Changes needed to preserve biodiversity
In: Science and public policy: journal of the Science Policy Foundation, Volume 26, Issue 5, p. 379-380
ISSN: 1471-5430
10 results
Sort by:
In: Science and public policy: journal of the Science Policy Foundation, Volume 26, Issue 5, p. 379-380
ISSN: 1471-5430
In: Science and public policy: journal of the Science Policy Foundation, Volume 26, Issue 2, p. 142-144
ISSN: 1471-5430
In: Science & public policy: SPP ; journal of the Science Policy Foundation, Volume 24, Issue 2, p. 140-142
ISSN: 0302-3427, 0036-8245
In: Philosophy of the social sciences: an international journal = Philosophie des sciences sociales, Volume 18, Issue 3, p. 343-353
ISSN: 1552-7441
In: Inquiry: an interdisciplinary journal of philosophy and the social sciences, Volume 31, Issue 1, p. 93-101
ISSN: 1502-3923
In: Inquiry: an interdisciplinary journal of philosophy and the social sciences, Volume 30, Issue 1-2, p. 155-172
ISSN: 1502-3923
"World population is forecast to grow from 7 to 9 billion by 2050, 1 in 6 is already hungry and food production must increase by 70-100% if it is to feed this growing population. No single solution will solve this problem but recent developments in the genetic technologies of plant breeding can help to increase agricultural efficiencies and save people from hunger in a sustainable manner, particularly in African nations where the need is greatest. These advances can rapidly incorporate new traits and tailor existing crops to meet new requirements and also greatly reduce the time and costs taken to improve local crop varieties. This book provides a collected, reliable, succinct review which deals expressly with the successful implementation of the new plant genetic sciences in emerging economies in the context of the interrelated key regulatory, social, ethical, political and trade matters."--Provided by publisher
In: Social epistemology: a journal of knowledge, culture and policy, Volume 12, Issue 2, p. 153-213
ISSN: 1464-5297
In: Sutherland , W J , Bellingan , L , Bellingham , J R , Blackstock , J J , Bloomfield , R M , Bravo , M , Cadman , V M , Cleevely , D D , Clements , A , Cohen , A S , Cope , D R , Daemmrich , A A , Devecchi , C , Anadon , L D , Denegri , S , Doubleday , R , Dusic , N R , Evans , R J , Feng , W Y , Godfray , H C J , Harris , P , Hartley , S E , Hester , A J , Holmes , J , Hughes , A , Hulme , M , Irwin , C , Jennings , R C , Kass , G S , Littlejohns , P , Marteau , T M , McKee , G , Millstone , E P , Nuttall , W J , Owens , S , Parker , M M , Pearson , S , Petts , J , Ploszek , R , Pullin , A S , Reid , G , Richards , K S , Robinson , J G , Shaxson , L , Sierra , L , Smith , B G , Spiegelhalter , D J , Stilgoe , J , Stirling , A , Tyler , C P , Winickoff , D E & Zimmern , R L 2012 , ' A Collaboratively-Derived Science-Policy Research Agenda ' PL o S One , vol 7 , no. 3 , e31824 , pp. N/A . DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0031824
The need for policy makers to understand science and for scientists to understand policy processes is widely recognised. However, the science-policy relationship is sometimes difficult and occasionally dysfunctional; it is also increasingly visible, because it must deal with contentious issues, or itself becomes a matter of public controversy, or both. We suggest that identifying key unanswered questions on the relationship between science and policy will catalyse and focus research in this field. To identify these questions, a collaborative procedure was employed with 52 participants selected to cover a wide range of experience in both science and policy, including people from government, non-governmental organisations, academia and industry. These participants consulted with colleagues and submitted 239 questions. An initial round of voting was followed by a workshop in which 40 of the most important questions were identified by further discussion and voting. The resulting list includes questions about the effectiveness of science-based decision-making structures; the nature and legitimacy of expertise; the consequences of changes such as increasing transparency; choices among different sources of evidence; the implications of new means of characterising and representing uncertainties; and ways in which policy and political processes affect what counts as authoritative evidence. We expect this exercise to identify important theoretical questions and to help improve the mutual understanding and effectiveness of those working at the interface of science and policy.
BASE
The need for policy makers to understand science and for scientists to understand policy processes is widely recognised. However, the science-policy relationship is sometimes difficult and occasionally dysfunctional; it is also increasingly visible, because it must deal with contentious issues, or itself becomes a matter of public controversy, or both. We suggest that identifying key unanswered questions on the relationship between science and policy will catalyse and focus research in this field. To identify these questions, a collaborative procedure was employed with 52 participants selected to cover a wide range of experience in both science and policy, including people from government, non-governmental organisations, academia and industry. These participants consulted with colleagues and submitted 239 questions. An initial round of voting was followed by a workshop in which 40 of the most important questions were identified by further discussion and voting. The resulting list includes questions about the effectiveness of science-based decision-making structures; the nature and legitimacy of expertise; the consequences of changes such as increasing transparency; choices among different sources of evidence; the implications of new means of characterising and representing uncertainties; and ways in which policy and political processes affect what counts as authoritative evidence. We expect this exercise to identify important theoretical questions and to help improve the mutual understanding and effectiveness of those working at the interface of science and policy. ; ESRC
BASE