Answer the questions in three to four sentences. Short direct answers except for those that require extensive answers.
Everything in your answers should be expressed in your own words. ABSOULUTLY NO DIRECT QUOTATIONS FROm THE AUTHORS are allowed! Do not include formal citations; it is sufficient to say, “according to Sarewitz…” or “in David Hess’s chapter…” Where there is more than one article/chapter by a particular author, you may want to indicate which piece you are talking about.
All sources below are mandatory to answer the questions below.
Sarewitz- FRONTIERS OF ILLUSIONISBN: 9781566394161
Sclove-Limitations or public participation
The NASA Asteroid Initiative post at http://ecastnetwork.org/
Irwin- Scientific Citizen
Bush – Science and Government
Winner- Politics
Valdivia- Risk
Branscomb – Challenges to technology
Elliot- Chapter 1-5
Jasanoff- All fifth Branch Chapters provided
ABSOULUTLY NO DIRECT QUOTATIONS FROM AUTHORS
Question 1
From the readings we have seen that values are inevitable in science. In Frontiers of Illusion, Sarewitz talks about several “myths” of science and technology policy that depend on the (inaccurate, as we now know) assumption that science is free of values. Name and describe two myths that depend on the value-free assumption. For each, explain the relevant way(s) that values enter into science, and how recognizing the inevitability of values undermines the myth.
Question 2
Among the readings, the most systematic argument that values are inevitable in science is made by Kevin Elliot. He describes two ways that values necessarily enter into science. Explain both of them.
Question3
Elliot makes the normative argument that values should be allowable in science, if three conditions hold. What are they?
Question 4
The City of Philadelphia has to decide whether to extend its ban on smoking in restaurants and other public buildings to vapor from e-cigarettes. The city council decides to convene an expert advisory board to inform their decision. Should the members of the advisory board be prohibited from making value judgments in the advice they give? Why or why not? (Be sure that your answer makes reference to Elliot’s 3 criteria for including values.)
Question 5
In any sort of technology assessment or science advising, there is the problem of identifying appropriate experts to inform the process. One way to identify experts is to look at their scientific credentials (i.e. their degrees, publications, positions). What would be wrong with relying on scientific credentials alone as a way of choosing experts? (The Wynne article will be especially helpful in answering this question.)
Question 6
The city council decides to include on the advisory panel e-cigarette users, as well as teenaged non-vapers, who are highly likely to have peers who vape, on the theory that these groups might have insights into the practice that scientists don’t. What kind of rationale is the council offering for the participation of these groups? Are there other rationales they might sensibly use to justify the inclusion of non-credentialed people on an expert advisory? (Your answer should consider all the possibilities and discuss why they would or wouldn’t be appropriate in this case.)
Question 7
Jasanoff describes the challenges that regulators face in creating policies that are informed by reliable science yet still responsive to the needs and values of the public. Science advisors, she says, play an important role in legitimating regulations and helping to ensure that they withstand legal challenges. When they are successful, advisory boards and regulatory agencies do two things simultaneously. What are these things, and what functions do they serve?
Question 8
How would including uncredentialed but potentially knowledgeable people (like e-cigarette users) on advisory boards affect regulators’ ability to do the things they need to do to create robust policies? That is, would it make their job easier or harder? In what way?
Question 9
One of the major challenges of participatory technology assessment is the question of representation: who should be included to deliberate on behalf of the citizenry? In talking about ECAST (Sclove) and the NASA asteroid project (Cavalier), we talked about two major approaches to representation in PTA. What are they, and what are the relative merits of each?
Question 10
Guerrero’s lottocratic system of governance is a deliberative system similar in many ways to PTA, but it solves the representation question very differently. How is it determined who will represent the citizenry in this system, and why (in theory) would their decisions be considered legitimate in our democracy? That is, why should we think that people chosen through this method would come to decisions that fairly represent the views of the populace as a whole?
Question 11
PTA also faces the challenges of framing–who gets to decide what specific question(s) are posed to deliberants?–and policy impact–how should the process be situated with respect to government bodies and concrete policy questions in order for it to have a real impact? How would a lottocratic system address these issues? What do you think Irwin, who is critical of the way that one PTA process handled these questions, would think of this approach?
Question 12
Both Guerrero and Jasanoff talk about “capture” as a problem for science policy. What is capture? How would it manifest itself in our current system for science advising? Would a lottocratic system be more or less vulnerable to capture? Why or why not?
Question 13
Suppose that, on the basis of having understanding the ins and outs of science and technology policy from the readings, you are called upon to serve as an expert in a SILL. This SILL’s job is to decide how the entire federal budget for research ought to be allocated. They are not restricted to distributing money among existing funding agencies; rather, they have complete control over the process of allocating money, as well as (ultimately) where it should go. They have called on you to help them understand what they need to be thinking about in making their decisions. What have you learned from all the readings that you would want to make sure that they know about how science works and how science policy works (or could work)?
(This answer should be more extensive at least one page.)
ABSOULUTLY NO DIRECT QUOTATIONS FROM AUTHORS
