Repositorio Institucional
Repositorio Institucional
CONICET Digital
  • Inicio
  • EXPLORAR
    • AUTORES
    • DISCIPLINAS
    • COMUNIDADES
  • Estadísticas
  • Novedades
    • Noticias
    • Boletines
  • Ayuda
    • General
    • Datos de investigación
  • Acerca de
    • CONICET Digital
    • Equipo
    • Red Federal
  • Contacto
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.
  • INFORMACIÓN GENERAL
  • RESUMEN
  • ESTADISTICAS
 
Artículo

Science–policy research collaborations need philosophers

Schneider, Mike D.; Sogbanmu, Temitope O.; Rubin, Hannah; Bortolus, AlejandroIcon ; Chukwu, Emelda E.; Heesen, Remco; Hewitt, Chad L.; Kaufer, Ricardo; Metzen, Hanna; Mitova, Veli; Schwenkenbecher, Anne; Schwindt, EvangelinaIcon ; Slanickova, Helena; Woolaston, Katie; Yu, Li an
Fecha de publicación: 05/2024
Editorial: Nature Research
Revista: Nature Human Behaviour
e-ISSN: 2397-3374
Idioma: Inglés
Tipo de recurso: Artículo publicado
Clasificación temática:
Otras Ciencias Biológicas

Resumen

First, not all philosophers are ethicists. Philosophical expertise includes expertise in conceptual work: drawing out the necessary and sufficient conditions to secure desired conclusions given the concepts introduced in the statement of an argument. This work is especially valuable in teasing apart solvable — albeit difficult — problems in evidence-based policymaking from those that are impossible to solve. For instance, as part of an international collaboration on the epistemology of evidence-based policy6, we targeted the basic mechanics of decision-making during ongoing empirical research to cut to the heart of what it means for the policymaking process to proceed in light of current science. This enabled us to identify root causes of disagreement in policymaking: for example, placing different importance on different kinds of evidence, miscommunication or misinterpretation of evidence, or misunderstanding of the policy process. We concluded that without a particular type of transparency — transparency of reasoning — it is impossible to determine whether anything has gone wrong in specific episodes of evidence-based policymaking based only on studying outcomes of the policymaking process (R.H. et al., unpublished).
Palabras clave: SCIENCE-POLICY , POLICYMAKING , BIOLOGICAL INVASIONS
Ver el registro completo
 
Archivos asociados
Tamaño: 792.4Kb
Formato: PDF
.
Solicitar
Licencia
info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess Excepto donde se diga explícitamente, este item se publica bajo la siguiente descripción: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 Unported (CC BY-NC-SA 2.5)
Identificadores
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11336/265286
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01892-x
URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-01892-x
Colecciones
Articulos(IBIOMAR)
Articulos de INSTITUTO DE BIOLOGIA DE ORGANISMOS MARINOS
Citación
Schneider, Mike D.; Sogbanmu, Temitope O.; Rubin, Hannah; Bortolus, Alejandro; Chukwu, Emelda E.; et al.; Science–policy research collaborations need philosophers; Nature Research; Nature Human Behaviour; 8; 6; 5-2024; 1001-1002
Compartir
Altmétricas
 

Enviar por e-mail
Separar cada destinatario (hasta 5) con punto y coma.
  • Facebook
  • X Conicet Digital
  • Instagram
  • YouTube
  • Sound Cloud
  • LinkedIn

Los contenidos del CONICET están licenciados bajo Creative Commons Reconocimiento 2.5 Argentina License

https://www.conicet.gov.ar/ - CONICET

Inicio

Explorar

  • Autores
  • Disciplinas
  • Comunidades

Estadísticas

Novedades

  • Noticias
  • Boletines

Ayuda

Acerca de

  • CONICET Digital
  • Equipo
  • Red Federal

Contacto

Godoy Cruz 2290 (C1425FQB) CABA – República Argentina – Tel: +5411 4899-5400 repositorio@conicet.gov.ar
TÉRMINOS Y CONDICIONES