Science on the Verge

The Rightful Place of Science: Science on the Verge
Author Alice Benessia, Silvio Funtowicz, Mario Giampietro, Angela Guimaraes Pereira, Jerome Ravetz, Andrea Saltelli, Roger Strand, Jeroen P. van der Sluijs, Daniel Sarewitz (Foreword)
Country United States
Language English
Genre Science
Publisher Consortium for Science, Policy, & Outcomes (CSPO)
Publication date
20 Feb. 2016
Media type print
Pages 232
ISBN 978-0692596388
Website Page of the book at CSPO;
See at Amazon
More material

Science on the verge is a book written in 2016 by group of eight scholars working in the tradition of Post-normal science.[1][2][3][4][5] The book analyzes the main features and possible causes of the present science's crisis.[6][7][8]

Content

Science on the verge, written by Alice Benessia, Silvio Funtowicz, Mario Giampietro, Ângela Guimarães Pereira, Jerome Ravetz, Andrea Saltelli, Roger Strand, and Jeroen P. van der Sluijs, with a preface by Dan Sarewitz, follows different threads of the present science's crisis (lost reproducibility,[9][10][11][12][13] collapsing peer review,[14][15] perverse metrics,[16] evidence based policy's dysfunctions,[17][18] techno-science and his hubris,[19] science as metaphysics ...) and presents a first systematic analysis of the main causes of the present predicaments.

Reviews

From Joseph A. Tainter, Professor of Sustainability, Utah State University, "Scientists working in the policy arena are often naïve about the impact of their findings. Producing rational results, scientists expect their research to be rationally accepted. The fundamental problem is that humans are not rational. We are emotional thinkers. Science on the Verge exposes many of the fallacies in science applied to societal problems. No matter how good the science, public issues are always ideological and political."

From Judith Curry, climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology writing on her blog Climate Etc. "This book is a very rich resource for grappling with the the problems with science in the 21st century – the articles themselves, as well as the extensive references. I expect to be using this book as a resource for a number future blog posts. This book deserves a wide audience, and I hope this blog post will help increase its reach."

A post on the book can be found at blog of the International Social Science Council in Paris. See also this article on The Guardian.[20]

References

  1. Funtowicz, S. O. and Ravetz, J. R., 1992. "Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of postnormal science", in Krimsky, S. and Golding, D. (eds.), Social theories of risk: 251–273. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood.
  2. Funtowicz, S. and Ravetz, J., 1993. "Science for the post-normal age", Futures, 31(7): 735-755.
  3. Gluckman, P., 2014, Policy: The art of science advice to government, Nature, 507, 163–165.
  4. Grinnell, F. (2015), "Rethink our approach to assessing risk", Nature, 522, 257.
  5. Nature, Editorial, (2016). "Future present", 531, 7–8.
  6. Begley, C. G., and Ioannidis, J. P., 2015, Reproducibility in Science. Improving the Standard for Basic and Preclinical Research, Circulation Research, 116, 116-126, doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.114.303819.
  7. New Scientist’s Leader: Crisis? What Crisis?’ April 16, 2016.
  8. Ryder, B., 2016, The unscientific method, New Scientist, April 16, 2016.
  9. Ioannidis, J. P. A., 2005. "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False", PLoS Medicine, 2(8): 696-701.
  10. Ioannidis, J. P. (2014). How to Make More Published Research True. PLoS medicine, 11(10), e1001747.
  11. Begley, C. G., and Ellis, M. E., 2012. "Drug Development: Raise Standards for Preclinical Cancer Research", Nature, 483: 531–533.
  12. Begley, C. G., 2013. "Reproducibility: Six red flags for suspect work", Nature, 497: 433–434.
  13. Baker, M., 2016, 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility, Nature, 533, 452–454.
  14. Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Godlee F, Osorio L, Smith R, 2008, What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? Journal Royal Society Medicine, 101 (10) 507-514.
  15. Siebert, S., Machesky, L. M., and Insall, R. H. (2015) Overflow in science and its implications for trust. eLife, 4, e10825. (doi:10.7554/eLife.10825)
  16. Wilsdon, J., 2015, We need a measured approach to metrics, Nature, 523, 129.
  17. Macilwain, C., 2016, The elephant in the room we can’t ignore, Nature, 531, 277.
  18. Ravetz, J. 2016, How should we treat science’s growing pains? The Guardian, 8 June 2016.
  19. Benessia A. and Funtowicz S. (2015), Sustainability and technoscience: what do we want to sustain and for whom? The International Journal of Sustainable Development Special Issue: In the Name of Sustainability / 18 (4):329-348.
  20. Jerome R. Ravetz, 2016, How should we treat science’s growing pains? The Guardian, June 8th, 2016.
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 9/14/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.