问题倡导者和诚实经纪人:美国和德国科学家参与COVID-19政策争议。

IF 3.3 2区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION
Nils Bienzeisler
{"title":"问题倡导者和诚实经纪人:美国和德国科学家参与COVID-19政策争议。","authors":"Nils Bienzeisler","doi":"10.1177/09636625251371565","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The study examines the intersection of science and politics by analyzing the involvement of <i>N</i> = 205 U.S. and <i>N</i> = 174 German scientists in policy disputes during the COVID-19 pandemic. I investigate how scientists integrate themselves into policy disputes. Through a survey, I identify four groups of scientists with specific self-images regarding their roles in policy disputes: <i>Moderate Mainstreamers, Issue Advisors, Issue Advocates, and Honest Brokers</i>. Furthermore, the findings reveal differences in how these groups of scientists perceive the importance of science in policy-making: Particularly U.S.-based <i>Issue Advocates</i> wish for science to direct policy-making. In addition, I find that pandemic researchers overwhelmingly do not support political causes by selectively communicating political advice. I present empirically evidence that pandemic researchers sought to clarify the relevance of research during the pandemic, but did not attempt to distort policy disputes dishonestly.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"9636625251371565"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Of Issue Advocates and Honest Brokers: Participation of U.S. and German scientists in COVID-19 policy disputes.\",\"authors\":\"Nils Bienzeisler\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09636625251371565\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The study examines the intersection of science and politics by analyzing the involvement of <i>N</i> = 205 U.S. and <i>N</i> = 174 German scientists in policy disputes during the COVID-19 pandemic. I investigate how scientists integrate themselves into policy disputes. Through a survey, I identify four groups of scientists with specific self-images regarding their roles in policy disputes: <i>Moderate Mainstreamers, Issue Advisors, Issue Advocates, and Honest Brokers</i>. Furthermore, the findings reveal differences in how these groups of scientists perceive the importance of science in policy-making: Particularly U.S.-based <i>Issue Advocates</i> wish for science to direct policy-making. In addition, I find that pandemic researchers overwhelmingly do not support political causes by selectively communicating political advice. I present empirically evidence that pandemic researchers sought to clarify the relevance of research during the pandemic, but did not attempt to distort policy disputes dishonestly.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48094,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public Understanding of Science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"9636625251371565\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public Understanding of Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625251371565\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Understanding of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625251371565","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

该研究通过分析新冠疫情期间美国205名科学家和德国174名科学家参与政策争议的情况,探讨了科学和政治的交集。我研究科学家如何将自己融入政策争议。通过一项调查,我确定了四组具有特定自我形象的科学家关于他们在政策争议中的角色:温和主流,问题顾问,问题倡导者和诚实经纪人。此外,研究结果揭示了这些科学家群体对科学在决策中的重要性的看法的差异:特别是美国的问题倡导者希望科学指导决策。此外,我发现流行病研究人员绝大多数不会通过选择性地传播政治建议来支持政治事业。我提供的经验证据表明,大流行研究人员试图在大流行期间澄清研究的相关性,但没有试图不诚实地扭曲政策争议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Of Issue Advocates and Honest Brokers: Participation of U.S. and German scientists in COVID-19 policy disputes.

The study examines the intersection of science and politics by analyzing the involvement of N = 205 U.S. and N = 174 German scientists in policy disputes during the COVID-19 pandemic. I investigate how scientists integrate themselves into policy disputes. Through a survey, I identify four groups of scientists with specific self-images regarding their roles in policy disputes: Moderate Mainstreamers, Issue Advisors, Issue Advocates, and Honest Brokers. Furthermore, the findings reveal differences in how these groups of scientists perceive the importance of science in policy-making: Particularly U.S.-based Issue Advocates wish for science to direct policy-making. In addition, I find that pandemic researchers overwhelmingly do not support political causes by selectively communicating political advice. I present empirically evidence that pandemic researchers sought to clarify the relevance of research during the pandemic, but did not attempt to distort policy disputes dishonestly.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
9.80%
发文量
80
期刊介绍: Public Understanding of Science is a fully peer reviewed international journal covering all aspects of the inter-relationships between science (including technology and medicine) and the public. Public Understanding of Science is the only journal to cover all aspects of the inter-relationships between science (including technology and medicine) and the public. Topics Covered Include... ·surveys of public understanding and attitudes towards science and technology ·perceptions of science ·popular representations of science ·scientific and para-scientific belief systems ·science in schools
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信