Postdoctoral Fellowship: SPRF: Afterlife of Regulations: Mapping the Social Landscape of Pesticide Bans

该奖项是美国国家科学基金会社会、行为和经济科学博士后研究奖学金（SPRF）计划的一部分。SPRF计划的目标是为学术界、工业界或私营部门和政府的科学事业准备有前途的早期职业博士级科学家。SPRF奖励包括在知名科学家的赞助下进行为期两年的培训，并鼓励博士后进行独立研究。美国国家科学基金会寻求促进科学界各阶层的科学家，包括那些未被充分代表的群体的科学家，参与其研究项目和活动；博士后阶段被认为是实现这一目标的一个重要的专业发展阶段。每个博士后必须解决各自学科领域的重要科学问题。在印第安纳大学布卢明顿分校的安妮·沙塔克博士的赞助下，这个博士后奖学金奖支持一位早期职业科学家调查农药禁令和其他监管行动的有意和无意的后果。监管禁令是国家政府针对有害的科学证据和公众要求禁止特定活性成分的压力而使用的工具。然而，禁令或“监管后遗症”的结果各不相同，可能包括继续使用禁用活性成分，非法贸易和销售禁用物质以及将使用转移到监管不太完善的地方。了解这些不同的结果可以帮助决策者更好地评估禁令的影响，并将监管重新导向更高效和有效的政策行动。这项研究回应了对整个农药复合体以及不断变化的生产、贸易、使用和监管模式和动态的批评性社会科学分析。该研究的目标包括确定和分析影响农用化学品监管的关键政策，比较历史禁令与当代禁令，以阐明随着时间的推移形成禁令的做法和制度，并分析农药禁令与被禁农药及其替代品的生产、贸易和使用之间的模式和关系。这项研究将包括广泛收集第一手资料、媒体和新闻机构以及非政府组织报告的数据，以及半结构化访谈，以分析农药禁令的“监管后遗症”。这项研究的结果将有助于我们理解日益复杂的农药，以及当前监管行动的缺点和优势，以更好地推动政策制定。该奖项反映了美国国家科学基金会的法定使命，并通过使用基金会的知识价值和更广泛的影响审查标准进行评估，被认为值得支持。

This award was provided as part of NSF's Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences Postdoctoral Research Fellowships (SPRF) program. The goal of the SPRF program is to prepare promising, early career doctoral-level scientists for scientific careers in academia, industry or private sector, and government. SPRF awards involve two years of training under the sponsorship of established scientists and encourage Postdoctoral Fellows to perform independent research. NSF seeks to promote the participation of scientists from all segments of the scientific community, including those from underrepresented groups, in its research programs and activities; the postdoctoral period is considered to be an important level of professional development in attaining this goal. Each Postdoctoral Fellow must address important scientific questions that advance their respective disciplinary fields. Under the sponsorship of Dr. Annie Shattuck at Indiana University Bloomington, this postdoctoral fellowship award supports an early career scientist investigating the intended and unintended consequences of pesticide bans and other regulatory actions. Regulatory bans are tools used by national governments in response to scientific evidence of harm and public pressure to ban particular active ingredients. However, the outcomes of bans, or “regulatory afterlives,” vary and can include the continued use of a banned active ingredient, the illicit trade and sale of a banned substance and the shift in use to less well-regulated locations. Understanding these varied outcomes can help policy makers better assess the effects of bans, and re-direct regulations toward more efficient and effective policy actions.This research responds to renewed critical social science analysis on the pesticide complex as a whole, and the changing patterns and dynamics of production, trade, use and regulation. The goals of the research include identifying and analyzing key policies that influence agrochemical regulation, comparing a historical ban alongside a contemporary one in order to illuminate the practices and institutions shaping bans over time, and to analyze the patterns and relationships between pesticide bans, and production, trade, and use of banned pesticides and their alternatives. The research will consist of extensive data collection of primary sources, media and news outlets, and non-governmental organization reports, as well as semi-structured interviews to analyze the “regulatory afterlives” of pesticide bans. The findings from this research will contribute to our understanding of the increasing complexity of the pesticide complex, and the shortcomings and strengths of current regulatory actions to better advance policymaking.This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.