Doctoral Dissertation Research in Science of Science and Innovation Policy: From Cycles to Spirals: Structural Analysis of Scientific Consensus Formation

该项目开发了一种新的战略来解释和衡量科学共识的形成。它开发了一个科学共识的定量测量，基于对科学引文网络结构的分析。该措施是通过利用不断变化的共识水平，随着时间的推移，对几个科学命题，如“吸烟导致癌症”，“人类活动导致气候变化”等分析揭示了一个令人惊讶的动态共识形成的一个案例-吸烟的致癌性-在20世纪70年代（之前科学共识的问题被认为是一个事实）。通过对科学家的深入访谈，对这项工作进行了定性的验证，这些科学家通过开发更安全的香烟来生产这些高浓度的香烟。知识价值：该项目从三个方面推动了文献的发展。 首先，研究为科学中共识形成的过程建立了一个模型。第二，该项目开发了一种新的度量标准，用于衡量科学文献中的共识/认同度。最后，该研究开发了一种新的方法来解释科学争论中的时间性。该项目通过解释为什么“咖啡（不）致癌”这样的说法被接受而没有被证实，而气候变化的说法遇到了社会的证实加上较小的科学证实，吸烟的致癌性遇到了社会的证实加上令人惊讶的科学证实，为科学史做出了贡献。更广泛的影响：该项目为科学政策的比较研究提供了一个新的属性，提供了一个可以在多个维度（包括时间，空间和社会组织）上使用的科学共识水平的衡量标准。该项目提供了一种向公众和决策者通报重要科学问题的方式;目前，科学主张往往被视为“不成熟”或“不确定”而被抛弃，而专家们宣传这些主张可能被认为是在宣传一项政治议程。所提出的方法推翻了这种说法，通过评估共识没有专家的解释，完全依赖于科学文献的结构。

The project develops a new strategy to explain and measure scientific consensus formation. It develops a quantitative measure of scientific consensus, based on an analysis of the structure of scientific citation networks. The measure is validated by exploiting changing consensus levels across time regarding several scientific propositions, such as "smoking causes cancer", "Human activity causes a climate change", etc. The analysis reveals a surprising dynamic of consensus formation in one case - the carcinogenicity of smoking - during the 1970s (before scientific consensus on the issue was consider a fact). The work is validated by qualitative, in depth interviews with the scientists who produced these high contestation levels through their work on developing a safer cigarette.Intellectual Merit: The project advances the literature in three ways. First, the research develops a model for the process of consensus formation in science. Second, the project develops a new metric that measures consensus/contestation degree in scientific literatures. Finally, the research develops a new approach to account for temporality in scientific debates.This project contributes to the history of science by explaining why claims such as "Coffee (does not) cause cancer" are accepted with no contestation, while the climate change claim met social contestation coupled with minor scientific contestation, and the carcinogenicity of smoking met social contestation coupled with surprising scientific contestation. Broader impact: This project offers a new property for comparative research into science policy, supplying a measure of scientific consensus levels that may be utilized over multiple dimensions, including time, space and social organization. The project offers a way of informing the public and policy makers on important scientific issues; currently, scientific claims are often discarded as "premature" or "inconclusive", while the experts promoting them may be considered to be promoting a political agenda. The proposed approach overrides such claims by evaluating consensus without expert interpretation, relying solely on the structure of scientific literature.