| 1. |
- Hulme, Mike, et al.
(författare)
-
Letter: Science-Policy Interface: Beyond Assessments
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Science. - : American Association for the Advancement of Science. - 0036-8075 .- 1095-9203. ; 333:6043, s. 697-698
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 2. |
- Lövbrand, Eva, et al.
(författare)
-
A democracy paradox in studies of science and society?
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Science, Technology and Human Values. - : Sage. - 0162-2439 .- 1552-8251. ; 36:4, s. 474-496
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Today many scholars seem to agree that citizens should be involved in expert deliberations on science and technology issues. This interest in public deliberation has gained attraction in many practical settings, especially in the European Union, and holds the promise of more legitimate governance of science and technology. In this article, the authors draw on the European Commission’s (EC) report “Taking the European Knowledge Society Seriously” to ask how legitimate these efforts to “democratize” scientific expertise really are. While the report borrows from deliberative democrats' normative accounts of legitimacy, the authors identify a tension between the principles for legitimate rule prescribed by deliberative democratic theory and the report’s celebration of diversity and dissent. While this inconsistency suggests that the legitimacy of deliberative governance arrangements is justified on empirical rather than normative grounds, it remains an open question whether studies of science and technology offer enough empirical support for such a justification. In this article, the authors address this pressing question and propose three possible responses.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Pielke, Roger Jr., et al.
(författare)
-
From Green Revolution to Green Evolution: A Critique of the Political Myth of Averted Famine
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Minerva. - : SPRINGER. - 0026-4695 .- 1573-1871. ; 57:3, s. 265-291
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This paper critiques the so-called "Green Revolution" as a political myth of averted famine. A "political myth," among other functions, reflects a narrative structure that characterizes understandings of causality between policy action and outcome. As such, the details of a particular political myth elevate certain policy options (and families of policy options) over others. One important narrative strand of the political myths of the Green Revolution is a story of averted famine: in the 1950s and 1960s, scientists predicted a global crisis to emerge in the 1970s and beyond, created by a rapidly growing global population that would cause global famine as food supplies would not keep up with demand. The narrative posits that an intense period of technological innovation in agricultural productivity led to increasing crop yields which led to more food being produced, and the predicted crisis thus being averted. The fact that the world did not experience a global famine in the 1970s is cited as evidence in support of the narrative. Political myths need not necessarily be supported by evidence, but to the extent that they shape understandings of cause and effect in policymaking, political myths which are not grounded in evidence risk misleading policymakers and the public. We argue a political myth of the Green Revolution focused on averted famine is not well grounded in evidence and thus has potential to mislead to the extent it guides thinking and action related to technological innovation. We recommend an alternative narrative: The Green Evolution, in which sustainable improvements in agricultural productivity did not necessarily avert a global famine, but nonetheless profoundly shaped the modern world. More broadly, we argue that one of the key functions of the practice of technology assessment is to critique and to help create the political myths that preserve an evidence-grounded basis for connecting the cause and effect of policy action and practical outcomes.
|
|
