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

该奖项是NSF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的奖励包括在知名科学家的赞助下进行两年的培训，并鼓励博士后研究员进行独立研究。NSF致力于促进来自科学界各部门的科学家，包括来自代表性不足的群体的科学家参与其研究计划和活动;博士后期间被认为是实现这一目标的专业发展的重要水平。每个博士后研究员必须解决推进各自学科领域的重要科学问题。在印第安纳州大学布卢明顿的安妮·沙特克博士的赞助下，这个博士后奖学金支持一个早期的职业科学家调查农药禁令和其他监管行动的预期和意外后果。监管禁令是各国政府针对有害的科学证据和公众压力而使用的工具，以禁止特定的活性成分。然而，禁令的结果或“监管的来世”各不相同，可能包括继续使用被禁活性成分，非法贸易和销售被禁物质，以及将使用转移到监管不严的地方。了解这些不同的结果可以帮助政策制定者更好地评估禁令的影响，并重新调整法规，以提高政策行动的效率和有效性。这项研究响应了对整个农药复合体的新的批判性社会科学分析，以及不断变化的生产，贸易，使用和监管模式和动态。该研究的目标包括确定和分析影响农业化学品法规的关键政策，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机构，并分析农药禁令与生产，贸易和禁用农药及其替代品的使用之间的模式和关系。该研究将包括对主要来源、媒体和新闻机构以及非政府组织报告的广泛数据收集，以及半结构化访谈，以分析农药禁令的“监管后生命”。这项研究的结果将有助于我们了解农药复杂性的日益增加，以及当前监管行动的缺点和优点，以更好地推进决策。该奖项反映了NSF的法定使命，并被认为值得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来支持。

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.