Suchergebnisse

Beyond the hype about dot-coms, WAP phones and dot-com entrepreneurs, what impacts will e-commerce have on society? How will it affect jobs and local communities? What will it mean for the environment - for energy use, transport and the future shape of our cities? How can we ensure that everyone enjoys the benefits of the new digital technologies? This is a groundbreaking exploration of the social and environmental impacts and opportunities of the new economy. It brings together the leading thinkers and visionaries from the worlds of policy, business and academia in an insightful, vigorous and

At the end of August 2014, scientists and policymakers from forty-eight countries gathered at the Heritage Hotel in Auckland, New Zealand to debate the science and art of scientific advice. Jointly hosted by Sir Peter Gluckman, chief scientific advisor to the PrimeMinister of NewZealand, and the International Council for Science (ICSU), the Auckland summit was the largest ever meeting of its kind, attracting science advisors, advisory bodies and academic experts fromAlbania to Zimbabwe, and a host of countries in between.Over two days of intense discussion, participants debated structures and methods for the provision of scientific advice in emergency situations, across national and disciplinary boundaries, and on contested topics,where science, values and politics collide. The meeting ended with a call to strengthen collaboration between advisory systems, an agreement to formalize the network, and a commitment tomeet again in 2016. As Sir Peter Gluckman said afterwards: "Our goal was to start a global conversation on the practices and challenges of conveying science advice to governments…The meeting has highlighted a real thirst among practitioners to share models and lessons."

In August, scientists and policymakers will meet in Auckland to debate the politics and practice of scientific advice. This article describes the plans for that summit, and the wider work of Sir Peter Gluckman, who is organising and hosting it together with ICSU (International Council for Science).

Background:Continued growth of the evidence and policy field has prompted calls to consolidate findings in pursuit of a more holistic understanding of theory and practice.
Aims and objectives:The aim of this paper is to develop and explore an analytical typology that offers a way to consider the heterogeneity of different actors in UK evidence and policy.
Methods:We draw upon a discourse coalitions approach to analyse a series of semi-structured interviews with a cross-section of professionals in the evidence and policy field.
Findings:We describe an analytical typology that is composed of three discourse coalitions, each with their own framings of the problems of evidence and policy relations, the practices needed to address these, the organisation of people, and their priorities for future development. These are: the analytical coalition, which typically theorises evidence and policy relations in a way that matches empirical observations; the advocacy coalition, which typically normatively refines and prescribes particular evidence and policy relations; and the application coalition, which typically evaluates contextual conditions and enacts techniques to bring evidence into policy and practice.
Discussion and conclusions:We discuss the potential of this analytical lens to inform recognised tensions in evidence and policy relations, and consider how greater awareness of the positioning of individuals within these coalitions may help to foster improved collaboration and consolidation in the field. Ultimately, we note that distinct priorities in the three coalitions signify different visions for progress within the field that need to be negotiated.

Tackling infectious disease, coping with climate change, boosting growth – the major challenges facing our society and economy demand sharp social science. This 2015 pre-election report from the Campaign for Social Science makes urgent recommendations – on research funding, social science capacity and use of expert advice by government – to maximise social science's contribution through the next Parliament and beyond.

An important and timely plenary session at the 2015 UKSG Conference and Exhibition focused on the role of metrics in research assessment. The two excellent speakers had slightly divergent views.Todd Carpenter from NISO (National Information Standards Organization) argued that altmetrics aren't alt anymore and that downloads and other forms of digital interaction, including social media reference, reference tracking, personal library saving, and secondary linking activity now provide mainstream approaches to the assessment of scholarly impact. James Wilsdon is professor of science and democracy in the Science Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex and is chair of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment commissioned by the Higher Education Funding Council in England (HEFCE). The outcome of this review will inform the work of HEFCE and the other UK higher education funding bodies as they prepare for the future of the Research Excellence Framework. He is more circumspect arguing that metrics cannot and should not be used as a substitute for informed judgement. This article provides a summary of both presentations.

Poster presented at the 2nd Networking Meeting of the S4D4C project 'Towards a European Science Diplomacy Roadmap' held October 10, 2019 in Berlin

Across Europe, scientific evidence and advice is in great demand, to inform policies and decision making on issues such as climate change, new technologies and environmental regulation. But the diversity of political cultures and attitudes to expertise in different European countries can make the task of designing EU-wide advisory institutions and processes both sensitive and complex. In January 2015, President Juncker asked Commissioner Moedas to report on options for improving scientific advice within the European Commission. At a time when these issues are higher than usual on the political agenda, it is important that the case for scientific advice and evidence-informed policy is articulated and analysed afresh. To support these efforts, this collection brings together agenda-setting essays by policymakers, practitioners, scientists and scholars from across Europe. Authors include Anne Glover, Ulrike Felt, Robert Madelin, Andy Stirling, Vladimír Šucha and Jos van der Meer. Their contributions outline various challenges but also constructive ways forward for scientific advice in Europe.

We need disruptive forms of innovation 13 cheaper, easier-to-use alternatives to existing products or services, often produced by non-traditional players for previously ignored customers. This report tells the stories of eight such "disrupters" and draws wider lessons for low-carbon innovation. Its recommendations include: 1. Government should provide an enabling policy framework within which low-carbon innovation can