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."

Highlighted portions are the focus of the Case 4 practicum.

Meredith Minkler reviews the current status and practice of CBR in the U.S. and abroad, providing reasons to undertake this admittedly more-complex path for public health research in particular (identifying questions that reflect real community concerns; achieving informed consent and building community capacity; increasing cultural sensitivity and validity of measurement tools, data interpretation, and interventions; uncovering critical lay knowledge; and improving participant recruitment and retention). Along with ethical issues, Minkler uses case study examples to highlight other challenges inherent in the practice, and provides some guidelines for engagement. To my mind, her review is balanced and raises several issues not touched upon by other scholarly writings re: CBR process and practice.

Shelley's work is directly relevant to our mapping exercises -- and he does it beautifully. Check out especially his exhibit in Brooklyn (selections currently hanging in the DeCordova in Lincoln MA) titled "The origin of avant-guard" and his description of his process.

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.

This might be useful for those of you trying to parse out how climate science is being received by the public -- skeptics are farther between than we think, perhaps?

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.

This compilation of papers on disaster preparedness provide some sense as to the science disciplines which can be called upon to address PPol749 Case 1.

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.

This is a report from the Office of Homeland Security to the transition team as President Obama entered the White House. I thought it might be useful to people who are pursuing inquiry around FEMA in particular, as it includes a history of the agency and alternatives for placement in the Executive branch organizational chart.

Relating natural disasters to climate change, and a prescription for responding (which doesn't hinge on accepting climate change, if the Case knowledge claim is correct). This prescription includes national- and state-level assessments and planning, additional funding, and energy infrastructure improvements.

resources re: best practices for emergency preparedness from the federal government