Policy advocacy

Policy advocacy is defined as active, covert, or inadvertent support of a particular policy or class of policies.[1] Whether it is proper for scientists and other technical experts to act as advocates for their personal policy preferences is contentious. In the scientific community, much of the controversy around policy advocacy involves precisely defining the proper role of science and scientists in the political process.[2] Some scientists choose to act as policy advocates, while others regard such a dichotomous role as inappropriate.[3]

Providing technical and scientific information to inform policy deliberations in an objective and relevant way is recognized as a difficult problem in many scientific and technical professions.[4] The challenge and conflicts have been studied for those working as stock analysts in brokerage firms,[5] for medical experts testifying in malpractice trials,[6] for funding officers at international development agencies,[7] and for intelligence analysts within governmental national security agencies.[8] The job of providing accurate, relevant, and policy neutral information is especially challenging if highly controversial policy issues (such as climate change) that have a significant scientific component.[9] The use of normative science by scientists is a common method used to subtly advocate for preferred policy choices.[10]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Lackey (2007)
  2. ↑ Shannon (1996)
  3. ↑ Lackey (2007)
  4. ↑ Rykiel (2001)
  5. ↑ Boni (2001)
  6. ↑ Caldwell (2005)
  7. ↑ Béné (2005)
  8. ↑ Armstrong (2002)
  9. ↑ Pielke (2004)
  10. ↑ Scott (2007)

References

  • Armstrong (2002). "Ways to make analysis relevant but not prescriptive". Studies in Intelligence. 46: 37–43.
  • Béné (2005). "The good, the bad, and the ugly: discourse, policy controversies, and the role of science in the politics of shrimp farming development". Development Policy Review. 23: 585–614. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7679.2005.00304.x. SSRN 786094.
  • Boni (2003). "Wall Street research: will new rules change its usefulness?". Financial Analysts Journal. 59: 25–29. doi:10.2469/faj.v59.n3.2528.
  • Caldwell (2005). "Courting the expert: clash of culture?". British Journal of Haematology. 129: 730–733. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2141.2005.05464.x. PMID 15952998.
  • Lackey, Robert T (2007). "Science, scientists, and policy advocacy". Conservation Biology. 21 (1): 12–17. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00639.x.
  • Pielke (2004). "When scientists politicize science: making sense of controversy over The Skeptical Environmentalist" (PDF). Environmental Science and Policy. 7: 405–417. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2004.06.004.
  • Rykiel (2001). "Scientific objectivity, value systems, and policymaking". BioScience. 51: 433–436. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0433:SOVSAP]2.0.CO;2.
  • Scott; Michael, J.; Rachlow, Janet L.; Lackey, Robert T.; et al. (2008). "Policy advocacy in science: prevalence, perspectives, and implications for conservation biologists". Conservation Biology. 21 (1): 29–35. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00641.x.
  • Shannon (1996). Science Advocacy is Inevitable: Deal with It. Society of American Foresters. http://web2.law.buffalo.edu/faculty/meidinger/scholarship/saf961.html
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.