Search results

Des recherches entreprises dans le courant des années 1970, en sciences sociales, sur les sciences et techniques d'une part, le droit d'autre part, présentent de nombreux parallèles. Portant tous deux sur des phénomènes tout aussi centraux que pluriels, le rapprochement des recherches menées par les courants des Science and Technology Studies « STS » et des Legal Consciousness Studies « LCS » met en lumière des points communs qui relèvent tout autant de partis pris épistémologiques forts que d'approches méthodologiques originales. Dans cette contribution, nous tentons de mieux cerner des parallèles entre ces courants pour nourrir le questionnement sur un possible avenir des recherches en sciences sociales qui tirerait profit des apports des deux approches pour mieux comprendre les droits, les sciences et les techniques dans leurs interactions mutuelles.

Early in its development, political science established itself as part of modern secular authority, with something to say about government and politics. This achievement did not, though, lead to much noticeable impact on governance and policy, with the exception of administrative reforms. The past five decades have witnessed impressive growth in influence, as political science self-confidently embraced an idea-driven policy science. Political behaviorism, fashioned as a response to the loss of Enlightenment naiveté, was a political as well as a science project, and its successes, on both fronts, drew many to a new type of policy science. A leading example is neoconservatism, whose practioner political scientists linked new political ideas with applied social science as a basis for challenging assumptions of the regulatory welfare state. By the end of the twentieth century, political science had returned to its earliest mission(s)—building a better science and strengthening democratic practice.

This article offers a new explanation for the results of twin studies in political science that supposedly disclose a genetic basis for political traits. I argue that identical twins tend to be more alike than nonidentical twins because the former are more similarly affected by the same environmental conditions, but the content of those greater trait similarities is nevertheless completely malleable and determined by particular environments. The twin studies method thus can neither prove nor refute the argument for a genetic basis of political traits such as liberal and conservative preferences or voting turnout. The meaning of heritability estimates results in twin studies are discussed, as well as the definition and function of the environment in the political science twin studies. The premature attempts to associate political traits with specific genes despite countertrends in genetics are also examined. I conclude by proposing that the alternative explanation of this article may explain certain puzzles in behavioral genetics, particularly why social and political traits have higher heritability estimates than common physical and medical traits. I map the main point of disagreements with the methodology and the interpretation of its results, and delineate the main operative implications for future research.

During the past generation, social welfare has risen to a position of almost prime importance in the work of government. "Social services" have rivalled "defense services" as objects of public expenditure. "Social security" has complemented "national security" as an objective of public policy. Graduate schools of social work have taken their place alongside law schools, schools of education, and military and naval academies as important training-places for public service. It is perhaps time that we now inquire in what ways political science has been, or may yet be, affected by so phenomenal a change. If, as we are often assured, atomic fission means a revolution in our political thinking, the large-scale pursuit of social welfare might at least be expected to call for an equally vast, even though more gradual, evolution in our attitudes.As an organized body of professed political scientists, how have we reacted to this change? We have, by and large, welcomed the extension of governmental activity. As teachers, we have helped habituate a new generation to such expressions as "the service state," "positive government," and "the new belief in the common man." As scholars, we have followed with interest and approval the successive steps by which jurists have brought these activities within the framework of the written constitution of a federal state. As theorists, we have given to personal insecurity an honored place in the new psychopathological chapter in our evolving political philosophy. As citizens, we have played our part in planning and administering social welfare policies.

The eternal truth of the future cannot, of course, be the goal of futures studies. Future is full of surprises, uncertainty, trends and trend breaks, irrationality and rationality, and it is changing and escaping from our hands as time goes by. It is also the result of actions made by innumerable more or less powerful actors. In this article, the author describes the general features of futures studies, especially in its impact on societal development and decision making. The aim is also to show that the change in societal development has brought new challenges to the theoretical and methodological aspects of futures studies. Finally, the author discusses the problem of linking scenarios of the future to social and political decision making.

Bibliography: v. 1, p. 28; v.2, p.276; v.3, p. [530] ; Mode of access: Internet.

Abstract AIDS 2008 firmly established stigma and discrimination as fundamental priorities in the push for universal access to HIV prevention, treatment, care and support. Conference sessions and discussions reinforced the tangible negative effects of stigma on national legislation and policies. A strong theme throughout the conference was the need to replace prevention interventions that focus exclusively on individual behaviour change or biomedical prevention interventions with "combination prevention" approaches that address both individual and structural factors that increase vulnerability to HIV infection. Several high-level sessions addressed various aspects of the debate over "vertical" (disease-specific) versus "horizontal" (health systems) funding. The majority of evidence presented at the conference suggests that HIV investments strengthen health systems through the establishment of clinical and laboratory infrastructure, strengthened supply and procurement systems, improvements in health care worker training, and increased community engagement. Human rights were a focal point at the conference; several presentations emphasized the importance of securing human rights to achieve universal access goals, including workplace discrimination, travel restrictions, gender inequality, and the criminalization of homosexuality, drug use, sex work, and HIV transmission and/or exposure.