Dissertation Research in STS: Preventing marine bioinvasions in the United States, Australia, and New Zealand: Science, politics, and institutions across national contexts

STS 论文研究：防止美国、澳大利亚和新西兰的海洋生物入侵：跨国家背景的科学、政治和机构

• 批准号: 0522461
• 负责人: Katherine O'Neill
• 金额: $ 1.13万
• 依托单位: University of California-Berkeley
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 项目类别: Standard Grant
• 财政年份: 2006
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 2006-01-15 至 2007-07-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=0522461&HistoricalAwards=false
• 关键词: Dissertation; Research; STS; Preventing; marine

Project Summary: Doctoral Dissertation Research in STS: Preventing marine bioinvasions in the United States, Australia, and New Zealand: Science, politics, and institutions across national contextsThis dissertation project explores the emergence and evolution of marine bioinvasions as a scientific and policy issue. It studies key factors and processes shaping policy responses to that problem. The key motivation for this inquiry is: Bioinvasions are a critical component of human-caused global change, yet the bioinvasions issue is conspicuously under-addressed because of how science, politics, and policy interact. In addition to their practical urgency and significance, bioinvasions offer rich material to investigate the complex dynamics of environmental decision-making along contested policy-science boundaries. To understand how these boundaries and dynamics shape each other, I do a cross-national comparison of marine bioinvasions science and policy in Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. At global and local scales, the rapidly growing human-mediated movement of non-indigenous species across previous biogeographic barriers to migration is changing marine ecosystems with serious and irreversible ecological consequences. Over the past two decades, scientific researchers and government agencies have shifted in their views of the risks that bioinvasions pose, seeing these as much more serious than previously understood. They have also changed in their understandings of the problems nature, causes, magnitude, and implications. Yet official government and policy responses have largely remained unaltered in this context of a changing problem. Across relevant policy levels and across national policy contexts, policy-making does not adequately reflect new scientific insights about the dynamics and the significance of the bioinvasions phenomenon, although scientists and policy-makers have widely acknowledged this scientific knowledge as relevant, credible, and legitimate. Intellectual Merit. The study examines two questions: What are the processes that determine whether changes in scientific understanding of a problems' nature, dynamics, and significance become reflected in relevant policy and management approaches? And what are the processes behind apparent failures of policy and practice to respond to changes in relevant scientific knowledge and insight? These questions are approached by analyzing how science-politics-institutional interactions are shaping the formulation of bioinvasions policy in the U. S., Australia, and New Zealand, and by comparing respective national dynamics of bioinvasions science and policy-making. The three countries are selected as cases because of their similarities in experience with bioinvasions and shared history of policy concern. But they also have significant differences in scientific, policy and management responses to the bioinvasions problem. .Analysis of relevant issues is grounded in key theoretical insights from the social studies of science and technology. These include: the reciprocal influences between science and policy; the significance of boundary negotiations around scientific and political preferences, practices and priorities in shaping the processes and outcomes of policy and regulation; and how the simultaneous production of scientific knowledge and political order within the process of making policy decisions can ensure the legitimacy of both, and thereby facilitate more productive policy making. My exploration of bioinvasions policy dynamics and the current bioinvasions policy paradox is further grounded in the following hypotheses: Bioinvasions are a complex and multi-faceted problem, and different actors in the policy process have different perceptions regarding the policy relevance, significance, and manageability of various problem facets. In the course of policy decision-making, scientific insights regarding the preferred policy responses can therefore be tempered by views on what is politically and bureaucratically desired and acceptable; the ultimate policy outcomes therefore depend on the particulars of negotiating tradeoffs between ecologically informed conservation priorities, and politically and bureaucratically defined policy prerogatives and constraints. Archival and interview research conducted so far in the U.S. and Australia has confirmed the relevance of these hypotheses, and validated their usefulness as a tool for examining and explaining bioinvasions policy dynamics.This proposal seeks to continue developing these insights in New Zealand, the U.S., and Australia. Broader Impacts The research also aims to use insights from the cross-national comparison of bioinvasions policy processes and outcomes in recommending new ways of managing science-policy interactions to improve environmental decision making.

项目概要：STS博士论文研究：在美国，澳大利亚和新西兰防止海洋生物入侵：科学，政治和机构在国家contextsThis论文项目探讨了海洋生物入侵的出现和演变作为一个科学和政策问题。它研究了影响对这一问题的政策反应的关键因素和过程。这项调查的主要动机是：生物入侵是人类引起的全球变化的一个重要组成部分，但由于科学，政治和政策的相互作用，生物入侵问题显然没有得到充分解决。除了他们的实际紧迫性和意义，生物入侵提供了丰富的材料，以调查复杂的动态环境决策沿着有争议的政策科学的界限。为了了解这些边界和动态是如何相互塑造的，我对澳大利亚、新西兰和美国的海洋生物入侵科学和政策进行了跨国比较。在全球和地方两级，非本地物种跨越以往的地理迁移障碍，以人为媒介的迁移迅速增加，正在改变海洋生态系统，造成严重和不可逆转的生态后果。在过去的二十年里，科学研究人员和政府机构已经改变了他们对生物入侵所构成风险的看法，认为这些风险比以前所理解的要严重得多。他们对问题的性质、原因、规模和影响的理解也发生了变化。然而，在问题不断变化的背景下，政府的官方反应和政策反应基本上没有改变。在相关政策层面和国家政策背景下，决策并没有充分反映关于生物入侵现象的动态和意义的新的科学见解，尽管科学家和决策者广泛承认这种科学知识是相关的，可信的，合法的。智力优势。 本研究探讨了两个问题：是什么过程决定了对问题的性质、动态和重要性的科学理解的变化是否反映在相关的政策和管理方法中？政策和实践在应对相关科学知识和洞察力变化方面明显失败的背后是什么过程？这些问题是通过分析科学-政治-制度的相互作用是如何塑造美国生物入侵政策的制定来解决的。美国，澳大利亚、新西兰等国生物入侵科学与政策制定的动态比较。选择这三个国家作为案例，是因为它们在生物入侵方面的经验相似，而且有着共同的政策关切历史。 但它们在应对生物入侵问题的科学、政策和管理方面也存在重大差异。对有关问题的分析以科学和技术社会研究的重要理论见解为基础。其中包括：科学与政策之间的相互影响;围绕科学和政治偏好、做法和优先事项进行边界谈判在形成政策和监管的过程和结果方面的重要性;以及在决策过程中同时产生科学知识和政治秩序如何确保两者的合法性，从而促进更有成效的决策。 我的探索生物入侵的政策动态和当前的生物入侵政策悖论进一步扎根于以下假设：生物入侵是一个复杂的和多方面的问题，在政策过程中的不同行为者有不同的看法，政策的相关性，意义，和不同的问题方面的可持续性。因此，在政策决策过程中，科学的见解，关于首选的政策反应，可以通过什么是政治上和官僚主义的期望和可接受的意见，因此，最终的政策结果取决于谈判的细节之间的权衡生态知情的保护优先事项，政治和官僚主义定义的政策特权和限制。到目前为止，在美国和澳大利亚进行的档案和访谈研究证实了这些假设的相关性，并验证了它们作为检查和解释生物入侵政策动态的工具的有用性。和澳大利亚该研究还旨在利用生物入侵政策过程和结果的跨国比较的见解，推荐管理科学政策互动的新方法，以改善环境决策。