共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 46 毫秒
1.
Roger PielkeJr. 《Minerva》2012,50(3):339-361
The use of the phrase “basic research” as a term used in science policy discussion dates only to about 1920. At the time the phrase referred to what we today commonly refer to as applied research in support of specific missions or goals, especially agriculture. Upon the publication of Vannevar Bush’s well-known report, Science – The Endless Frontier, the phrase “basic research” became a key political symbol, representing various identifications, expectations and demands related to science policy among scientists and politicians. This paper tracks and evaluates the evolution of “basic research” as a political symbol from early in the 20th century to the present. With considerable attention having been paid to the on-going evolution of post-Cold War science policy, much less attention has focused on the factors which have shaped the dominant narrative of contemporary science policies. 相似文献
2.
In recent years, British science policy has seen a significant shift ‘from deficit to dialogue’ in conceptualizing the relationship
between science and the public. Academics in the interdisciplinary field of Science and Technology Studies (STS) have been
influential as advocates of the new public engagement agenda. However, this participatory agenda has deeper roots in the political
ideology of the Third Way. A framing of participation as a politics suited to post-Fordist conditions was put forward in the
magazine Marxism Today in the late 1980s, developed in the Demos thinktank in the 1990s, and influenced policy of the New Labour government. The
encouragement of public participation and deliberation in relation to science and technology has been part of a broader implementation
of participatory mechanisms under New Labour. This participatory program has been explicitly oriented toward producing forms
of social consciousness and activity seen as essential to a viable knowledge economy and consumer society. STS arguments for
public engagement in science have gained influence insofar as they have intersected with the Third Way politics of post-Fordism. 相似文献
3.
Science indicators are increasingly used in policy-making. However, failure to relate interpretations of specific measures
to the historical development of science can lead to errors in assessing past investments and in prioritizing future investments.
This article outlines some of these sources of error, and argues for the more systematic use of historical evidence in the
formulation of science policy.
Irwin Feller, an economist, is a Senior Visiting Scientist at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. His
research includes studies of the economics of academic R&D, the assessment of interdisciplinary research, and the relationship
between performance measurement and science and technology policies.
George Gamota, a physicist, is President of STMA, LLC. He has written extensively on technology assessment and forecasting,
emerging technologies, and science policy. Recently, he led a review of New Zealand’s New Economy Research Fund (NERF), and
is a foreign reviewer of the Japanese Science & Technology (JST) Corporation’s research programmes. 相似文献
4.
In the following pages we discuss three historical cases of moral economies in science: Drosophila genetics, late twentieth
century American astronomy, and collaborations between American drug companies and medical scientists in the interwar years.
An examination of the most striking differences and similarities between these examples, and the conflicts internal to them,
reveals constitutive features of moral economies, and the ways in which they are formed, negotiated, and altered. We critically
evaluate these three examples through the filters of rational choice, utility, and American pragmatism, using the latter to
support the conclusion that there is no single vision of moral economies in science and no single theory—moral, political,
social—that will explain them. These filters may not be the only means through which to evaluate the moral economies examined,
but aspects of each appear prominent in all three cases. In addition, explanations for decisions are often given in the language
of these theories, both at the macro (policy) level and at the local level of the moral economies we discuss. In light of
such factors, the use of these frameworks seems justified. We begin with an attempt to define the nature of moral economies,
then move to a consideration of scientific communities as moral communities operating within material and other constraints
which we relate to wider questions of political economy and societal accountabilities.
Dr Atkinson-Grosjean is a Senior Research Associate in the WM Young Centre for Applied Ethics at the University of British Columbia where she leads several research projects focused on large-scale science and the ways in which novel institutional and organizational arrangements affect the production and translation of scientific knowledge. Current work focuses on the factors that affect scientists’ participation (or lack thereof) in the translational mandates attached to funding. The goal is to contribute to a more nuanced understanding within policy guidelines of what constitutes ‘translational science’. Cory Fairley is a research assistant on Dr Atkinson-Grosjean’s translational science project and a PhD student in the Department of History at the University of British Columbia, where he also obtained a Masters degree in Philosophy. His current research focuses on the social history of technology, particularly upstream impacts of market forces on biotechnology in the historical context of twentieth century. 相似文献
| Cory FairleyEmail: |
Dr Atkinson-Grosjean is a Senior Research Associate in the WM Young Centre for Applied Ethics at the University of British Columbia where she leads several research projects focused on large-scale science and the ways in which novel institutional and organizational arrangements affect the production and translation of scientific knowledge. Current work focuses on the factors that affect scientists’ participation (or lack thereof) in the translational mandates attached to funding. The goal is to contribute to a more nuanced understanding within policy guidelines of what constitutes ‘translational science’. Cory Fairley is a research assistant on Dr Atkinson-Grosjean’s translational science project and a PhD student in the Department of History at the University of British Columbia, where he also obtained a Masters degree in Philosophy. His current research focuses on the social history of technology, particularly upstream impacts of market forces on biotechnology in the historical context of twentieth century. 相似文献
5.
Helmut Krauch 《Minerva》2006,44(2):131-142
Translator’s note*: I am pleased to offer this translation of a lecture by Helmut Krauch, both because he is an old friend, whom I have known
for more than forty years, and because it fills a gap in the history of science policy research. As this lecture makes clear,
the Studiengruppe, led by Krauch, was the first in Europe to measure the share of nuclear and military research in total R&D expenditure and
to make systematic technology assessments to guide government policy. Moreover, its Project ORAKEL opened the way to wider
public debate on major policy issues in science and technology. Krauch’s book on Computer Democracy remains an outstanding contribution to the reform of Western democracy. I commend this essay warmly to all concerned with
the history of science and technology policy.
This is an edited translation of a lecture delivered at the Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis at the
Research Centre for Technical Change and the Environment in Karlsruhe, 10 April 2000. We are grateful to the Institute for
permission to publish the essay, to Professor Christopher Freeman, for generously preparing a translation, and to Dr. Reinhard
Coenen for helping to prepare the final version. 相似文献
6.
Here we present the framework of a new approach to assessing the capacity of research programs to achieve social goals. Research
evaluation has made great strides in addressing questions of scientific and economic impacts. It has largely avoided, however,
a more important challenge: assessing (prospectively or retrospectively) the impacts of a given research endeavor on the non-scientific,
non-economic goals—what we here term “public values”—that often are the core public rationale for the endeavor. Research programs
are typically justified in terms of their capacity to achieve public values, and that articulation of public values is pervasive
in science policy-making. We outline the elements of a case-based approach to “public value mapping” of science policy, with
a particular focus on developing useful criteria and methods for assessing “public value failure,” with an intent to provide
an alternative to “market failure” thinking that has been so powerful in science policy-making. So long as research evaluation
avoids the problem of public values, science policy decision makers will have little help from social science in making choices
among competing paths to desired social outcomes. 相似文献
7.
In recent years questions concerning the impact of public research funding have become the preeminent site at which struggles
over the meanings and value of science are played out. In this paper we explore the ‘politics of impact’ in contemporary UK
science and research policy and, in particular, detail the ways in which UK research councils have responded to and reframed
recent calls for the quantitative measurement of research impacts. Operating as ‘boundary organisations’ research councils
are embroiled in what might be characterised as the ‘politics of demarcation’ in which competing understandings of the cultural
values of science are traded, exchanged and contested. In this paper we focus on the way the UK’s ‘Engineering and Physical
Sciences Research Council’ (EPSRC) has responded to contemporary policy discourses concerning the impacts of public research
expenditure. We argue that, in response to the shifting terms of contemporary science policy, the EPSRC has adopted three
distinct strategies. Firstly, in collaboration with other research councils the EPSRC have emphasised the intellectual and
metrological challenge presented by attempts to quantify the economic impact of public research expenditure, emphasising instead
the cumulative impacts of a broad portfolio of ‘basic science’. Secondly, the EPSRC has sought to widen the discursive meaning
of research impacts – specifically to include societal and policy impacts in addition to economic ones. Thirdly, the EPSRC
has introduced a new framing into the ‘impact agenda’, preferring to talk about ‘pathways to impact’ rather than research
impacts per se. In responding to government priority setting, we argue that the EPSRC has sought to exploit both the technical fragility
of auditing techniques and the discursive ambiguity of notions of impact. 相似文献
8.
Wendy McGuire 《Minerva》2016,54(3):325-351
This paper is based on a study that explored the responses of bioscientists to changes in national science policy and research funding in Canada. In the late 1990s, a range of new science policies and funding initiatives were implemented, linking research funding to Canada’s competitiveness in the ‘global knowledge economy’. Bourdieu’s theory of practice is used to explore the multi-scalar, cross-field effects of global economic policy and national science policy on scientific practice. While most science and educational policy studies use Bourdieu’s concepts ontologically, as “thinking tools” to theorize power, this study adopted Bourdieu’s relational epistemology, empirically linking objective positions of power (capital) with position-takings (rooted in habitus) towards market-oriented science. A relational epistemology made it possible to explore what forms and weight of capital scientists brought to bear on symbolic struggles over the legitimacy of a market and scientific logic. By empirically investigating how power shaped bioscientists’ responses to market-oriented science policy, this study was able to identify key mechanisms of change within the scientific field and between science, politics and the market. First, it identified the rise of a new form of entrepreneurial capital and a market-oriented logic that coexists alongside a traditional scientific logic within the scientific field in a bipolar system of stratification. Second, it illustrated changes in scientific practice, which contribute to change in the structure of the distribution of capital within the scientific field. This study challenges Bourdieu’s emphasis on a single dominant logic or symbolic order and challenges science and technology scholars to both use and extend his theoretical contributions. 相似文献
9.
STS research has devoted relatively little attention to the promotion and reception of science and technology by non-scientific
actors and institutions. One consequence is that the relationship of science and technology to political power has tended
to remain undertheorized. This article aims to fill that gap by introducing the concept of “sociotechnical imaginaries.” Through
a comparative examination of the development and regulation of nuclear power in the US and South Korea, the article demonstrates
the analytic potential of the imaginaries concept. Although nuclear power and nationhood have long been imagined together
in both countries, the nature of those imaginations has remained strikingly different. In the US, the state’s central move
was to present itself as a responsible regulator of a potentially runaway technology that demands effective “containment.”
In South Korea, the dominant imaginary was of “atoms for development” which the state not only imported but incorporated into
its scientific, technological and political practices. In turn, these disparate imaginaries have underwritten very different
responses to a variety of nuclear shocks and challenges, such as Three Mile Island (TMI), Chernobyl, and the spread of the
anti-nuclear movement.
Sheila Jasanoff is Pforzheimer Professor of Science and Technology Studies at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. Her research centers on the interactions of law, science, and politics in democratic societies. She is particularly concerned with the construction of public reason in various cultural contexts, and with the role of science and technology in globalization. Her most recent book is Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Sang-Hyun Kim is Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. He received Ph.D.’s in chemistry from Oxford and in history and sociology of science from Edinburgh. His research interests include the cultural politics of science and technology in twentieth-century Korea, the politics of expertise, the governance of science and technology, and the history and politics of environmental sciences. 相似文献
| Sang-Hyun KimEmail: |
Sheila Jasanoff is Pforzheimer Professor of Science and Technology Studies at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. Her research centers on the interactions of law, science, and politics in democratic societies. She is particularly concerned with the construction of public reason in various cultural contexts, and with the role of science and technology in globalization. Her most recent book is Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Sang-Hyun Kim is Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. He received Ph.D.’s in chemistry from Oxford and in history and sociology of science from Edinburgh. His research interests include the cultural politics of science and technology in twentieth-century Korea, the politics of expertise, the governance of science and technology, and the history and politics of environmental sciences. 相似文献
10.
Alvin Weinberg’s classic and much debated two articles in Minerva, “Criteria for Scientific Choice” (1963) and “Criteria for Scientific Choice II – The Two Cultures” (1964), represent two of the first and most important attempts to create a meta-discourse about priority setting in science policy, and many of the points advanced remain relevant. The goal of this paper is to elaborate on the relevance of some of Weinberg’s original arguments to priority setting today. We have singled out four issues for attention: The tension between scientific and institutional choice, the assumptions behind the triad of scientific, technological and social merit, the elusive ‘externality from size’ argument for funding promoted by Weinberg, and finally the problems involved in the idea of basic science as an ‘overhead cost’ for applied science, and applied science as an ‘overhead’ on a sectoral mission. These four issues will be elaborated from a policy perspective and connected to present day challenges for science and technology policy. 相似文献
11.
Public Deliberation and Governance: Engaging with Science and Technology in Contemporary Europe 总被引：3，自引：0，他引：3
Whilst public engagement in decisions concerning science and technology is widely extolled, research shows that the application
of deliberative democratic theory remains – at least in Europe – highly constrained. Science and technology policy requires
closer attention to the wider context of governance and the compatibility of public deliberation with established modes of policy-making. 相似文献
12.
Fumi Kitagawa 《Minerva》2010,48(2):169-187
There are a number of different forms of inter-organisational collaborative arrangements between universities at international,
national and sub-national levels. This paper focuses on a particular form of inter-university collaboration mechanisms, which
represents one of the key recent policy developments in Scotland. Research pooling initiatives are a regional response to
create international research excellence and regional relevance by ‘pooling’ specific areas of research excellences that are
seen to be of strategic importance to Scotland universities across the region. Research pooling initiatives as networks can
be seen as strategic processes. Universities share resources and research facilities among selective partners and recruit professors and research students internationally by branding their subject areas together. This multi-scalar
institutional development is set against the background of devolution and globalisation of science, technology and innovation
policy on the one hand, and changing national higher education policies in the UK on the other. 相似文献
13.
The paper questions some of the premises in studying academic spin-offs in developed countries, claiming that when taken as
characteristics of ‘academic spin-offs per se,’ they are of little help in understanding the phenomenon in the Eastern European
countries during the transitional and post-transitional periods after 1989. It argues for the necessity of adopting a path-dependent
approach, which takes into consideration the institutional and organisational specificities of local economies and research
systems and their evolution, which strongly influence the patterns of spin-off activity. The paper provides new findings and
original arguments in support of Balazs’ seminal theses (Balazs 1995, 1996) about the emergence of academic spin-offs during the early transition. It reveals key economic and policy mechanisms bearing
on academic entrepreneurship in Eastern Europe, such as the tensions between economic and political nomenclatures of former
Communist Parties, where the dismantling or preservation of the power of political nomenclature resulted in different patterns
of development—rapid reforms in the ‘first wave’ of EU accession countries or the establishment of rent-seeking and assets-stripping
economies in countries like Bulgaria and Romania, making the transition period especially difficult. In the latter, a specific
economic environment emerged, unknown in Western Europe and in the ‘champions’ of transition—such as suppression of the authentic
entrepreneurship in a number of economic sectors, disintegration of corporate structures, etc. Thus, the paper reveals the
common ground behind the two conflicting tendencies in post-socialist academic spin-offs, partially outlined in other research
(Simeonova 1995; Pavlova 2000): as an authentic form of academic entrepreneurship grasping the opportunities opened up by the economic crisis and compensating
failures in science and technology policy on the one hand, and as specific rent-seeking strategy draining valuable public
assets on the other (the latter, in turn, boosting the negative attitudes in local scientific communities). The paper provides
new findings about the evolution of the academic spin-offs in Bulgaria along the two polar trends and their positive and negative
repercussions on parent research institutions. The results were achieved in the PROKNOW Project, EC 6th Framework Program. 相似文献
14.
When the journal Minerva was founded in 1962, science and higher educational issues were high on the agenda, lending impetus to the interdisciplinary field of “Science Studies” qua “Science Policy Studies.” As government expenditures for promoting various branches of science increased dramatically on both sides of the East-West Cold War divide, some common issues regarding research management also emerged and with it an interest in closer academic interaction in the areas of history and policy of science. Through a close reading of many early issues of Minerva but also of its later competitor journal Science Studies (now called Social Studies of Science) the paper traces the initial optimism of an academically based Science Studies dialogue across the Cold War divide and the creation in 1971 of the International Commission for Science Policy Studies as a bridging forum, one that Minerva strangely chose to ignore. In this light, attention is drawn to aspects of the often forgotten history of Science Studies in the former Soviet Union and the Eastern European block. Reviewed also are several early discussions that are still relevant today: e.g., regarding differing concepts of Big Science, science and democracy, autonomy in higher education and what conditions are necessary to sustain academic freedom and scientific integrity (some of Edward Shils’ primary concerns). Finally, it is noted how the question of quantitative methods to measure scientific productivity lay at the heart of a “Science of Science” movement of the 1960s has re-emerged in a new form integral to the notion of a “Science of Science Policy.” 相似文献
15.
Valdivia WD 《Minerva》2011,49(1):25-46
Evaluation studies of the Bayh-Dole Act are generally concerned with the pace of innovation or the transgressions to the independence
of research. While these concerns are important, I propose here to expand the range of public values considered in assessing
Bayh-Dole and formulating future reforms. To this end, I first examine the changes in the terms of the Bayh-Dole debate and
the drift in its design. Neoliberal ideas have had a definitive influence on U.S. innovation policy for the last thirty years,
including legislation to strengthen patent protection. Moreover, the neoliberal policy agenda is articulated and justified
in the interest of “competitiveness.” Rhetorically, this agenda equates competitiveness with economic growth and this with
the public interest. Against that backdrop, I use Public Value Failure criteria to show that values such as political equality,
transparency, and fairness in the distribution of the benefits of innovation, are worth considering to counter the “policy
drift” of Bayh-Dole. 相似文献
16.
Désirée Schauz 《Minerva》2014,52(3):273-328
For some years now, the concept of basic research has been under attack. Yet although the significance of the concept is in doubt, basic research continues to be used as an analytical category in science studies. But what exactly is basic research? What is the difference between basic and applied research? This article seeks to answer these questions by applying historical semantics. I argue that the concept of basic research did not arise out of the tradition of pure science. On the contrary, this new concept emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a time when scientists were being confronted with rising expectations regarding the societal utility of science. Scientists used the concept in order to try to bridge the gap between the promise of utility and the uncertainty of scientific endeavour. Only after 1945, when United States science policy shaped the notion of basic research, did the concept revert to the older ideals of pure science. This revival of the purity discourse was caused by the specific historical situation in the US at that time: the need to reform federal research policy after the Second World War, the new dimension of ethical dilemmas in science and technology during the atomic era, and the tense political climate during the Cold War. 相似文献
17.
The Public Values Failures of Climate Science in the US 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
Ryan Meyer 《Minerva》2011,49(1):47-70
This paper examines the broad social purpose of US climate science, which has benefitted from a public investment of more
than $30 billion over the last 20 years. A public values analysis identifies five core public values that underpin the interagency
program. Drawing from interviews, meeting observations, and document analysis, I examine the decision processes and institutional
structures that lead to the implementation of climate science policy, and identify a variety of public values failures accommodated
by this system. In contrast to other cases which find market values frameworks (the “profit as progress” assumption) at the
root of public values failures, this case shows how “science values” (“knowledge as progress”) may serve as an inadequate
or inappropriate basis for achieving broader public values. For both institutions and individual decision makers, the logic
linking science to societal benefit is generally incomplete, incoherent, and tends to conflate intrinsic and instrumental
values. I argue that to be successful with respect to its motivating public values, the US climate science enterprise must
avoid the assumption that any advance in knowledge is inherently good, and offer a clearer account of the kinds of research
and knowledge advance likely to generate desirable social outcomes. 相似文献
18.
19.
Genevieve E. Maricle 《Minerva》2011,49(1):87-111
No matter one’s wealth or social position, all are subject to the threats of natural hazards. Be it fire, flood, hurricane,
earthquake, tornado, or drought, the reality of hazard risk is universal. In response, governments, non-profits, and the private
sector all support research to study hazards. Each has a common end in mind: to increase the resilience of vulnerable communities.
While this end goal is shared across hazards, the conception of how to get there can diverge considerably. The earthquake
and hurricane research endeavors in the US provide an illustrative contrast. The earthquake community sets out to increase
resilience through a research process that simultaneously promotes both high quality and usable – preparedness-focused - science.
In order to do so, the logic suggests that research must be collaborative, responsive, and transparent. Hurricane research,
by contrast, largely promotes high quality science – predictions - alone, and presumes that usability should flow from there.
This process is not collaborative, responsive, or transparent. Experience suggests, however, that the latter model – hurricane
research - does not prepare communities or decision makers to use the high quality science it has produced when a storm does
hit. The predictions are good, but they are not used effectively. Earthquake research, on the other hand, is developed through
a collaborative process that equips decision makers to know and use hazards research knowledge as soon as an earthquake hits.
The contrast between the two fields suggests that earthquake research is more likely to meet the end goal of resilience than
is hurricane research, and thus that communities might be more resilient to hurricanes were the model by which research is
funded and conducted to change. The earthquake research experience can provide lessons for this shift. This paper employs
the Public Value Mapping (PVM) framework to explore these two divergent public value logics, their end results, and opportunities
for improvement. 相似文献
20.
In recent times there has been a surge in interest on policy instruments to stimulate scientific and engineering research
that is of greater consequence, advancing our knowledge in leaps rather than steps and is therefore more “creative” or, in
the language of recent reports, “transformative.” Associated with the language of “transformative research” there appears
to be much enthusiasm and conviction that the future of research is tied to it. However, there is very little clarity as to
what exactly it is and what criteria might be used to design policy instruments to make more of it happen. In this paper,
we contribute to the construction of a framework within which some conceptual clarity might be gained. We develop four analogies,
or metaphors, that are found in the discourse about “transformative research” and show what they imply for the meaning of
the notion and, as a result, both the phenomena that might be associated with it and the levers that would be available to
design policy instruments. The analogies serving as theoretical metaphors that we propose, and also document to be present
either explicitly or implicitly in the discourse about “transformative research,” are the stock market highlighting risk;
the process of evolution and its selection mechanisms; the process of popular culture and the power of “hot” events; and exploration
of the frontier of the unknown. No single analogy covers all the relevant issues. Together they help identify a field of phenomena
and the potential and challenges “transformative research” presents to policy. 相似文献