Fifth Branch

Science Advisers as Policymakers

Häftad, Engelska, 1998

429 kr

Beställningsvara. Skickas inom 7-10 vardagar. Fri frakt för medlemmar vid köp för minst 249 kr.

How can decisionmakers charged with protecting the environment and the public’s health and safety steer clear of false and misleading scientific research? Is it possible to give scientists a stronger voice in regulatory processes without yielding too much control over policy, and how can this be harmonized with democratic values? These are just some of the many controversial and timely questions that Sheila Jasanoff asks in this study of the way science advisers shape federal policy.In their expanding role as advisers, scientists have emerged as a formidable fifth branch of government. But even though the growing dependence of regulatory agencies on scientific and technical information has granted scientists a greater influence on public policy, opinions differ as to how those contributions should be balanced against other policy concerns. More important, who should define what counts as good science when all scientific claims incorporate social factors and are subject to negotiation?Jasanoff begins by describing some significant failures—such as nitrites, Love Canal, and alar—in administrative and judicial decisionmaking that fed the demand for more peer review of regulatory science. In analyzing the nature of scientific claims and methods used in policy decisions, she draws comparisons with the promises and limitations of peer review in scientific organizations operating outside the regulatory context. The discussion of advisory mechanisms draws on the author’s close scrutiny of two highly visible federal agencies—the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration. Here we see the experts in action as they deliberate on critical issues such as clean air, pesticide regulation, and the safety of pharmaceuticals and food additives.Jasanoff deftly merges legal and institutional analysis with social studies of science and presents a strong case for procedural reforms. In so doing, she articulates a social-construction model that is intended to buttress the effectiveness of the fifth branch.

Produktinformation

Utgivningsdatum1998-08-19
Mått156 x 234 x 20 mm
Vikt400 g
FormatHäftad
SpråkEngelska
Antal sidor320
FörlagHarvard University Press
ISBN9780674300620

Tillhör följande kategorier

1. Rationalizing Politics The Rise of Social Regulation Science and Policymaking Expertise and Trust The Contingency of Knowledge The Reform Debate An Alternative Approach 2. Flawed Decisions Nitrites 2,4,5-T Love Canal Estimates of Occupational Cancer The Technocratic Response A Critical Counterpoint 3. Science for the People The Rationale for Public Science The "New" Expert Agency Scientific Advice and Open Government Judicial Review of Science Policy The Weakening of the Paradigm 4. Peer Review and Regulatory Science The Traditions of Peer Review Peer Review in Practice Instructive Failures Regulatory Science: Content and Context Implications for Regulatory Peer Review 5. EPA and the Science Advisory Board Early Political Challenges A New Cooperation Boundary Exercises SAB's Impact on Policy Conclusion 6. The Science and Policy of Clean Air CASAC and the NAAQS Process Science and Standards Redefining CASAC's Role The Carbon Monoxide Controversy CASAC's Effectiveness: Bridging Science and Policy 7. Advisers as Adversaries The Scientific Advisory Panel Implementing the Impossible Ethylene Dibromide Dicofol Alar A Fragmentation of Authority 8. FDA's Advisory Network The Scientific Evaluation of Drugs Expertise and Food Safety Advice and Decision 9. Coping with New Knowledge The Quest for Principled Risk Assessment Formaldehyde: An Uncertain Carcinogen Conclusion 10. Technocracy Revisited A Public-Private Partnership for Science Risk Assessment without Politics The Public Board of Inquiry Wider Applications 11. The Political Function of Good Science From Advice to Policy Acceptable Risk Scientific Advice as Legitimation: Negotiation and Boundary Work Defining "Good Science" Normative Implications Conclusion Notes Index