Advertisement

Judgment Under Siege: The Three-Body Problem of Expert Legitimacy

  • Sheila Jasanoff
Chapter
Part of the Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook book series (SOSC, volume 24)

Keywords

Regulatory Science Political Legitimacy Expert Body Philadelphia Inquirer Specialist Peer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, F.R. (2003), ‘Peer review of data’, The National Law Journal, September 29, 2003.Google Scholar
  2. Beck, U. (1992), Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, London: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Boffey, P.M. (1975), The Brain Bank of America: An Inquiry into the Politics of Science, New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  4. Brickman, R., S. Jasanoff, and T. Ilgen (1985), Controlling Chemicals: The Politics of Regulation in Europe and the U.S., Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bush, V. (1945), Science — The Endless Frontier, Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  6. Carson, J. (2004), ‘The merit of science and the science of merit’, in S. Jasanoff (ed.), States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order, London: Routledge, pp. 181–205.Google Scholar
  7. Dahl, R.A. (1961), Who Governs?, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Dennis, M.A. (1994), ‘“Our first line of defense’”: Two university laboratories in the postwar American State’, Isis 85(3): 427–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dennis, M.A. (2004), ‘Reconstructing sociotechnical order: Vannevar Bush and US Science Policy’, in S. Jasanoff (ed.), States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Ezrahi, Y. (1990), The Descent of Icarus: Science and the Transformation of Contemporary Democracy, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, and M. Trow (1994), The New Production of Knowledge, London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  12. Gieryn, T. (1999), Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Golinski, J. (1992), Science as Public Culture: Chemistry and Enlightenment in Britain, 1760–1820, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Greenberg, D.S. (2001), Science, Money, and Politics: Political Triumph and Ethical Erosion, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Guston, D.H. (2000), Between Politics and Science: Assuring the Integrity and Productivity of Research, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Jardine, L. (1999), Ingenious Pursuits: Building the Scientific Revolution, London: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  17. Jasanoff, S. (1986), Risk Management and Political Culture, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  18. Jasanoff, S. (1987), ‘Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science’, Social Studies of Science 17: 195–230.Google Scholar
  19. Jasanoff, S. (1990), The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Jasanoff, S. (1996), ‘Beyond epistemology: Relativism and engagement in the politics of science,’ Social Studies of Science 26(2): 393–418.Google Scholar
  21. Jasanoff, S. (2003), ‘(No) Accounting for expertise?’, Science and Public Policy 30(3): 157–62.Google Scholar
  22. Jasanoff, S. (ed.) (2004), States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Jasanoff, S. (2005), Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kevles, D. (1987), The Physicists: The History of a Scientific Community in Modern America, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kevles, D.J. (1998), The Baltimore Case: A Trial of Politics, Science, and Character, New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  26. Krimsky, S. (2003), Science in the Private Interest: How the Lure of Profits Has Corrupted the Virtue of Biomedical Research, Lanham, MD: Rowman-Littlefield, 2003).Google Scholar
  27. Krimsky, S. and D. Golding (eds.), (1992), Social Theories of Risk, London: Praeger.Google Scholar
  28. Merton, R.K. (1973), ‘The normative structure of science,’ in R.K. Merton, The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 267–78.Google Scholar
  29. Mukerji, C. (1989), A Fragile Power: Scientists and the State, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  30. National Research Council (1983), Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  31. Nowotny, H., P. Scott, and M. Gibbons (2001), Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty, Cambridge, MA: Polity.Google Scholar
  32. Philadelphia Inquirer (January 25, 2004), Editorial, ‘The White House vs. Science.’Google Scholar
  33. Office of Management and Budget (2003), Proposed Bulletin on Peer Review and Information Quality, Federal Register, Vol. 68, No. 178, Monday, September 15, pp. 54023–29.Google Scholar
  34. Press, E. and J. Washburn (2000), ‘The kept university’, Atlantic Monthly, March 2000: 39–54.Google Scholar
  35. Price, D.K. (1965), The Scientific Estate, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Shapin, S. and S. Schaffer (1985), Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Solingen, E. (1993), ‘Between markets and the state: Scientists in comparative perspective,’ Comparative Politics 26: 31–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Steinbrook, R. (2004), ‘Peer review and federal regulations’, New England Journal of Medicine 350(2):103–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stokes, D.E. (1997), Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  40. Winickoff, D., S. Jasanoff, L. Busch, R. Grove-White, and B. Wynne (2005), ‘Adjudicating the GM food wars: Science, risk, and democracy in world trade law’, Yale Journal of International Law 30: 81–123.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sheila Jasanoff
    • 1
  1. 1.Science and Technology Studies, John F. Kennedy School of GovernmentHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations