"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.

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.

This piece talks about activism that hampers scientific research, innovation and industries that are related to things suc as "pesticides, food additives, chemicals in general, pharmaceuticals, nuclear power, and biotechnology." The article states that the scientific illiteracy of the general public makes it easy for activists to generate support for increased regulation and dampening of efforts in these areas. How do you help communities assess scientific information? How do you help them look at not only the research, but the context of the research? How should informed decisions about potentially harmful technologies and processes be handled? How do you support and engage in honest and open dialogue and debate about complex and unknown outcomes?

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.

With a PhD in Biochemistry from Oxford, Nich Anthis combines his dual passions in science and politics to comment on issues and research that are at the intersection of both. Nick writes: "Recognizing science as a path toward understanding nature, distinct from corporate and other applications, The Scientific Activist opens up a new dialogue on the proper role of science in an ever changing society. The truth isn't always black or white, but an informed public is an empowered one, so I won't shy away from the complex issues. Most importantly, though, The Scientific Activist takes on the people and obstacles standing in the way of the progress and proper application of science. Enemies of science, beware!" He is working towards more nuanced and complex understandings of what science means and what role it plays in a complex world.

The Public Science Project situated at the CUNY Graduate Center works in a participatory action research agenda.  They work in collaboration with groups on the ground. The website states:  "PAR Collective, we began our work as a coalition of activists, researchers, youth, elders, lawyers, prisoners, and educators, launching projects on educational injustice, lives under surveillance,and the collateral damage of mass incarceration. Most of our projects have been situated in schools and/or community-based organizations struggling for quality education, economic opportunities, and human rights. Knowledge-sharing research camps set the stage for most of our research, designed to bring together differently positioned people around a common table to design and implement the research: youth and educators; young people who have been pushed out of schools and mothers organizing for quality education in communities under siege; prisoners, organizers, and academics. Most projects have vibrant advisory boards of youth, community elders, educators and/or activists to shape the work and hold us accountable to the needs and desires of local communities." They conduct research, trainings, and consulting services as well as resources for PAR.

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.

On Point looks at rising water lines on the coasts - A big new prediction of coastal flooding and sea levels rise. We'll look at the moving edge of the water.

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).

This article talks about the use of GIS and building energy consumption data to create and info graphic of NYC.  This seemed linked to the conversation about combining visuals and data to effective awareness and to motivate change.

Recommendations for integrating into policymaking in the U.S. foresight processes, responsiveness and feedback.

IBM is releasing a real world came around urban planning solutions. But the idea of embedding real-world solutions into a gaming environment might be one way to tackle science based issues and the policies and plans surrounding them.

sprout is a social design firm devoted to creating and supporting the community-driven learning, teaching, and investigation of science. We're united by a passion to explore and reveal how to reclaim science as a richly personal and creative craft. Through our programs, stories, and studio space, we're working to make our vision real in Somerville.

ResIST is a multinational collaborative research partnership that seeks to explore the role that science and technology in increasing inequalities but also the ways in which science and technology can address these same inequities. The research teams from Germany, Malta, Mozambique, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Turkey, the UK and the US are engaged in 5 separate but coordinated research endeavors. ResIST provides a nice template for how transnational knowledge building might work.

Winikoff et al explore key issues related to the adjudication of the disagreement between that the US, Canada and Argentina have with the European Communities over GMOs. The primary focus is on the WTO SPS Agreement and the way in which the agreement can be used to respect cultural differences regarding risk assessment, acknowledge that science policies are value laden, and that public input and participation is even more important than scientific expertise especially in instances of low consensus and low expertise.