
- Shils, Edward. 1968. Introduction. In Criteria for scientific development: Public policy and national goals, ed. Edward Shils, pp. iv–v. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- Stirling, Andy. 2009. Direction, distribution and diversity! Pluralising progress in innovation, sustainability and development. STEPS working Paper 32, Brighton: STEPS Centre.Google Scholar
- Stokes, Donald E. 1997. Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington DC: The Brookings Institution.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
- 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
- Worster, Donald. 1994. Nature’s economy: A history of ecological ideas, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar