Public Value Mapping and Science Policy Evaluation
Minerva 49 (1):1-23 (2011)
| Abstract | Here we present the framework of a new approach to assessing the capacity of research programs to achieve social goals. Research evaluation has made great strides in addressing questions of scientific and economic impacts. It has largely avoided, however, a more important challenge: assessing (prospectively or retrospectively) the impacts of a given research endeavor on the non-scientific, non-economic goals—what we here term public values —that often are the core public rationale for the endeavor. Research programs are typically justified in terms of their capacity to achieve public values, and that articulation of public values is pervasive in science policy-making. We outline the elements of a case-based approach to public value mapping of science policy, with a particular focus on developing useful criteria and methods for assessing public value failure, with an intent to provide an alternative to market failure thinking that has been so powerful in science policy-making. So long as research evaluation avoids the problem of public values, science policy decision makers will have little help from social science in making choices among competing paths to desired social outcomes | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,865 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesCatherine Slade (2011). Public Value Mapping of Equity in Emerging Nanomedicine. Minerva 49 (1):71-86.
Robert Frodeman (2005). The Role of Humanities Policy in Public Science. Environmental Philosophy 2 (1):5-13.
Walter Valdivia (2011). The Stakes in Bayh-Dole: Public Values Beyond the Pace of Innovation. Minerva 49 (1):25-46.
Ryan Meyer (2011). The Public Values Failures of Climate Science in the US. Minerva 49 (1):47-70.
Renee Kyle & Susan Dodds (2009). Avoiding Empty Rhetoric: Engaging Publics in Debates About Nanotechnologies. Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (1).
Matthew Kearnes & Matthias Wienroth (2011). Tools of the Trade: UK Research Intermediaries and the Politics of Impacts. Minerva 49 (2):153-174.
Rinie Est (2011). The Broad Challenge of Public Engagement in Science. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):639-648.
Inmaculada de Melo-Martín & Kristen Intemann (2012). Interpreting Evidence: Why Values Can Matter As Much As Science. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 55 (1):59-70.
Rinie van Est (2011). The Broad Challenge of Public Engagement in Science. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):639-648.
Sheila Jasanoff (1996). Is Science Socially Constructed—and Can It Still Inform Public Policy? Science and Engineering Ethics 2 (3).
Stephen F. Haller & James Gerrie (2007). The Role of Science in Public Policy: Higher Reason, or Reason for Hire? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 20 (2).
David Resnik (2011). Scientific Research and the Public Trust. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (3):399-409.
Vanessa Scholes (2011). Beyond Serving a Purpose: Additional Ethical Focuses for Public Policy Agents. In Jonathan Boston, Andrew Bradstock & David Eng (eds.), Ethics and public policy: contemporary issues. Victoria University Press.
M. Walton & E. Mengwasser (2012). An Ethical Evaluation of Evidence: A Stewardship Approach to Public Health Policy. Public Health Ethics 5 (1):16-21.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2011-02-12Total downloads57 ( #17,748 of 556,788 )Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #20,489 of 556,788 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
