A collaboratively-derived science-policy research agenda.
A collaboratively-derived science-policy research agenda.
复制标题
协作衍生的科学政策研究议程。
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0031824
复制
发表时间：
2012
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Zimmern RL
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Sutherland WJ;Bellingan L;Bellingham JR;Blackstock JJ;Bloomfield RM;Bravo M;Cadman VM;Cleevely DD;Clements A;Cohen AS;Cope DR;Daemmrich AA;Devecchi C;Anadon LD;Denegri S;Doubleday R;Dusic NR;Evans RJ;Feng WY;Godfray HC;Harris P;Hartley SE;Hester AJ;Holmes J;Hughes A;Hulme M;Irwin C;Jennings RC;Kass GS;Littlejohns P;Marteau TM;McKee G;Millstone EP;Nuttall WJ;Owens S;Parker MM;Pearson S;Petts J;Ploszek R;Pullin AS;Reid G;Richards KS;Robinson JG;Shaxson L;Sierra L;Smith BG;Spiegelhalter DJ;Stilgoe J;Stirling A;Tyler CP;Winickoff DE;Zimmern RL
决策者需要了解科学，科学家需要了解政策过程，这一点已得到广泛承认。然而，科学与政策之间的关系有时很困难，有时会失灵;这种关系也越来越明显，因为它必须处理有争议的问题，或者本身成为公众争议的问题，或者两者兼而有之。我们认为，确定科学与政策之间的关系的关键未回答的问题将催化和集中在这一领域的研究。为了确定这些问题，采用了一种合作程序，选择了52名参与者，涵盖了科学和政策方面的广泛经验，包括来自政府，非政府组织，学术界和工业界的人士。这些参与者与同事进行了磋商，并提交了239个问题。在第一轮投票之后，举行了一次研讨会，通过进一步讨论和投票确定了40个最重要的问题。由此产生的清单包括以下问题：以科学为基础的决策结构的有效性;专门知识的性质和合法性;增加透明度等变化的后果;不同证据来源的选择;表征和表示不确定性的新手段的影响;以及政策和政治进程如何影响权威性证据。我们期望这项工作能够确定重要的理论问题，并有助于增进从事科学与政策工作的人员之间的相互了解和提高工作效率。
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.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
6.3
作者：
Sutherland, W. J.;Adams, W. M.;Watkinson, A. R.
通讯作者：
Watkinson, A. R.
影响因子：
10.1
作者：
Fleishman, Erica;Blockstein, David E.;Vedder, Amy
通讯作者：
Vedder, Amy
影响因子：
3
作者：
STAR, SL;GRIESEMER, JR
通讯作者：
GRIESEMER, JR
影响因子：
1.5
作者：
Morton, S. R.;Hoegh-Guldberg, O.;Woinarski, J. C. Z.
通讯作者：
Woinarski, J. C. Z.
生成优先研究问题，以告知国家一级的保护政策和管理。
DOI：
10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01625.x
发表时间：
2011-06
期刊：
Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology
影响因子：
--
作者：
Rudd MA;Beazley KF;Cooke SJ;Fleishman E;Lane DE;Mascia MB;Roth R;Tabor G;Bakker JA;Bellefontaine T;Berteaux D;Cantin B;Chaulk KG;Cunningham K;Dobell R;Fast E;Ferrara N;Findlay CS;Hallstrom LK;Hammond T;Hermanutz L;Hutchings JA;Lindsay KE;Marta TJ;Nguyen VM;Northey G;Prior K;Ramirez-Sanchez S;Rice J;Sleep DJ;Szabo ND;Trottier G;Toussaint JP;Veilleux JP
通讯作者：
Veilleux JP