Table 1 - uploaded by Deborah Stine
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Relationship Between Science and Technology and Policymaking Policy Influencing Science and Technology Science and Technology Informing Policy
Source publication
Similar publications
![Figure 3: Illustration of Optimal Flow in learning [8].](profile/Osman-Yasar-2/publication/309334466/figure/fig2/AS:419629227888643@1477058812983/llustration-of-Optimal-Flow-in-learning-8_Q320.jpg)
Citations
... From this view, there is no need to make it a separated field of inquiry. On the other hand, some think there is a need to have another field of injury for high technology because this field has fast changing environment, high tendency for innovation, complexity of the issues, irreversibility of technology impacts, fears of public about these effects, issues regarding to safety and its political importance (Stine, 2009). ...
... According to Stine (2009), there are two different approaches towards technology in policymaking. Technology should serve the policy or policies supposed to help technology. ...
This research aims to study the coherence of European Competition policy and regulations for online marketplaces. The case of Google Shopping is an exemplary case which sheds light on the inadequacy of competition tools. Therefore, this study evaluates the Google Shopping case from three critical aspects, which are: technical challenges, lobbying power, and the length of investigation. The Google Shopping case illustrates the importance of market evaluation to avoid harming the customers themselves through the interpretation, enforcement, and adjustment of regulations. This study considers the effects external parties exude on the decision-making and market investigates conducted by the European Commission. In the end, this study suggests the Commission should utilize the whole of its capacities and forces to study the underlying mechanisms of the online markets in order to avoid further cases of competition fraud and anti-competitive actions. Market recognition leads to settling online market cases faster, predicting the consequences of the conduct of market players and mitigating the effect of the probable insufficiency of competition authorities’ tools.
... For example, government scientists have different financial and professional incentives in conducting research or communicating its outcomes than their peers in academia (Weible 2008). According to these views, experts could be biased by their personal interests and might not provide a value neutral analysis (Stine 2009 ). In these cases, scientific advice can be manipulated by sociopolitical circumstances or particular interests. ...
... Finally, as we discussed in previous sections, scientists often have diverse opinions rather than a consensus (especially in new research areas). If there are major disagreements within large portions of the community, consensus is not yet achieved, taking policy actions can be quite challenging (Stine 2009 ). For example, even though scientists working for the EPA's advisory organizations give the best information available, there may be other available opinions in the scientific community (Adams and Hairston 1994 ). ...
... For example, government scientists have different financial and professional incentives in conducting research or communicating its outcomes than their peers in academia (Weible 2008). According to these views, experts could be biased by their personal interests and might not provide a value neutral analysis (Stine 2009 ). In these cases, scientific advice can be manipulated by sociopolitical circumstances or particular interests. ...
... Finally, as we discussed in previous sections, scientists often have diverse opinions rather than a consensus (especially in new research areas). If there are major disagreements within large portions of the community, consensus is not yet achieved, taking policy actions can be quite challenging (Stine 2009 ). For example, even though scientists working for the EPA's advisory organizations give the best information available, there may be other available opinions in the scientific community (Adams and Hairston 1994 ). ...
The scientific community is increasingly called upon to provide scientific advice to policy-makers (de Kerckhove, D. T., Rennie, M. D., and Cormier, R., 2015, EMBO Reports, 6, 263–6). However, scientists’ perceptions about political involvement vary based on their individual beliefs, values, and backgrounds. The purpose of this study is to explore the perceptual factors that are associated with US nanoscientists’ perceptions about political involvement. To examine this, we analyze data from a 2011 mail survey of leading US nanoscientists. Our results indicate that the scientists are generally supportive of involvement in political debates. Yet, we find some differences across scientists with respect to their perceptions about political involvement. For example, Caucasian respondents are more supportive of scientists’ political involvement than their peers. Also, scientists with higher risk perceptions of nanotechnology are more likely to support political involvement. In addition, scientists who pay more attention to the wishes of the pubic are more likely to support scientists’ involvement in political debates. Lastly, scientists’ degree of religious faith is inversely associated with the likelihood of agreeing with their political involvement.
... Typically, reports requested by members of Congress are funded via a federal agency, but agencies are not required to do so unless funds are appropriated. 11 For example, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 proposed a number of studies, but only a small number were funded. In addition, because National Academies studies are funded by "soft money" (the employment of the vast majority of staff is dependent on funding for studies), there are concerns that a particular NRC entity might be "captured" by a Federal agency-that is, more likely to produce results that are supportive of an agency's action in order to increase the likelihood of future funding-or, alternatively, staff leave as funding dwindles or ends, resulting in high staff turnover rates and loss of institutional memory. ...
analysis and recommendations based on the work of project participants. Author's views are their own. T his paper provides an overview of Congressionally-chartered honorific organizations that are focused on science, technology, and innovation (STI). It describes the role these organizations play in policy-making and their influence on policy decisions. 2 WHAT ARE CONGRESSIONALLY-CHARTERED HONORIFIC ORGANIZATIONS? In order for Congress to charter an organization, it must do so by pass-ing a law. Congressionally-chartered nonprofit organizations that have as their purpose the promotion of pa-triotic, charitable, and education ac-tivities are listed in Title 36 of the US Code and include organizations such as the American Chemical Society, the Boy and Girl Scouts of America, and the Daughters of the American Revolution. 1 There are about 100 such organizations. Within this broad cat-egory are organizations whose mem-bers are elected as an honor for their achievements. These Congressionally-chartered honorific organizations in-clude the American Academy of Arts and Letters (founded in 1780), the National Academy of Sciences (NAS; founded in 1863), and the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA; founded in 1967). While generally independent in operation, with the ability to elect their members and officers, the orga-nization may have certain obligations to the Federal Government. For exam-ple, the National Academy of Sciences section of Title 36 states that On request of the United States Government, the corporation shall investigate, examine, ex-periment, and report on any subject of science or art. The corporation may not receive compensation for services to the Government, but the actual expense of the investigation, examination, experimentation, and report shall be paid by the Government from an appropria-tion for that purpose.
... In the past, the relationship between science and policy was seen as a linear process: science conducted research, collected data, and presented its findings to federal agencies, which then use that evidence to determine the best policy action [2, 5]. However, the reality of science policy is far more complex; while science is a valuable source of information, it is also problematic, since scientific data may conflict with political, moral, and economic values [5, 6, 7]. For example, if endangered fish reside in a lake, politicians may face choices between preserving the ecosystem, irrigating nearby farms, and allowing recreational use of the lake. ...
1. ABSTRACT This poster examines the use and misuse of science information in the federal government. Scientific information is a vital component of policy making in the U.S. today. Stine notes that science research is "intricately linked to societal needs and the nation"s economy in areas such as transportation, communication, agriculture, education, environment, health, defense, and jobs" [7, p. i]. In the past, the relationship between science and policy was seen as a linear process: science conducted research, collected data, and presented its findings to federal agencies, which then use that evidence to determine the best policy action [2, 5]. However, the reality of science policy is far more complex; while science is a valuable source of information, it is also problematic, since scientific data may conflict with political, moral, and economic values [5, 6, 7]. For example, if endangered fish reside in a lake, politicians may face choices between preserving the ecosystem, irrigating nearby farms, and allowing recreational use of the lake. Each choice has economic, environmental, and political ramifications. Doremus explains that "esthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, or scientific" values can all be considered relevant foundations for agency decisions [3, p. 1136]. Because of this complexity, "the political community and the scientific community… collaborate at the boundary of politics and science over the integrity and productivity of research" [5, p. 143]. In this conceptualization, "government cannot make good policy decisions unless the decision makers have access to, and appropriately use, the best available understanding of the facts" [4, p. 1639]. Federal agencies, like individuals, have information behaviors— they create, access, review, share, evaluate, and act upon information in order to formulate and assess public policy.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is one of the most quickly growing high-impact technologies currently developed by humanity. As a cluster of numerous smaller technologies, ranging from advanced image-recognition in today's smartphones and surveillance systems, to fully autonomous driving in the vehicles of tomorrow, and eventually to sovereign sensor-based machinery that will be deployed as weapons in future battlegrounds, AI features a great potential to disrupt human civilization as have the Agricultural and Industrial Revolution before. In International Security Studies, this technology has implications on military, economic, societal, and political security, as well as cross-references all of these sectors in total, and its effects on the international system thus requires further academic analysis in order to develop policies able to offset the dangers of unregulated AI development in favor of its benefits for mankind. Using the methodological framework of the Copenhagen School this thesis argues that AI will upset the international system as the deployment of nuclear weapons in the 1945 and beyond did to global security since winning the arms race of developing fully autonomous machinery might elevate a singular nation-state or private corporation to global hegemony. In particular, this thesis analyzes the individual capacities of the two nation-states most engaged in AI development, the United States of America and the People's Republic of China, and both highlights their overlapping and differing prerequisites under a socio-economic, military, and political focus as well as compares their qualities against each other. This comparative analysis sheds light on the complexity of a set of technologies so large in scope as that it virtually touches every area of human activity, and underlines the uncertainty of its short- and long-term prospects and dangers. On the one hand, the USA benefit from a broad tradition of pioneering in the field of computer science, including incubating the term and field of Artificial Intelligence, and host by far the most valuable private corporations invested in its development, however, the cultivated mistrust between the federal government and the private technology sector might prohibit Washington to use this capital for the benefit of their national security. On the other hand, the Chinese technology market gains from high investments both from state and private actors as well as the quickly growing liquidity of its enormous consumer market, allowing the Chinese government to take full advantage of its centralized rule by "fusing" private and public technological development under one banner preparing the state to become the world's leading power in AI by 2030. The US-American and Chinese attempts to own the power over this cutting-edge technology has already led to conflict in both physical and cyberspace between the two nations, as well as internationally, and will keep its potential to break out into a hot conflict over colliding strategic or economic interests. This thesis thus argues to conduct further research in the use of AI in national and international security contexts as its potential for power might have already triggered an arms race uncomparable to those of past centuries, and the technology's malicious exploitation might pose an existential risk for humanity.
Policy—whether promulgated by government, professions, business, providers, or others—determines priorities and establishes how things are done. When applied to personalized oral healthcare, polices established by these interests may advance or impede application of science to practice with both intended and unintended consequences. Federal science and technology policy will substantially impact how personalized medicine and dentistry are advanced through scientific discovery, how the public gains an understanding of these novel approaches, and how advances in care will be integrated into health insurance coverage. Federal health policy can be expected to accelerate an existing shift from healthcare systems to health-promoting systems with attendant cost and outcome accountability. Financial incentives inherent in such health-promoting systems are intended to engage healthcare providers in mitigating risks and addressing health determinants which can be identified through genetic and epigenetic studies.
Confidentiality concerns can be expected to remain paramount to policymakers even as tensions between privacy and utility expand with greater volumes of genetic testing. The future of policymaking can be anticipated to be as dynamic and far-reaching as the field of healthcare genomics itself. Whether policymaking, in the end, will keep up with science and whether it will facilitate or hamper the institutionalization of personalized medicine and dentistry are yet to be seen.
Citizen access to information, particularly scientific information used for public policy discussions and decision making, is important in a democracy. However, access to this information can sometimes be restricted or blocked in various ways. This research adopts Jaeger and Burnett's (2005) conceptualization of information access as “the presence of a robust system through which information is made available to citizens and others” (p. 465) with physical, intellectual, and social components. This provides the conceptual framework through which incidents of restricted access to science policy (RASP) were analyzed in a comparative case study. The research found that citizens' physical, intellectual, and social access to scientific research was restricted in these cases. Furthermore, the theoretical framework of democratic accountability held normative and symbolic power for the respondents; although democratic accountability did not accurately predict respondents' actions, it was used as a significant justification for their actions. This research suggests that the conceptual framework of information access (with physical, intellectual, and social components) and the theoretical framework of democratic accountability (although primarily normative) may be useful approaches to subsequent investigations of censorship and restricted access in other situations and research areas.
Even though fuzzy logic is one of the most common methodologies for matching different kind of data sources, there is no study which uses this methodology for matching publication and patent data within a technology evaluation framework according to the authors’ best knowledge. In order to fill this gap and to demonstrate the usefulness of fuzzy logic in technology evaluation, this study proposes a novel technology evaluation framework based on an advanced/improved version of fuzzy logic, namely; interval type-2 fuzzy sets and systems (IT2FSSs). This framework uses patent data obtained from the European Patent Office (EPO) and publication data obtained from Web of Science/Knowledge (WoS/K) to evaluate technology groups with respect to their trendiness. Since it has been decided to target technology groups, patent and publication data sources are matched through the use IT2FSSs. The proposed framework enables us to make a strategic evaluation which directs considerations to use-inspired basic researches, hence achieving science-based technological improvements which are more beneficial for society. A European Classification System (ECLA) class – H01-Basic Electric Elements – is evaluated by means of the proposed framework in order to demonstrate how it works. The influence of the use of IT2FSSs is investigated by comparison with the results of its type-1 counterpart. This method shows that the use of type-2 fuzzy sets, i.e. handling more uncertainty, improves technology evaluation outcomes.
