Suchergebnisse

El cine en Bolivia ha sido una de las áreas de producción cultural que más éxito y reconocimiento has logrado en el extranjero. Sin embargo, la época de mayor interés para el espectador europeo o norteamericano ha sido la de los años 60 y 70, auge del ´Tercer Cine´ y de las tendencias contestatarias generalmente visibles en toda América Latina. La democracia formal volvió en los años 80 y 90 y se impuso un modelo neoliberal en lo que se podría ver como un periodo de transición. En el cine se vio un cambio de enfoque hacia la ciudad y el individualismo, pero con la elección del Movimiento al Socialismo de Evo Morales en diciembre del 2006, el país entra a otra fase. Todavía no se ha visto una plena respuesta en términos fílmicos al reto histórico que plantea esta nueva realidad. No obstante es posible, y hasta realista, anticipar un cambio radical en las relaciones entre estado y gremio cinematográfi co con miras a una producción fílmica que retrate el país tanto para el espectador nacional como para un público extranjero que, más que nunca, está a la expectativa de imágenes bolivianas. Film has been one of the areas of Bolivian cultural production that has enjoyed most success and recognition abroad. However, the era of greatest interest for the European and North American spectator has been the 1960s and 70s, the height of ´Third Cinema´ and the radical tendencies common to Latin America in general. Formal democracy returned in the 80s and 90s and the imposition of a neoliberal model was imposed during what might be seen as a tran- sitional period. At the same time the fi lmmaker's focus shifted towards urban and individualist themes. With the election in December 2006 of the Movement to Socialism of Evo Morales, the country enters another phase. We have not yet seen a full response, in fi lmic terms, to the historic challenge presented by this new reality. But it is possible, and not unrealistic, to anticipate a radical change in the relationship between state and fi lmmaking community with a view to a new form of fi lm production which portrays the country for the benefi t both of the national spectator and for an international audience which, perhaps more than ever, eagerly awaits images from Bolivia.

Arsenic Pollution summarizes the most current research on the distribution and causes of arsenic pollution, its impact on health and agriculture, and solutions by way of water supply, treatment, and water resource management. Provides the first global and interdisciplinary account of arsenic pollution occurrences Integrates geochemistry, hydrology, agriculture, and water supply and treatment for the first time Options are highlighted for developing alternative water sources and methods for arsenic testing and removal Appeals to specialists in one discipline seeking an overview of the work being done in other disciplines.

Purpose
– The purpose of this paper was to enhance and complement teaching about resource system feedbacks and environmental modelling. Students were given an interactive exercise based on a research model (ForeseerTM), developed by an inter-disciplinary research team, that explores the interconnectivity of water, energy and land resources. Two groups of students were involved, one of undergraduates and the other of graduates.


Design/methodology/approach
– The Foreseer model represents physical flows of the three resources (water, energy and land) using an interactive visual interface. The exercise was set up by giving students short instructions about how to use the tool to create four scenarios, and an online questionnaire was used to capture their understanding and their ability to extract information from the model.


Findings
– The exercise proved to be a helpful way to connect research and teaching in higher education, to the benefit of both. For students, it was an interactive and engaging way to learn about these complex sustainability issues. At the same time, it provided tangible feedback to researchers working on the model about the clarity of its user interface and its pedagogic value.


Originality/value
– This exercise represents a novel use of a resource model as a teaching tool in the study of the water, energy and land nexus, and is relevant to sustainability educators as an example of a model-centred learning approach on this topic.

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.

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.

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