Group items tagged

This article is really interesting for several reasons -- it describes a model by a scientist about scientists, and the reception he got from his colleagues; it's an interesting model for thinking about scientists on its own; and in it the author of the article, the scientist, and a reviewer all claim that there have been "no real studies about science."

Interesting article, although I appreciated the stages described in the article, I think it is a much more nuanced process. Nevertheless, an interesting depiction. Thanks Pam!

"For scientists, the struggle between their work and the way society views that work is nothing new, says Francesca Grifo, director of the scientific integrity program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. After all, she says, Galileo was forced by the Catholic establishment to renounce his evidence for a sun-centered solar system, and Darwin's ideas have been a political football for more than a century." This article places the current Tennessee proposed bill on "academic freedom" in the context of other challenges the scientific community faces when trying to reconcile their knowledge and research within the context of social believes and attitudes.

Published by the Council of Canadian Academies, this paper reviews a bit of the history of the relationship between policy and science, as well as policy and scientists. The author, Executive VP of the Council, starts from a broad view, describing an "is (fact)/ought (value)" dichotomy between science and policy, moves closer to characterize the range of relationships between scientists and policymakers and their attitudes toward each other, describes their spheres of influence (world of progress v. world of power), and finally makes the case for government as a place for collaboration and progress employing both. Saner offers some "take-home messages" and some questions for further exploration, including how to meet the needs of each while facilitating communication; managing the divergent cultures to reach successful ends; creating incentives for both players to join the effort; and adapting to the multitude of ways the differences between these two groups manifest themselves around policy issues.

A report based on a series of "dialogue sessions" within and among scientists and policymakers in the Canadian federal government. While the report focuses on next steps for Canada agencies in particular, the description of existing conditions and justification for a new approach ring true. It's especially interesting that they identify the need for interpreters who can work at the interface, but do not explore means for establishing that role, nor do they promote this option as a fully-developed next step.

As a project-driven organization, our goal is to translate conservation science into compelling visual messages targeted to specific audiences. We work with leading scientists, policy makers, government leaders and conservation groups to produce the highest-quality documentary images of both the beauty and wonder of the natural world and the challenges facing it.

Rhoda this is linking to posts by others around creativity and communication in this endeavor. Interesting.

My sense of Yamana is that it works mostly as a clearinghouse of exchange of innovative approaches. The second unSummit coming up in a few weeks has no schedule of papers, but facilitates discussions that evolve over the 2 days. I think one would have to experience this to understand how it works. I had planned to do so this time, but decided I was too far behind on following up on previous connections. Here are Yamana's guidelines: "We feel the current culture of science creates an invisible cost in loss of productivity, slower rates of discovery, and 'wasting assets,' including human capital. We are committed to having enough conversations with the people that can make a difference, including (and perhaps especially) within our own scientific communities. We will transform what is possible both for people who are currently working in the field of science and for those that are interested in studying to become scientists. We will impact the experience of learning science, the experience of teaching science and the experience of doing science. We include conversations across the whole gamut of what affects desired outcomes, from salaries, to healthcare, to personal leave, to the work environment, to the conversations being had about science, to how science is funded, commercialized, and shared. By acting as a clearinghouse for issues and concerns, as well as a catalyst for potential solutions, we are connecting the passionate voices in science with one another to create a shared vision for the future."

I've been thinking about this alot lately. How do you make cultural change? How do you shift conventional wisdom? How do you create new practices and ways of doing, especially if the dominant "narrative" and system of "incentives" don't support change? Do you shift one relationship at a time? Or is larger change possible? What are the spaces for going against the grain?

A group of sci­en­tists is call­ing for major fed­eral ac­tion in order to deal with the threat posed by Mon­santo's GMO crops, now pe­ti­tion­ing the EPA to ad­dress the issue head on.

Thanks Felicia - This supports what I had read about Monsanto corn during my CCD research. But I was not aware of the BT-rootworm issue, only the super-weeds mutating because of RoundUp resistance that has also been genetically modified in Monsanto corn. Honeybees do collect pollen from corn when they are desperate even though they are not needed for pollination of corn.

This TED conversation led by Yu-An Chen in Jersey City question why there are not more "kitchen scientists" and why isn't the practice of science more accessible?   The conversation runs for the next four days (Feb 9, 2012).

Thanks Felicia. I was not aware that TED had conversations until I followed your link; I was only aware of TED Talks.

The documentation from this 2005 Congressional hearing may help insert some of the science Peter was prompting us to incorporate into our case investigations -- GIS, communications science, demographics, and others are brought to bear; the Q&A toward the end give some sense as to what the decisionmakers (Members of the House) took away from the expert scientists' presentations.

Scientific research plays a very important role in the development of the areas discussed; for example, information data collection and development and improvement of hazard and risk assessment models. These programs are critical since we live in a country with so many natural risks year round.

Indeed very comprehensive. I find interesting when they ask the effect of the local environment in shaping our perceptions of risk. It was interesting to see how people felt in Southesat Lousiana before and after hurrican Ivan.

What does it mean with grassroots organizing and activist result in legislation that seem to challenge the foundations of science? The academic freedom bill would: " 'create an environment ... that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, [and] develop critical thinking skills' regarding 'scientific controversies.' " Who could be against critical thinking. But what if your definition of critical thinking is to provide alternative explanations of evolution that are not based in scientific knowledge or methods. What is that? What does it say that there are science teachers who may feel they are constrained in challenging theories of evolution? What is the right way for challenging consensus views? The bill seems to bring forth some very sophisticated "activism" in pushing forth anti-science, or Moore's idea of marginal scientists.

I like this line: Think of this way: If you come home to find your television and computer stolen, along with a note saying, "This removal of your goods shall not be construed as a burglary,"... It's interesting to think about the law around what is and is not taught in different cases. I sometimes have issues with the MA state frameworks as well in that certain things are emphasized and others left out.

I haven't had time to read this fully, but it would seem finding ways to help groups of individuals work to come to decisions regarding science and technology change in a way that can expose and understand a complex situation. This bit seems relevant: "Disputes between experts provoke major difficulties for decision-making and policy implementation in the case of such public confrontations, which, more often than not, are vociferous, protracted, rancorous and unresolved. Traditionally, the neutral, disinterested and objective expert has been promoted -- not least by scientists themselves -- as the rational and authoritative arbiter of public disputes over scientific or technical issues." Published in Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Petersen, and Trevor Pinch (eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1995), pp. 506-526, plus references, with minor changes due to sub-editing. Brian Martin and Evelleen Richards 1.

We spent two years working with lawyers to design a contract - learning from the best aspects of other pharmaceutical companies - to ensure that the Amazonian people benefit from a percentage of any profits with conservation and education initiatives. We are distributing the money through trusted, long-term local NGOs. So far we have created a beautiful medicine garden to conserve plants used for women's health. We also want to build a training centre to teach the community the medicine and remedy-making skills I learned, but which the new generation has lost.

Just trying out Diigo for the first time and linking to a book that I would like to follow up with.

From Peter the instructor: Thanks for trying out diigo. For future posts, provide an annotation that helps viewers decide whether or not to click on the link to read more.

See essay review of the book: Taylor, P.J. "Biology as Politics: The Direct and Indirect Effects of Lewontin and Levins," Science as Culture, 19(2): 241-253, 2010. Abstract: Lewontin and Levins's contributions are viewed from four angles: a more vigorous culture of science criticism; a visible college of Marxist scientists in the USA; inquiries into the diverse social influences shaping science; and motivating readers who want to pursue their science as a political project. Indirect contributions-influences on and appropriations by other actors in the wider realm of biology as politics-are discussed as well as the more direct effects.

This article shows insurance company data that indicates that costs from storms and floods are going up, but not so much from earthquakes, tsunamis or from temperature extremes. It connects with CS's inquiry on frequency of extreme climatic events and my project on using the insurance industry to get beyond political posturing.

This article reflects on the similarities, differences and complexities of science and democracy. Indeed, science is present in our daily lives and democracy through our actions that foster society are present daily as well. Because of the impact of science on society, democracy may be seen as a core element in guiding science towards the greater good. Nevertheless, government use and intervention of science may not be always so. Therefore, it is the people's right and obligation to engage government and scientists reminding them of the benefits but also the risks of their projects and objectives. Science and business may create a covenient and profitable conduit for developing new inventions and advancing science. However, through democracy, we may and should remind them of the ethical implications of their discoveries and the need to work for the greater good and benefitting all. An interesting article that also provides some insights about Obama's policies on Science.

Commentators ask: Is genetics understood well enough? Even if yes, should this be acceptable defence?