Scientific associations in the German research system—Results of an empirical study

Within contemporary science, scientific associations have been found to fulfill at least four functions: a communicative function that furthers scientific communication within a discipline or subdiscipline; a profesional function that supports individual careers and represents the collective interests of the members within a discipline; a transfer function that provides a meeting place for scientists and societal users of research results; and a promotion function that advises research institutes and political institutions in science policy decisions. This empirical study investigates German scientific associations and shows how and to what degree they fulfill these functions. The results of the study indicate that the communicative and the transfer functions dominate. Uwe Schimank is currently a research fellow at the Max-Planck-Institut fur Gesellschaftsforschung in Cologne. He received his doctorate in sociology at the University of Bielefeld. He is presently working on an analysis of the development of extra-university state-financed research institutes in the German research system.     

社会公平感对不同阶层目标达成的影响及其过程

基于目标追求理论和社会阶层心理学的相关理论, 本文通过3个研究, 逐步深入地考察了社会公平感对不同阶层个体目标达成的影响作用及其过程。研究1为相关研究, 考察了高低阶层成人被试的教育领域社会公平感与为孩子进行教育投入的目标承诺及目标达成之间的关系; 研究2为准实验研究, 通过操纵公平或不公平教育情境启动公平感, 考察其对高低阶层中学生的学习目标承诺与目标达成的影响; 研究3为实验研究, 通过实验操纵社会公平感和社会阶层, 考察社会公平感对高低阶层大学生的实验任务目标承诺和目标达成的影响。研究发现, 社会公平感通过正向影响低阶层者的目标承诺, 进而正向影响其目标达成; 而对于高阶层者来说, 变量之间这些关系则不显著。这表明：相对于高阶层来说, 低阶层者的目标追求易受社会公平感的影响; 低阶层者的社会公平感水平越高, 其追求目标的动机水平就越高, 进而越有利于目标达成。     

SOCIAL RESEARCH ON SCIENCE AND RELIGION IN NORDIC COUNTRIES

This article presents a review of the literature on science and religion in Nordic countries. Seventy-seven articles, books, and chapters on the topic were collected from five major scholarly databases between 1997 and 2018. We scrutinized how research in this data set was engaged with social scientific research. Most of the research was not social scientific. It was primarily philosophical, theological, and historical research; very little presented empirical and theoretical social scientific research. The studies reflected societal discussions, bringing out some cultural dimensions and social issues, but not specifically in the Nordic context. Some societal aspects were highlighted, such as ethics and climate change, but these were not necessarily tied to the Nordic societies. We propose that in the Nordic context there seems to be a need for social scientific research on science and religion. This research could use theoretical perspectives from, for instance, sociology, science and technology studies, higher education studies, and anthropological research.     

Modelling acceptability of the intelligent speed adapter

The Intelligent Speed Adapter (ISA) is an example of in-car telematics equipment that is developed to reduce speeding. It can be introduced as a policy instrument to improve speed limit compliance and with that traffic safety. However, previous research indicated that acceptability of this type of instruments is rather limited. Adopting a policy that may increase acceptability before introduction of the instrument is therefore recommended. To formulate such a policy, understanding the factors that influence ISA acceptability is required. To that effect, a causal model that disentangles the direct and indirect effects of predictor variables on ISA acceptability is developed and estimated. The model includes car drivers’ attitudes, opinions and beliefs on the speeding problem, the policy goal and the policy instrument ISA, as well as speed related behaviour and socio-demographic variables. This paper presents the direct and total effects of these variables on ISA acceptability. The results suggest that explaining clearly how ISA can contribute to attaining various personal and societal goals may be a viable policy to increase ISA acceptability.     

Leading with ethics,aiming for policy: new opportunities for philosophy of science

The goal of this paper is to articulate and advocate for an enhanced role for philosophers of science in the domain of science policy as well as within the science curriculum. I argue that philosophy of science as a field can learn from the successes as well as the mistakes of bioethics and begin to develop a new model that includes robust contributions to the science classroom, research collaborations with scientists, and a role for public philosophy through involvement in science policy development. Through an analysis of two case studies, I illustrate how philosophers of science can make effective and productive contributions to science education as well as to interdisciplinary scientific research, and argue for the essential role of philosophers of science in the realm of science policy.     

“Broader Impacts” or “Responsible Research and Innovation”? A Comparison of Two Criteria for Funding Research in Science and Engineering

Our subject is how the experience of Americans with a certain funding criterion, “broader impacts” (and some similar criteria) may help in efforts to turn the European concept of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) into a useful guide to funding Europe’s scientific and technical research. We believe this comparison may also be as enlightening for Americans concerned with revising research policy. We have organized our report around René Von Schomberg’s definition of RRI, since it seems both to cover what the European research group to which we belong is interested in and to be the only widely accepted definition of RRI. According to Von Schomberg, RRI: “… is a transparent, interactive process by which societal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view to the (ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process and its marketable products (in order to allow a proper embedding of scientific and technological advances in our society).” While RRI seeks fundamental changes in the way research is conducted, Broader Impacts is more concerned with more peripheral aspects of research: widening participation of disadvantaged groups, recruiting the next generation of scientists, increasing the speed with which results are used, and so on. Nevertheless, an examination of the broadening of funding criteria over the last four decades suggests that National Science Foundation has been moving in the direction of RRI.     

Toward a Science of Transdisciplinary Action Research

This paper offers a conceptual framework for establishing a science of transdisciplinary action research. Lewin's (1951) concept of action research highlights the scientific and societal value of translating psychological research into community problem-solving strategies. Implicit in Lewin's formulation is the importance of achieving effective collaboration among behavioral researchers, community members and policy makers. The present analysis builds on Lewin's analysis by outlining programmatic directions for the scientific study of transdisciplinary research and community action. Three types of collaboration, and the contextual circumstances that facilitate or hinder them, are examined: (1) collaboration among scholars representing different disciplines; (2) collaboration among researchers from multiple fields and community practitioners representing diverse professional and lay perspectives; and (3) collaboration among community organizations across local, state, national, and international levels. In the present analysis, transdisciplinary action research is viewed as a topic of scientific study in its own right to achieve a more complete understanding of prior collaborations and to identify strategies for refining and sustaining future collaborations (and their intended outcomes) among researchers, community members and organizations.     

Uses of scientific,technical, and societal information by policy makers

The entire life cycle of scientific, technical, and societal information is changing, due both to new technologies and to enhanced awareness of the importance of information in everyday life. This article describes features undergoing change within the life cycle and presents two examples, illustrating how information is used in policy setting. Possible measures of the way in which the public policy development process uses scientific, technical, and societal information are proposed.     

Justification magnets

The main message of Philosophy of Science after Feminism is twofold: that philosophy of science needs to locate science within its wider societal context, ceasing to analyze science as if it existed in a social/political/economic vacuum; and correlatively, that philosophy of science needs to aim for an understanding of scientific rationality that is appropriate to that context, a scientific rationality that integrates the ethical with the epistemic. The ideal of socially responsible science that the book puts forward, in fact, maintains that sound social values as well as sound epistemic values must control every aspect of the scientific research process, from the choice of research questions to the communication and application of results. And it is this that raises troubling questions for Matt Brown, Hugh Lacey, and Libby Potter. In this paper I attempt to answer their questions and make explicit exactly what is in the offing if I succeed.     

Modernization and the logic of interorganizational networks

In this paper an attempt is made to widen the perspective under which interorganizational networks are generally seen. It is argued that both in the economy and in policy making, network phenomena are in fact becoming more prominent. This is linked to functional differentiation, a core process of societal modernization, which implies the existence of partly autonomous societal subsystems. Their emergence is closely connected with the ascendance of formal organizations, which in turn enjoy a certain measure of autonomy. In this structural context, interorganizational network following a logic of negotiation, which extends to “constitutional” issues can provide a solution to coordination problems typical of modern societies. Her research interests include sociological macro-theory, comparative social and political research, organizational and administrative sociology, and sociology of technology.     

Anticruelty care: commentary

The anticruelty policy is a best-interests test for treatment plans including decisions to forgo life-sustaining therapy for certain incompetent patients. In connection with specific proposed therapy, the policy requires no reference to the patient's unknowable values, subjective experiences, or quality of life. The decision to undertake a treatment plan derives from the caregiver's knowledge of burdens and benefits of that treatment when used in caring for the competent or for those incompetents capable of growth or repair. The caregiver should weigh the potentially cruel effects of treatment against the likelihood of reducing suffering or encumbrance with the treatment. The terms "burden" and "benefit," in fact, are replaced by the terms "cruelty" and "beneficence," as the relevant opposing outcomes that must be weighed. Thus, the anticruelty policy shifts our scrutiny from experiences of the patient that we cannot evaluate to the proposed actions of the competent decision makers and caregivers. Notably, it is a protreatment policy when the goals of medicine are attainable; and it is an anticruelty policy when they are not. The policy does evaluate the world of the patient to the extent that it requires a judgment based upon external appearances about patient pleasure or happiness in living. It presumes to universalize larger societal values about cruelty, beneficence, compassionate concern for the helpless, and certain rights of individuals. And it presumes to universalize on the patient's behalf specific medical values about hopeless injury, timely death, the goals of medicine, and cruelty, which should remain open to societal discussion and revision. The presented definition of hopeless injury does not require brain death, coma, or persistent vegetative state. Specifically, the policy holds that death is timely for a patient with hopeless injury, and that prevention of death for such patients is not a goal of medicine but a cruelty.     

Standardising Responsibility? The Significance of Interstitial Spaces

Modern society is characterised by rapid technological development that is often socially controversial and plagued by extensive scientific uncertainty concerning its socio-ecological impacts. Within this context, the concept of ‘responsible research and innovation’ (RRI) is currently rising to prominence in international discourse concerning science and technology governance. As this emerging concept of RRI begins to be enacted through instruments, approaches, and initiatives, it is valuable to explore what it is coming to mean for and in practice. In this paper we draw attention to a realm that is often backgrounded in the current discussions of RRI but which has a highly significant impact on scientific research, innovation and policy—namely, the interstitial space of international standardization. Drawing on the case of nanoscale sciences and technologies to make our argument, we present examples of how international standards are already entangled in the development of RRI and yet, how the process of international standardization itself largely fails to embody the norms proposed as characterizing RRI. We suggest that although current models for RRI provide a promising attempt to make research and innovation more responsive to societal needs, ethical values and environmental challenges, such approaches will need to encompass and address a greater diversity of innovation system agents and spaces if they are to prove successful in their aims.     

At Arm’s Length? Applied Social Science and its Sponsors

The article deals with trust in applied social science research in the light of applied researchers’ increased dependence on project funding. Taking Norway as a case study it shows how the societal organization of research funding has implications for scientific freedom and ultimately for the confidence we have in research. The article gives an account of various ways the sponsors can influence on applied social science research and discusses the legitimacy of different limitations on scientific freedom. The article concludes with proposals for how the challenges to scientific freedom posed by the research funding framework can be addressed structurally, as well as on the level of the research community.     

Contemporary Worldviews: Personal and Policy Implications12

In the past several decades, changes in industrial societies have presented a host of issues, worldwide in scope, around which individual attitudes may form: technological growth, population expansion, environmental quality, global resources, differing societal goals, etc. This study (N= 325) was conducted to identify and assess the major attitude/belief constellations surrounding these issues and to examine their psychological basis and implications for risk perception and societal decision-making procedures. Results supported the hypotheses that assessed contemporary worldviews are related in predictable ways to (a) the pexceived risk associated with selected technologies, (b) preferences for the manner in which societal decisions should be made, and (c) a coherent set of psychological variables. Discussion focuses on policy implications of differing contemporary worldviews and on future directions and applications of this line of research.     

Evolving research misconduct policies and their significance for physical scientists

Scientific misconduct includes the fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP) of concepts, data or ideas; some institutions in the United States have expanded this concept to include “other serious deviations (OSD) from accepted research practice.” It is the absence of this OSD clause that distinguishes scientific misconduct policies of the past from the “research misconduct” policies that should be the basis of future federal policy in this area. This paper introduces a standard for judging whether an action should be considered research misconduct as distinguished from scientific misconduct: by this standard, research misconduct must involve activities unique to the practice of science and must have the potential to negatively affect the scientific record. Although the number of cases of scientific misconduct is uncertain (only the NIH and the NSF keep formal records), the costs are high in terms of the integrity of the scientific record, diversions from research to investigate allegations, ruined careers of those eventually exonerated, and erosion of public confidence in science. Existing scientific misconduct policies vary from institution to institution and from government agency to government agency; some have highly developed guidelines that include OSD, others have no guidelines at all. One result has been that the federal False Claims Act has been used to pursue allegations of scientific misconduct. As a consequence, such allegations have been adjudicated in federal courts, rather than judged by scientific peers. The federal government is now establishing a first-ever research misconduct policy that would apply to all research funded by the federal government regardless of which agency funded the research or whether the research was carried out in a government, industrial or university laboratory. Physical scientists, who up to now have only infrequently been the subject of scientific misconduct allegations, must nonetheless become active in the debate over research misconduct policies and how they are implemented since they will now be explicitly covered by this new federal wide policy. Disclaimer: The authors are grateful for the support for conduct of this research provided by the United States Department of Energy (DOE). The views expressed in this paper are solely those of the authors and were formed and expressed without reference to positions taken by DOE or the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). The views of the authors are not intended either to reflect or imply positions of DOE or PNNL.     

Facilitating Adolescent Well‐Being: A Review of the Challenges and Opportunities and the Beneficial Roles of Parents,Schools, Neighborhoods,and Policymakers

Adolescents face exceptional challenges and opportunities that may have a lifelong impact on their consumption and personal and societal well‐being. Parents, community members (schools and neighborhoods), and policymakers play major roles in shaping adolescents and influencing their engagement in consumption behaviors that are either developmentally problematic (e.g., drug use and unhealthy eating) or developmentally constructive (e.g., academic pursuits and extracurricular activities). In this article, we discuss two main topics: (a) the challenges and opportunities that characterize adolescence, based primarily on research in epidemiology and neuroscience, and (b) the ways that parents, community members, and policymakers can facilitate positive adolescent development, based on research from many disciplines including marketing, psychology, sociology, communications, public health, and education. Our goal is to summarize the latest scientific findings that can be used by various stakeholders to help adolescents navigate this turbulent period and become well‐adjusted, thriving adults.     

Slim Futures and the Fat Pill: Civic Imaginations of Innovation and Governance in an Engagement Setting

Innovation politics is seen as an ever more central area of public policy, and as a key means for shaping societal futures. Particularly in Europe, with its history of controversial public debates about innovations, the idea that scientific progress is automatically equated with societal progress seems hard to sustain. Broader public participation within techno-scientific governance seems necessary; though who is to participate in which form often remains unclear. Increasingly, when the innovation process is discussed in both policy and academia, the question of when public engagement should take place in the innovation process is addressed using common models such as ‘upstream engagement’. However, these discussions about public engagement often assume a top-down approach, and pay little attention to citizens' perspectives. To address this gap in the literature, this article will ask the following questions: what tacit understandings of techno-scientific innovation and governance do citizens have; and how do they relate their understandings of the form, structure and dynamics of these innovation processes to their visions of governance and participation? How do specific cultural forms of conceptualising innovation open up or close down particular possibilities of governance and public participation, hence privileging the involvement of certain actors and not others? To address these questions, we analyse the discussions in a long-term public engagement setting involving both genome scientists and citizens in Austria.     

Devices of Responsibility: Over a Decade of Responsible Research and Innovation Initiatives for Nanotechnologies

Responsible research and innovation (RRI) has come to represent a change in the relationship between science, technology and society. With origins in the democratisation of science, and the inclusion of ethical and societal aspects in research and development activities, RRI offers a means of integrating society and the research and innovation communities. In this article, we frame RRI activities through the lens of layers of science and technology governance as a means of characterising the context in which the RRI activity is positioned and the goal of those actors promoting the RRI activities in shaping overall governance patterns. RRI began to emerge during a time of considerable deliberation about the societal and governance challenges around nanotechnology, in which stakeholders were looking for new ways of integrating notions of responsibility in nanotechnology research and development. For this reason, this article focuses on nanotechnology as the site for exploring the evolution and growth of RRI.     

It's only a dream if you wake up: Young adults' achievement expectations,opportunities, and meritocratic beliefs

The present paper examines university graduates' beliefs about how meritocratic socioeconomic status (SES) attainment in U.S. society is for themselves (merit agency beliefs) and for most other people (merit societal beliefs), and how these distinct beliefs are differentially associated with labour market experiences and achievement‐goal attitudes and expectations in the aftermath of the Great Recession. Data from a 10‐month longitudinal study of 217 graduates from the 2013 class of a large public U.S. university were analysed using multilevel modelling. The results indicate that most participants optimistically expected to attain upward social mobility. Furthermore, participants' merit agency beliefs were reflective of their labour market prospects and experiences, and calibrated their achievement‐goal attitudes and expectations. However, participants' merit societal beliefs were not associated with these labour market experiences and achievement‐goal attitudes and expectations. The distinction between merit agency beliefs and merit societal beliefs may be motivationally beneficial by allowing individuals to continue striving toward the uncertain long‐term goal pursuit of upward social mobility despite the short‐term struggles and setbacks many young adults are likely to experience in the aftermath of the Great Recession.     

Nanoethics in a Nanolab: Ethics via Participation

A participant–observer who is both informed and interested in ethical issues, and is embedded within a nanotechnology research and development facility may be able to influence the ethical awareness of researchers in nanotechnology, and tease out the societal implications of the work being conducted. Two inter-disciplinary methods were employed: (1) regular involvement in the technical and scientific research at the facility by the participant–observer, and (2) repeated interactions and discussions between the participant–observer and the scientists. As a result of this qualitative approach, an ethics questionnaire was developed and tested. This questionnaire has been incorporated into the admissions procedures for researchers as they commence use of the nanotech facility. The questionnaire highlights the importance of ethical issues in nanotechnology research and draws researchers into an engagement with possible ethical consequences and with future societal implications of their work.