Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Dedication -- Foreword -- Preface -- Acknowledgments -- Contents -- List of Figures -- List of Tables -- 1 Introduction -- Abstract -- References -- 2 The Impact of Science and Technology Development on Science and Technology Planning Before the Founding of the People's Republic of China -- Abstract -- 2.1 Science and Technology from the Period of & -- !blank -- Revolutionary Base Area to & -- !blank -- Before the Founding of & -- !blank -- the People's Republic of China -- 2.3 Science and Technology Development and Scientific Community in the Ruling Area of Kuomintang -- 2.4 Review and Sublimation -- References -- 3 An Analysis of the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology Program in the System of Planned Economy -- Abstract -- 3.2 S& -- T Program 1963-1972 -- 3.3 S& -- T Plan and Difficult S& -- T Development During the "Cultural Revolution" -- 3.4 Review and Enlightenment -- References -- 4 History and Philosophy of Science and Technology Planning in the Transitional Period -- Abstract -- 4.6 A Summary Review and Enlightenment -- References -- 5 Reflections on S& -- T Programs and Planning Philosophy in the Twenty-First Century -- Abstract -- 5.1 Special Plan for the Development of Science, Technology and Education Under the 10th Five-Year Plan (Science and Technology Development Plan) (2001-2005) -- 5.2 National Medium- and Long-Term Program for Science and Technology Development (2006-2020) -- 5.3 Nature's Comment on China's S& -- T Development and Plan and Reflection -- 5.4 "11th Five-Year" Science and Technology Development Plan -- 5.5 Review and Elevation -- References -- 6 Analysis of Scientific and Technological Planning Philosophy and Case Studies -- Abstract -- 6.3 Case Study: Large Aircraft Project of Scientific and Technological Program -- 6.4 Recap and Inspiration -- References.

A study of two bridges between science and society: governmental science policy and scientists' voluntary public-interest associations. According to a widespread stereotype, scientists occupy an ivory tower, isolated from other parts of society. To some extent this is true, and the resulting freedom to pursue curiosity-driven research has made possible extraordinary scientific advances. The spinoffs of "pure" science, however, have also had powerful impacts on society, and the potential for future impacts is even greater. The public and many policymakers, as well as many researchers, have paid insufficient attention to the mechanisms for interchange between science and society that have developed since World War II. Ivory Bridges examines two such mechanisms: governmental science policy (often involving the participation of "scientist administrators") and scientists' voluntary public-interest associations. The examination of science policy is guided by the notion of "Jeffersonian science" -- defined as basic research on topics identified as being in the national interest. The book illustrates the concept with a historical case study of the Press-Carter Initiative of the late 1970s and proposes that a Jeffersonian approach would make a valuable addition to future science policy. The book also looks at the activities of citizen-scientists who have organized themselves to promote the welfare of society. It shows that their numerous and diverse organizations have made major contributions to the commonweal and that they have helped to prevent science from becoming either too subservient to government or too autonomous. An extensive appendix profiles a wide variety of these organizations.

Underlying causes of policy divergence in controlling this pesticide.

Shipping list number: 2011-0051-P. ; Includes bibliographical references. ; Mode of access: Internet.

AbstractThis article is a comparative case study of environmental regulation in Canada and the United States, focussing on one important area of environmental regulation, pesticides, and on the treatment of North America's most commercially important pesticide, alachlor. Alachlor is a clear case of policy divergence: Canadians have banned the substance while the US has decided to keep it on the market with minimal restrictions. Three major explanations for the divergence are explored: science, interest group politics, and legal and institutional arrangements. The article concludes that while different interpretations of the risks posed by alachlor contributed to the different decisions, they can only be explained with reference to the economic importance of alachlor and the need to maintain the legitimacy of current institutional arrangements. The concluding section outlines a framework for explaining similarities and differences in environmental, health and safety regulations across nations.

The origins of the radical science movement in the 1960s are described. Factors cited include the civil rights movement, the Vietnam war, a developing parallel movement in Europe, the influx of young people into science in the 1960s, & developments in the philosophy of science. The radical science movement is contrasted with earlier efforts of scientists to deal with social issues in science. Themes in the movement include a general analysis of control of science under US capitalism, the nonneutrality of science, the development of a "people's science," & the critique of science as ideology. Also pointed out are the instances in which an antiscience trend within society has influenced positions taken by the radical science movement. The achievements of this movement include the effective opposition to theories of biological determinism, the involvement of the public in decision making on certain scientific issues, the influence on the agenda of professional scientific societies, & the generation of a number of organizations that contribute to debates over scientific & technological issues & provide technical assistance to less privileged sectors of society. AA