The role of scientists in policy-making regarding agricultural biotechnology: from traditional to alternative views

Z. Kulichova, H. Coumou, Mahaletchumy Arujanan, C. Wehrmann, P. Osseweijer
{"title":"The role of scientists in policy-making regarding agricultural biotechnology: from traditional to alternative views","authors":"Z. Kulichova, H. Coumou, Mahaletchumy Arujanan, C. Wehrmann, P. Osseweijer","doi":"10.1504/IJBT.2017.10004750","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Scientists have always played an important role in informing policy decisions. However, many controversial policy problems regarding science and technology, such as agricultural biotechnology, are often characterised by low value consensus and high level of complexity. In these circumstances various policy actors legitimate their policy preferences using science. In this article, we challenge the linear model of science and policy and argue that the stakeholder model of science in policy is more appropriate for governance of controversial policy problems regarding science and technology. We build our argument on available literature and empirical data from interviews and two online surveys. We choose agricultural biotechnology as the case study to illustrate scientists' perception about their role in policy-making. Our study illustrates that agricultural biotechnology scientists sympathise with the stakeholder model of science and policy. However, there is a gap between perceived ideal role for scientists in policy-making and the role, which these scientists actually take.","PeriodicalId":91506,"journal":{"name":"International journal of biotechnology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of biotechnology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBT.2017.10004750","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Scientists have always played an important role in informing policy decisions. However, many controversial policy problems regarding science and technology, such as agricultural biotechnology, are often characterised by low value consensus and high level of complexity. In these circumstances various policy actors legitimate their policy preferences using science. In this article, we challenge the linear model of science and policy and argue that the stakeholder model of science in policy is more appropriate for governance of controversial policy problems regarding science and technology. We build our argument on available literature and empirical data from interviews and two online surveys. We choose agricultural biotechnology as the case study to illustrate scientists' perception about their role in policy-making. Our study illustrates that agricultural biotechnology scientists sympathise with the stakeholder model of science and policy. However, there is a gap between perceived ideal role for scientists in policy-making and the role, which these scientists actually take.
科学家在农业生物技术政策制定中的作用:从传统观点到替代观点
科学家一直在为政策决策提供信息方面发挥着重要作用。然而,许多有争议的科学技术政策问题,如农业生物技术,往往具有低价值共识和高度复杂性的特点。在这种情况下,各种政策行动者利用科学使他们的政策偏好合法化。在这篇文章中,我们挑战了科学和政策的线性模型,并认为政策中科学的利益相关者模型更适合于治理与科学技术有关的有争议的政策问题。我们的论点建立在现有文献和来自访谈和两次在线调查的经验数据之上。我们选择农业生物技术作为案例研究,以说明科学家对其在决策中的作用的看法。我们的研究表明,农业生物技术科学家同情科学和政策的利益相关者模式。然而,科学家在决策中的理想角色与这些科学家实际扮演的角色之间存在差距。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信