Download Free Special Issue On Scientific Expertise And Political Accountability Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Special Issue On Scientific Expertise And Political Accountability and write the review.

Sean Gailmard is the Judith E. Gruber Associate Professor in the Travers Department of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley. John W. Patty is associate professor of political science at Washington University.
Based on in-depth studies of the relationship between expertise and democracy in Europe, this book presents a new approach to how the un-elected can be made safe for democracy. It addresses the challenge of reconciling modern governments’ need for knowledge with the demand for democratic legitimacy. Knowledge-based decision-making is indispensable to modern democracies. This book establishes a public reason model of legitimacy and clarifies the conditions under which unelected bodies can be deemed legitimate as they are called upon to handle pandemics, financial crises, climate change and migration flows. Expert bodies are seeking neither re-election nor popularity, they can speak truth to power as well as to the citizenry at large. They are unelected, yet they wield power. How could they possibly be legitimate? This book is of key interest to scholars and students of democracy, governance, and more broadly to political and administrative science as well as the Science Technology Studies (STS).
This conference proceedings examines the role social sciences can play in developing sound policy.
This work argues for the adoption of sociotechnology as a unified concept where both social and technical aspects are approached simultaneously.
Much of public opinion research over the past several decades suggests that the American voters are woefully uninformed about politics and thus unable to fulfill their democratic obligations. Arguing that this perception is faulty, Vincent Hutchings shows that, under the right political conditions, voters are surprisingly well informed on the issues that they care about and use their knowledge to hold politicians accountable. Though Hutchings is not the first political scientist to contend that the American public is more politically engaged than it is often given credit for, previous scholarship--which has typically examined individual and environmental factors in isolation--has produced only limited evidence of an attentive electorate. Analyzing broad survey data as well as the content of numerous Senate and gubernatorial campaigns involving such issues as race, labor, abortion, and defense, Hutchings demonstrates that voters are politically engaged when politicians and the media discuss the issues that the voters perceive as important. Hutchings finds that the media--while far from ideal--do provide the populace with information regarding the responsiveness of elected representatives and that groups of voters do monitor this information when "their" issues receive attention. Thus, while the electorate may be generally uninformed about and uninterested in public policy, a complex interaction of individual motivation, group identification, and political circumstance leads citizens concerned about particular issues to obtain knowledge about their political leaders and use that information at the ballot box.
The integrity of knowledge that emerges from research is based on individual and collective adherence to core values of objectivity, honesty, openness, fairness, accountability, and stewardship. Integrity in science means that the organizations in which research is conducted encourage those involved to exemplify these values in every step of the research process. Understanding the dynamics that support â€" or distort â€" practices that uphold the integrity of research by all participants ensures that the research enterprise advances knowledge. The 1992 report Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process evaluated issues related to scientific responsibility and the conduct of research. It provided a valuable service in describing and analyzing a very complicated set of issues, and has served as a crucial basis for thinking about research integrity for more than two decades. However, as experience has accumulated with various forms of research misconduct, detrimental research practices, and other forms of misconduct, as subsequent empirical research has revealed more about the nature of scientific misconduct, and because technological and social changes have altered the environment in which science is conducted, it is clear that the framework established more than two decades ago needs to be updated. Responsible Science served as a valuable benchmark to set the context for this most recent analysis and to help guide the committee's thought process. Fostering Integrity in Research identifies best practices in research and recommends practical options for discouraging and addressing research misconduct and detrimental research practices.
Aus dem Inhalt: Reinder J. van Duinen, Science and the Future James W. Vaupel, Demographic Imbalance John F. B. Mitchell, Detection and Prediction of Anthropogenic Climate Change Winfried von Urff, Ernahrung fur die Welt von morgen Reinhard Margreiter, Homo faber- homo ludens Gert G. Wagner, Vollbeschaftigung aus der Sicht der Volkswirtschaftslehre Guy Kirsch, Arbeit und Civil Society Nebojsa Nakicenovic, Long-Term Energy Perspectives and Economic Development Vincenz Timmermann, Political Rights and Economic Liberties Herbert C. Kelman, International Conflict Resolution
• End: pro?t and loss account. As a result, there will be a stage at which the parties have developed relations and prospects of gain, while there are still a number of problems that are dif?cult to solve and that fail to evoke consensus. Each party will then draw up a pro?t and loss account. On the positive side of the balance are the relations developed and the gains collected, on the negative side there are the losses and the unsolved problems. For particular parties, who have no interest in the problem, the latter side is uninteresting; for others, who have an interest in a particular solution of this problem, it represents a form of loss. • Pro?t and loss balance positive for a critical mass: speed. The speed of the process will increase if the pro?t and loss account shows a positive balance for a critical mass of parties. They wish to collect their gains and therefore to make ?nal decisions. At this point there will be an important psychological mec- nism: parties tend to anticipate on collecting their gains, which increases their urge to speed up the process. It is clear from the above, however, that the end of a process is dif?cult to predict.