This article builds on the evolving relationship between science and society, focusing on the increasing emphasis on public participation in science decision-making processes. Public participation in science is often regarded as an embodiment of democratic principles that grant citizens the opportunity to engage with and influence scientific and technological developments. However, deficit models of science communication in participatory governance may be turning into democratic deficits. This article critically examines the deficit model of science communication, highlighting its potential democratic deficit. Drawing on empirical evidence from two case studies in a rural, socio-economically underdeveloped region in Portugal, the authors analyse the dynamics between agency and structure in hierarchical decision-making structures and power relations. We recommend policy implications to enhance the democratic quality of participatory science governance processes, based on convergence of initiatives, transparency, and new prospects for science communication.
{"title":"Who engages whom?—Deficit communication in participatory science governance as democratic deficit","authors":"Paulo Maia Loureiro, Hugo Horta","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scae014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scae014","url":null,"abstract":"This article builds on the evolving relationship between science and society, focusing on the increasing emphasis on public participation in science decision-making processes. Public participation in science is often regarded as an embodiment of democratic principles that grant citizens the opportunity to engage with and influence scientific and technological developments. However, deficit models of science communication in participatory governance may be turning into democratic deficits. This article critically examines the deficit model of science communication, highlighting its potential democratic deficit. Drawing on empirical evidence from two case studies in a rural, socio-economically underdeveloped region in Portugal, the authors analyse the dynamics between agency and structure in hierarchical decision-making structures and power relations. We recommend policy implications to enhance the democratic quality of participatory science governance processes, based on convergence of initiatives, transparency, and new prospects for science communication.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2024-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140595978","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
D. Barlevy, Eric Juengst, Jeffrey Kahn, Jonathan Moreno, Lauren Lambert, Alta Charo, Hervé Chneiweiss, M. Farooque, D. Guston, Insoo Hyun, Paul S Knoepfler, Cynthia Selin, Rebecca Wilbanks, Manar Zaghlula, C. T. Scott
In response to calls for public engagement on human genome editing (HGE), which intensified after the 2018 He Jiankui scandal that resulted in the implantation of genetically modified embryos, we detail an anticipatory approach to the governance of HGE. By soliciting multidisciplinary experts’ input on the drivers and uncertainties of HGE development, we developed a set of plausible future scenarios to ascertain publics values—specifically, their hopes and concerns regarding the novel technology and its applications. In turn, we gathered a subset of multidisciplinary experts to propose governance recommendations for HGE that incorporate identified publics’ values. These recommendations include: (1) continued participatory public engagement; (2) international harmonization and transparency of multiple governance levers such as professional and scientific societies, funders, and regulators; and (3) development of a formal whistleblower framework.
{"title":"Governing with public engagement: an anticipatory approach to human genome editing","authors":"D. Barlevy, Eric Juengst, Jeffrey Kahn, Jonathan Moreno, Lauren Lambert, Alta Charo, Hervé Chneiweiss, M. Farooque, D. Guston, Insoo Hyun, Paul S Knoepfler, Cynthia Selin, Rebecca Wilbanks, Manar Zaghlula, C. T. Scott","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scae010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scae010","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In response to calls for public engagement on human genome editing (HGE), which intensified after the 2018 He Jiankui scandal that resulted in the implantation of genetically modified embryos, we detail an anticipatory approach to the governance of HGE. By soliciting multidisciplinary experts’ input on the drivers and uncertainties of HGE development, we developed a set of plausible future scenarios to ascertain publics values—specifically, their hopes and concerns regarding the novel technology and its applications. In turn, we gathered a subset of multidisciplinary experts to propose governance recommendations for HGE that incorporate identified publics’ values. These recommendations include: (1) continued participatory public engagement; (2) international harmonization and transparency of multiple governance levers such as professional and scientific societies, funders, and regulators; and (3) development of a formal whistleblower framework.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2024-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140383075","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Science–policy interaction is frequently organized through projects, lauded as flexible and focused administrative solutions for policy learning. However, there is a risk of stifling projects with overly rigid interfaces or, controversially, losing project results amidst the cracks of inter- and intra-organizational cleavages when interfaces are excessively flexible. This article examines how science advisors in Estonian ministries contributed to resolving this controversy through an in-depth case study of an agenda-setting bioeconomy project. The results suggest that the potential of science advisors to provide necessary flexibility is contingent on their position relative to bureaucratic hierarchies and boundary objects.
{"title":"Stability versus flexibility in projectified science–policy context: what is the role of science advisors?","authors":"Peeter Vihma","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scae009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scae009","url":null,"abstract":"Science–policy interaction is frequently organized through projects, lauded as flexible and focused administrative solutions for policy learning. However, there is a risk of stifling projects with overly rigid interfaces or, controversially, losing project results amidst the cracks of inter- and intra-organizational cleavages when interfaces are excessively flexible. This article examines how science advisors in Estonian ministries contributed to resolving this controversy through an in-depth case study of an agenda-setting bioeconomy project. The results suggest that the potential of science advisors to provide necessary flexibility is contingent on their position relative to bureaucratic hierarchies and boundary objects.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2024-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140204624","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In addition to promoting reforms, governments foster change in university systems through funding, competition, and new policy instruments. Little research has been conducted on how research centre funding schemes support organizational changes in universities and on their institutional and policy barriers. This article addresses the research centre funding schemes implemented by the regional government of Galicia (Spain) in 2016. The approach is observational and based on documentary analysis and semi-structured interviews with key actors. The regional government sought to encourage organizational differentiation by increasing the autonomy of centres inside the universities and to enhance strategic research agendas, reinforcing the scientific authority of the centres’ directors. We found that the design and operation of the instrument in the context of the existing university governance system, and the interaction with other funding instruments within the policy mix, may create barriers that hinder the effectiveness of the funding scheme.
{"title":"Steering at a distance: research centre funding schemes as instruments for university change","authors":"Manuel Pereira-Puga, Luis Sanz-Menéndez","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scae005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scae005","url":null,"abstract":"In addition to promoting reforms, governments foster change in university systems through funding, competition, and new policy instruments. Little research has been conducted on how research centre funding schemes support organizational changes in universities and on their institutional and policy barriers. This article addresses the research centre funding schemes implemented by the regional government of Galicia (Spain) in 2016. The approach is observational and based on documentary analysis and semi-structured interviews with key actors. The regional government sought to encourage organizational differentiation by increasing the autonomy of centres inside the universities and to enhance strategic research agendas, reinforcing the scientific authority of the centres’ directors. We found that the design and operation of the instrument in the context of the existing university governance system, and the interaction with other funding instruments within the policy mix, may create barriers that hinder the effectiveness of the funding scheme.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2024-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140115914","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Siri Brorstad Borlaug, Maria Karaulova, Silje Marie Svartefoss, Gunnar Sivertsen, Ingeborg Meijer, Thed van Leeuwen, Laurens K Hessels
Distinguishing between research collaboration, consultancy, dissemination, and commercialization of research results, this paper analyses the determinants of researchers’ societal engagement. The analytical framework integrates societal engagement as part of the credibility cycle. Several variables extend previous findings on determinants and mechanisms—herein scientific recognition and funding sources. A novel method to investigate the relationship between scientific recognition and societal engagement is explored. Drawing on a large-scale survey of European-based researchers in physics, cardiology, and economics, we find that several factors are associated with different modes of societal engagement in complex and intersecting ways. Scientific recognition is positively associated with research collaboration and dissemination, while organizational seniority is associated with all modes except for research collaboration with non-scientific actors. Female gender is positively associated with dissemination and external funding sources are positively associated will all. The findings intersect with differences in the three research fields.
{"title":"Researchers engaging with society: who does what?","authors":"Siri Brorstad Borlaug, Maria Karaulova, Silje Marie Svartefoss, Gunnar Sivertsen, Ingeborg Meijer, Thed van Leeuwen, Laurens K Hessels","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scae006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scae006","url":null,"abstract":"Distinguishing between research collaboration, consultancy, dissemination, and commercialization of research results, this paper analyses the determinants of researchers’ societal engagement. The analytical framework integrates societal engagement as part of the credibility cycle. Several variables extend previous findings on determinants and mechanisms—herein scientific recognition and funding sources. A novel method to investigate the relationship between scientific recognition and societal engagement is explored. Drawing on a large-scale survey of European-based researchers in physics, cardiology, and economics, we find that several factors are associated with different modes of societal engagement in complex and intersecting ways. Scientific recognition is positively associated with research collaboration and dissemination, while organizational seniority is associated with all modes except for research collaboration with non-scientific actors. Female gender is positively associated with dissemination and external funding sources are positively associated will all. The findings intersect with differences in the three research fields.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2024-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140073947","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Building technological capabilities is influenced by different factors, notably policies. This paper explains the co-evolution of policies, i.e. policy tools, on the technological capabilities in Iran’s biopharmaceutical sector from 1995 to 2022. By adopting a qualitative research method, we gathered primary data through thirty-nine semi-structured as well as secondary data from reports and statistics. This paper explains technological capabilities enhancement from operational capabilities to innovative capabilities based on our proposed framework, which includes six levels. While the lack of an efficient policy tools, until the mid-2000s, was decisive in the inertia of biopharmaceutical sector capabilities, a proactive policy tools in recent years led to considerable promising results in terms of manufacturing and exporting advanced biosimilar products. Our findings shed light on the role of government support in the acceleration and directionality of technological capabilities building. Achieving advanced levels of technological capabilities requires learning, international collaboration, and export-oriented policies.
{"title":"How a timely policy contributes to technological capability building: insights from Iran’s biopharmaceutical sector","authors":"Amir Ghorbani, Kiarash Fartash, Abolfazl Bagheri","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scae003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scae003","url":null,"abstract":"Building technological capabilities is influenced by different factors, notably policies. This paper explains the co-evolution of policies, i.e. policy tools, on the technological capabilities in Iran’s biopharmaceutical sector from 1995 to 2022. By adopting a qualitative research method, we gathered primary data through thirty-nine semi-structured as well as secondary data from reports and statistics. This paper explains technological capabilities enhancement from operational capabilities to innovative capabilities based on our proposed framework, which includes six levels. While the lack of an efficient policy tools, until the mid-2000s, was decisive in the inertia of biopharmaceutical sector capabilities, a proactive policy tools in recent years led to considerable promising results in terms of manufacturing and exporting advanced biosimilar products. Our findings shed light on the role of government support in the acceleration and directionality of technological capabilities building. Achieving advanced levels of technological capabilities requires learning, international collaboration, and export-oriented policies.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2024-02-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140035052","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Starting from the tension between scientific autonomy and state governing in research policy, the aim of this article is to examine how researchers who apply for funding in Sweden perceive the legitimate grounds for a new research policy in which sex and gender perspectives are integrated as criteria in assessing scientific quality. Our results show that researcher’s perception of themselves, and of the purpose of research, is compatible with dominant ideals in contemporary academic landscape, where knowledge is treated as a deliverable to external stakeholders or to meet politically formulated goals. However, according to researchers, the legitimate sources of policy influence originate from their own profession or the common interest of the people, explicitly expressed by citizens. Researchers are questioning, and find strategies to avoid, top-down state governing.
{"title":"“It is controlling, but you don’t really care.” Researchers’ perceptions of legitimation of research policy","authors":"Vanja Carlsson, Evelina Johansson Wilén","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scae004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scae004","url":null,"abstract":"Starting from the tension between scientific autonomy and state governing in research policy, the aim of this article is to examine how researchers who apply for funding in Sweden perceive the legitimate grounds for a new research policy in which sex and gender perspectives are integrated as criteria in assessing scientific quality. Our results show that researcher’s perception of themselves, and of the purpose of research, is compatible with dominant ideals in contemporary academic landscape, where knowledge is treated as a deliverable to external stakeholders or to meet politically formulated goals. However, according to researchers, the legitimate sources of policy influence originate from their own profession or the common interest of the people, explicitly expressed by citizens. Researchers are questioning, and find strategies to avoid, top-down state governing.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2024-02-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140035296","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Our understanding of innovation policies has been enhanced. However, there is still a gap in conceptualizing the effectiveness of one of innovation policy’s most important tools: financial incentives (FIs). Scholars developed an understanding of the effectiveness of direct versus indirect FIs, but there is no clear theoretical framework that delineates what kind of financial instruments impact what kind of innovation under what conditions. This paper analyzes the different working and operational logic of the wide array of employed FI worldwide to develop what is, to the best of our knowledge, the first conceptual framework discerning what financial tools fit what aims and contexts. This framework allows the development of testable hypotheses as well as the development of incentives tailored differently for different national innovation missions and market structures, suggesting that the growing reliance among OECD countries on indirect FIs in the form of tax incentives is less then optimal.
{"title":"Effectively financing private sector innovation? Toward a conceptual policy framework","authors":"Alix Jansen, Dan Breznitz","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scae002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scae002","url":null,"abstract":"Our understanding of innovation policies has been enhanced. However, there is still a gap in conceptualizing the effectiveness of one of innovation policy’s most important tools: financial incentives (FIs). Scholars developed an understanding of the effectiveness of direct versus indirect FIs, but there is no clear theoretical framework that delineates what kind of financial instruments impact what kind of innovation under what conditions. This paper analyzes the different working and operational logic of the wide array of employed FI worldwide to develop what is, to the best of our knowledge, the first conceptual framework discerning what financial tools fit what aims and contexts. This framework allows the development of testable hypotheses as well as the development of incentives tailored differently for different national innovation missions and market structures, suggesting that the growing reliance among OECD countries on indirect FIs in the form of tax incentives is less then optimal.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2024-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139955647","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Although the research funding policy has promoted the output and effect of research, whether it can identify innovative research topics and promote discipline development is worth investigating in depth. Taking Chinese humanities and social sciences (HSS) as an example, this study uses the latent Dirichlet allocation topic model to identify the topics of the HSS projects and papers funded by China’s national research funds. The analysis reveals the effect of research funding policy on research topics in both topic selection and funding intensity: (1) the types of projects with strict restrictions on topics significantly guide the direction of research topics; (2) projects with less funding are more likely to result in emerging topic research; and (3) compared with social sciences and key universities, the funded projects of humanities and other institutions are more likely to focus on emerging topics.
{"title":"Do scientific research funds support emerging topic research in Chinese humanities and social sciences?","authors":"Jianqin Xiang","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scae001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scae001","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Although the research funding policy has promoted the output and effect of research, whether it can identify innovative research topics and promote discipline development is worth investigating in depth. Taking Chinese humanities and social sciences (HSS) as an example, this study uses the latent Dirichlet allocation topic model to identify the topics of the HSS projects and papers funded by China’s national research funds. The analysis reveals the effect of research funding policy on research topics in both topic selection and funding intensity: (1) the types of projects with strict restrictions on topics significantly guide the direction of research topics; (2) projects with less funding are more likely to result in emerging topic research; and (3) compared with social sciences and key universities, the funded projects of humanities and other institutions are more likely to focus on emerging topics.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2024-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140445420","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jon D Miller, Belén Laspra, Carmelo Polino, Glenn Branch, Mark S Ackerman, Robert T Pennock
In democratic societies around the world, the number of science policy decisions is increasing. One of the fundamental principles of democracy is that citizens should be able to understand the issues before them. Using a 63-year cross-sectional US data set, we use confirmatory factor analysis to construct and test a two-dimensional measure of attitude to science and technology that has been relatively stable over the last six decades. Previous and current research tells us that only one in three US adults is scientifically literate, meaning that trust in scientific expertise is important to many citizens. We find that trust in scientific expertise polarized during the Trump administration. Using the same data set, we construct two structural equation models to determine the factors that predict positive attitudes toward science and technology. Comparing 2016 and 2020, we find that the Trump attacks on science did not reduce public support for science.
{"title":"Citizen attitudes toward science and technology, 1957–2020: measurement, stability, and the Trump challenge","authors":"Jon D Miller, Belén Laspra, Carmelo Polino, Glenn Branch, Mark S Ackerman, Robert T Pennock","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad086","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad086","url":null,"abstract":"In democratic societies around the world, the number of science policy decisions is increasing. One of the fundamental principles of democracy is that citizens should be able to understand the issues before them. Using a 63-year cross-sectional US data set, we use confirmatory factor analysis to construct and test a two-dimensional measure of attitude to science and technology that has been relatively stable over the last six decades. Previous and current research tells us that only one in three US adults is scientifically literate, meaning that trust in scientific expertise is important to many citizens. We find that trust in scientific expertise polarized during the Trump administration. Using the same data set, we construct two structural equation models to determine the factors that predict positive attitudes toward science and technology. Comparing 2016 and 2020, we find that the Trump attacks on science did not reduce public support for science.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2024-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139648459","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：