Search results for 'Scientists' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Sort by:
  1. Vivian Weil (2002). Making Sense of Scientists' Responsibilities at the Interface of Science and Society. Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (2):223-227.score: 18.0
    As Kenneth Pimple points out, scientists’ responsibilities to the larger society have received less attention than ethical issues internal to the practice of science. Yet scientists and specialists who study science have begun to provide analyses of the foundations and scope of scientsts’ responsibilities to society. An account of contributions from Kristen Shrader-Frechette, Melanie Leitner, Ullica Segerstråle, John Ahearne, Helen Longino, and Carl Cranor offers work on scientists’ social responsibilities upon which to build.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Rosalyn W. Berne (2006). Nanotalk: Conversations with Scientists and Engineers About Ethics, Meaning, and Belief in the Development of Nanotechnology. Lawrence Erlbaum.score: 18.0
    No one really knows where nanotechnology is leading, what its pursuit will mean, and how it may affect human and other forms of life. Nevertheless, its research and development are moving briskly into that unknown. It has been suggested that rapid movement towards 'who knows where' is endemic to all technological development; that its researchers pursue it for curiosity and enjoyment, without knowing the consequences, believing that their efforts will be beneficial. Further, that the enthusiasm for development comes with no (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Stanley Joel Reiser & Ruth E. Bulger (1997). The Social Responsibilities of Biological Scientists. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (2):137-143.score: 18.0
    Biological scientists, like scientists in other disciplines, are uncertain about whether or how to use their knowledge and time to provide society with insight and guidance in handling the effects of inventions and discoveries. This article addresses this issue. It presents a typography of structures in which scientists may contribute to social understanding and decisions. It describes the different ways in which these contributions can be made. Finally it develops the ethical arguments that justify the view that (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Alan Petersen & Alison Anderson (2007). A Question of Balance or Blind Faith?: Scientists' and Science Policymakers' Representations of the Benefits and Risks of Nanotechnologies. [REVIEW] NanoEthics 1 (3):243-256.score: 18.0
    In recent years, in the UK and elsewhere, scientists and science policymakers have grappled with the question of how to reap the benefits of nanotechnologies while minimising the risks. Having recognised the importance of public support for future innovations, they have placed increasing emphasis on ‘engaging’ ‘the public’ during the early phase of technology development. Meaningful engagement suggests some common ground between experts and lay publics in relation to the definition of nanotechnologies and of their benefits and risks. However, (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Ademola A. Adenle (2014). Stakeholders' Perceptions of GM Technology in West Africa: Assessing the Responses of Policymakers and Scientists in Ghana and Nigeria. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 27 (2):241-263.score: 18.0
    The perception of two key stakeholders such as policymakers and scientists on genetic modification (GM) technology was examined in Ghana and Nigeria using semi-structured interviews. A total sample of 20 policymakers (16 at ministries and 4 at parliament/cabinet) and 58 scientists (43 at research institutes and 15 at universities) participated at the interviews. This study revealed respondents perspectives on potential benefits and risks of GM technology, status and development of biosafety regulatory frameworks, role of science and technology innovation (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Kathryn Nixdorff (2013). Education for Life Scientists on the Dual-Use Implications of Their Research. Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (4):1487-1490.score: 18.0
    Advances in the life sciences are occurring with extreme rapidity and accumulating a great deal of knowledge about life’s vital processes. While this knowledge is essential for fighting disease in a more effective way, it can also be misused either intentionally or inadvertently to develop novel and more effective biological weapons. For nearly a decade civil-academic society as well as States Parties to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention have recognised the importance of dual-use biosecurity education for life scientists (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Anders Persson, Sven Hemlin & Stellan Welin (2007). Profitable Exchanges for Scientists: The Case of Swedish Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research. [REVIEW] Health Care Analysis 15 (4):291-304.score: 18.0
    In this article two inter-related issues concerning the ongoing commercialisation of biomedical research are analyzed. One aim is to explain how scientists and clinicians at Swedish public institutions can make profits, both commercially and scientifically, by controlling rare human biological material, like embryos and embryonic stem cell lines. This control in no way presupposes legal ownership or other property rights as an initial condition. We show how ethically sensitive material (embryos and stem cell lines) have been used in Sweden (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Gary G. Tibbetts (2013). How the Great Scientists Reasoned: The Scientific Method in Action. Elsevier.score: 16.0
    1. Introduction : humanity's urge to understand -- 2. Elements of scientific thinking : skepticism, careful reasoning, and exhaustive evaluation are all vital. Science Is universal -- Maintaining a critical attitude. Reasonable skepticism -- Respect for the truth -- Reasoning. Deduction -- Induction -- Paradigm shifts -- Evaluating scientific hypotheses. Ockham's razor -- Quantitative evaluation -- Verification by others -- Statistics : correlation and causation -- Statistics : the indeterminacy of the small -- Careful definition -- Science at the frontier. (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Eve Hartman (2012). Do Scientists Care About Animal Welfare? Raintree.score: 15.0
    Looks at animal welfare in society and the sciences, including laboratory animals, pets, and the effect of climate change.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. P. B. Medawar (1990). The Threat and the Glory: Reflections on Science and Scientists. Oxford University Press.score: 15.0
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Hans A. Tolhoek & L. Wecke (eds.) (1986). The Role of Scientists in the Peace Movement: End-Convention, Amsterdam. Distribution, J. Mets.score: 15.0
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Renée Weber (ed.) (1986). Dialogues with Scientists and Sages: The Search for Unity. Routledge & Kegan Paul.score: 15.0
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. David A. Rier (2004). Publication Visibility of Sensitive Public Health Data: When Scientists Bury Their Results. Science and Engineering Ethics 10 (4):597-613.score: 14.0
    What happens when the scientific tradition of openness clashes with potential societal risks? The work of American toxic-exposure epidemiologists can attract media coverage and lead the public to change health practices, initiate lawsuits, or take other steps a study’s authors might consider unwarranted. This paper, reporting data from 61 semi-structured interviews with U.S. toxic-exposure epidemiologists, examines whether such possibilities shaped epidemiologists’ selection of journals for potentially sensitive papers. Respondents manifested strong support for the norm of scientific openness, but a significant (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Mason Richey (2008). What Can Philosophers Offer Social Scientists?; or The Frankfurt School and its Relevance to Social Science: From the History of Philosophical Sociology to an Examination of Issues in the Current EU. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences 3 (6):63-72.score: 12.0
    This paper presents the history of the Frankfurt School’s inclusion of normative concerns in social science research programs during the period 1930-1955. After examining the relevant methodology, I present a model of how such a program could look today. I argue that such an approach is both valuable to contemporary social science programs and overlooked by current philosophers and social scientists.
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Peter Achinstein (2000). Why Philosophical Theories of Evidence Are (and Ought to Be) Ignored by Scientists. Philosophy of Science 67 (3):192.score: 12.0
    There are two reasons, I claim, scientists do and should ignore standard philosophical theories of objective evidence: (1) Such theories propose concepts that are far too weak to give scientists what they want from evidence, viz., a good reason to believe a hypothesis; and (2) They provide concepts that make the evidential relationship a priori, whereas typically establishing an evidential claim requires empirical investigation.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Daniela M. Bailer-Jones (2002). Scientists' Thoughts on Scientific Models. Perspectives on Science 10 (3):275-301.score: 12.0
    : This paper contains the analysis of nine interviews with UK scientists on the topic of scientific models. Scientific models are an important, very controversially discussed topic in philosophy of science. A reasonable expectation is that philosophical conceptions of models ought to be in agreement with scientific practice. Questioning practicing scientists on their use of and views on models provides material against which philosophical positions can be measured.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Jan Deckers (2005). Are Scientists Right and Non-Scientists Wrong? Reflections on Discussions of GM. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18 (5):451-478.score: 12.0
    The aim of this article is to further our understanding of the “GM is unnatural” view, and of the critical response to it. While many people have been reported to hold the view that GM is unnatural, many policy-makers and their advisors have suggested that the view must be ignored or rejected, and that there are scientific reasons for doing so. Three “typical” examples of ways in which the “GM is unnatural” view has been treated by UK policy-makers and their (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Don Ross & David Spurrett (2004). What to Say to a Skeptical Metaphysician? A Defense Manual for Cognitive and Behavioral Scientists. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (5):603-627.score: 12.0
    A wave of recent work in metaphysics seeks to undermine the anti-reductionist, functionalist consensus of the past few decades in cognitive science and philosophy of mind. That consensus apparently legitimated a focus on what systems do, without necessarily and always requiring attention to the details of how systems are constituted. The new metaphysical challenge contends that many states and processes referred to by functionalist cognitive scientists are epiphenomenal. It further contends that the problem lies in functionalism itself, and that, (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Boyce Rensberger (2000). Why Scientists Should Cooperate with Journalists. Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (4):549-552.score: 12.0
    Despite a widespread impression that the public is woefully ignorant of science and cares little for the subject, U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) surveys show the majority are very interested and understand that they are not well informed about science. The data are consistent with the author’s view that the popularity of pseudoscience does not indicate a rejection of science. If this is so, opportunities for scientists to communicate with the public promise a more rewarding result than is commonly (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Daniel B. Klein & Charlotta Stern (2005). Professors and Their Politics: The Policy Views of Social Scientists. Critical Review 17 (3-4):257-303.score: 12.0
    Abstract Academic social scientists overwhelmingly vote Democratic, and the Democratic hegemony has increased significantly since 1970. Moreover, the policy preferences of a large sample of the members of the scholarly associations in anthropology, economics, history, legal and political philosophy, political science, and sociology generally bear out conjectures about the correspondence of partisan identification with left/right ideal types; although across the board, both Democratic and Republican academics favor government action more than the ideal types might suggest. Variations in policy views (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. John Ziman (2001). Getting Scientists to Think About What They Are Doing. Science and Engineering Ethics 7 (2):165-176.score: 12.0
    Research scientists are trained to produce specialised bricks of knowledge, but not to look at the whole building. Increasing public concern about the social role of science is forcing science students to think about what they are actually learning to do. What sort of knowledge will they be producing, and how will it be used? Science education now requires serious consideration of these philosophical and ethical questions. But the many different forms of knowledge produced by modern science cannot be (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Klaus Hoeyer, Lisa Dahlager & Niels Lynöe (2006). Ethical Conflicts During the Social Study of Clinical Practice: The Need to Reassess the Mutually Challenging Research Ethics Traditions of Social Scientists and Medical Researchers. Clinical Ethics 1 (1):41-45.score: 12.0
    When anthropologists and other social scientists study health services in medical institutions, tensions sometimes arise as a result of the social scientists and health care professionals having different ideas about the ethics of research. In order to resolve this type of conflict and to facilitate mutual learning, we describe two general categories of research ethics framing: those of anthropology and those of medicine. The latter focuses on protection of the individual through the preservation of autonomy expressed through the (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Thaddeus R. Miller & Mark W. Neff (2013). De-Facto Science Policy in the Making: How Scientists Shape Science Policy and Why It Matters (or, Why STS and STP Scholars Should Socialize). Minerva 51 (3):295-315.score: 12.0
    Science and technology (S&T) policy studies has explored the relationship between the structure of scientific research and the attainment of desired outcomes. Due to the difficulty of measuring them directly, S&T policy scholars have traditionally equated “outcomes” with several proxies for evaluation, including economic impact, and academic output such as papers published and citations received. More recently, scholars have evaluated science policies through the lens of Public Value Mapping, which assesses scientific programs against societal values. Missing from these approaches is (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Karsten Jensen, Ellen-Marie Forsberg, Christian Gamborg, Kate Millar & Peter Sandøe (2011). Facilitating Ethical Reflection Among Scientists Using the Ethical Matrix. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (3):425-445.score: 12.0
    Several studies have indicated that scientists are likely to have an outlook on both facts and values that are different to that of lay people in important ways. This is one significant reason it is currently believed that in order for scientists to exercise a reliable ethical reflection about their research it is necessary for them to engage in dialogue with other stakeholders. This paper reports on an exercise to encourage a group of scientists to reflect on (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Ian StJohn Fisher (1996). What Place Does Religion Have in the Ethical Thinking of Scientists and Engineers? Science and Engineering Ethics 2 (3):335-344.score: 12.0
    Religion, defined as ‘the idea of a state that transcends ourselves and our world and the working out of the consequences of that idea’, may influence the ethical thinking of scientists and engineers in two ways. The first is at the level of the individual and how personal beliefs affect the choice of research, design or development projects, relationships with other researchers and the understandings of the consequences of research on other aspects of life. The second level is that (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Peter Sandøe (2011). Facilitating Ethical Reflection Among Scientists Using the Ethical Matrix. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (3):425-445.score: 12.0
    Several studies have indicated that scientists are likely to have an outlook on both facts and values that are different to that of lay people in important ways. This is one significant reason it is currently believed that in order for scientists to exercise a reliable ethical reflection about their research it is necessary for them to engage in dialogue with other stakeholders. This paper reports on an exercise to encourage a group of scientists to reflect on (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. C. Kenneth Waters (2004). What Concept Analysis in Philosophy of Science Should Be (and Why Competing Philosophical Analyses of Gene Concepts Cannot Be Tested by Polling Scientists). History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 26 (1):29 - 58.score: 12.0
    What should philosophers of science accomplish when they analyze scientific concepts and interpret scientific knowledge? What is concept analysis if it is not a description of the way scientists actually think? I investigate these questions by using Hans Reichenbach's account of the descriptive, critical, and advisory tasks of philosophy of science to examine Karola Stotz and Paul Griffiths' idea that poll-based methodologies can test philosophical analyses of scientific concepts. Using Reichenbach's account as a point of departure, I argue that (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Tom Børsen (2013). Extended Report From Working Group 5: Social Responsibility of Scientists at the 59th Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs in Berlin, 1–4 July 2011. [REVIEW] Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (1):299-308.score: 12.0
    Extended Report from Working Group 5: Social Responsibility of Scientists at the 59th Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs in Berlin, 1–4 July 2011 Content Type Journal Article Pages 1-10 DOI 10.1007/s11948-011-9324-9 Authors Tom Børsen, Department of Learning and Philosophy, Aalborg University, Copenhagen, Lautrupvang 2, DK-2750 Ballerup, Denmark Journal Science and Engineering Ethics Online ISSN 1471-5546 Print ISSN 1353-3452.
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Hakwan Lau, Should Scientists Think?score: 12.0
    In my field of consciousness research, scientists frequently mock philosophers for their apparent uselessness. There are many issues about which philosophers have debated for centuries, and yet there are no satisfying resolutions. However, sometimes one thinks: what really is philosophy but careful thinking? Certainly that cannot be completely useless? It is therefore particularly refreshing to read Machado and Silva's article in this issue, which emphasizes the role of conceptual analysis in psychological research.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Corinna Jung (2009). Towards More Confidence: About the Roles of Social Scientists in Participatory Policy Making. Poiesis and Praxis 6 (1-2):125-129.score: 12.0
    From June 26 to 27, the workshop Ironists, Reformers, or Rebels? The Role of the Social Sciences in Participatory Policy Making took place at the Collegium Helveticum of the UZH/ETH in Zurich. The organisers’ motivation was the apparently missing involvement of social scientists in public engagement processes. This impression persists because, while social scientists often observe public debates or develop participatory methods for public policy-making, they rarely take part in those processes themselves. A closer look at ethics commissions, (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. David Koepsell (2010). On Genies and Bottles: Scientists' Moral Responsibility and Dangerous Technology R&D. Science and Engineering Ethics 16 (1):119-133.score: 12.0
    The age-old maxim of scientists whose work has resulted in deadly or dangerous technologies is: scientists are not to blame, but rather technologists and politicians must be morally culpable for the uses of science. As new technologies threaten not just populations but species and biospheres, scientists should reassess their moral culpability when researching fields whose impact may be catastrophic. Looking at real-world examples such as smallpox research and the Australian “mousepox trick”, and considering fictional or future technologies (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Aaron Sloman, Why Scientists and Philosophers of Science Should Teach Intelligent Design (ID) Alongside the Theory of Evolution.score: 12.0
    This document explains, from the viewpoint of a philosopher/scientist atheist, why intelligent design should be taught alongside standard evolutionary theory. I have been very disappointed by things I have read by scientists recommending suppression of this topic, and even in one case arguing that the worst arguments in favour of ID should be collected together and refuted, which is a prescription for scientific dishonesty. An honest attack would present the best arguments, as cogently as possible, before exposing their flaws. (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Melissa S. Anderson, Emily A. Ronning, Raymond De Vries & Brian C. Martinson (2007). The Perverse Effects of Competition on Scientists' Work and Relationships. Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (4):437-461.score: 12.0
    Competition among scientists for funding, positions and prestige, among other things, is often seen as a salutary driving force in U.S. science. Its effects on scientists, their work and their relationships are seldom considered. Focus-group discussions with 51 mid- and early-career scientists, on which this study is based, reveal a dark side of competition in science. According to these scientists, competition contributes to strategic game-playing in science, a decline in free and open sharing of information and (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. William F. Brewer, Clark A. Chinn & Ala Samarapungavan (1998). Explanation in Scientists and Children. Minds and Machines 8 (1):119-136.score: 12.0
    In this paper we provide a psychological account of the nature and development of explanation. We propose that an explanation is an account that provides a conceptual framework for a phenomenon that leads to a feeling of understanding in the reader/hearer. The explanatory conceptual framework goes beyond the original phenomenon, integrates diverse aspects of the world, and shows how the original phenomenon follows from the framework. We propose that explanations in everyday life are judged on the criteria of (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. William Z. Lidicker Jr (2013). Is the Pursuit of Gold Open Access Good for All Scientists? Bioscience 63 (4):241-241.score: 12.0
    Macilwain's astute article (BioScience 63: 7–11) on the status of open-access publishing is a welcome summary of recent developments and associated major issues being vigorously debated. One gets the strong impression that the big questions are centered on profits for the big corporate publishers and support for this from governmental and private granting institutions. The essay, however, does not explicitly mention the large number of research scientists, from all parts of the world, who are working with little or no (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Gregory Wheeler (2007). Humanists and Scientists. The Reasoner 1 (1).score: 12.0
    C.P. Snow observed that universities are largely made up of two broad types of people, literary intellectuals and scientists, yet a typical individual of each type is barely able, if able at all, to communicate with his counterpart. Snow's observation, popularized in his 1959 lecture Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution (reissued by Cambridge 1993), goes some way to explaining the two distinct cultures one hears referred to as "the humanities" and "the sciences." Snow's lecture is a study of (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Evelyn Fox Keller (2011). What Are Climate Scientists to Do? Spontaneous Generations 5 (1):19-26.score: 12.0
    The campaign to discredit predictions of man-made global warming—originally organized by readily identifiable vested interests—has by now recruited a large popular constituency of declared “skeptics” increasingly disposed to “take a stand”: some of them opposed to government regulation in general, some resistant to any claims to intellectual authority (perhaps especially scientific), and some mobilized by a version of the right to individual freedom of opinion. As a result, confidence in the expertise of scientists has reached an all time low: (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. K. C. Cole (2001). The Hole in the Universe: How Scientists Peered Over the Edge of Emptiness and Found Everything. Harcourt.score: 12.0
    Welcome to the world of cutting-edge math, physics, and neuroscience, where the search for the ultimate vacuum, the point of nothingness, ground zero of theory, has rendered the universe deep, rich, and juicy. "Modern physics has animated the void," says K. C. Cole in her entrancing journey into the heart of Nothing. Every time scientists and mathematicians think they have reached the ultimate void, new stuff appears: a black hole, an undulating string, an additional dimension of space or time, (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. William F. Brewer & Clark A. Chinn (1994). Scientists' Responses to Anomalous Data: Evidence From Psychology, History, and Philosophy of Science. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:304 - 313.score: 12.0
    This paper presents an analysis of the forms of response that scientists make when confronted with anomalous data. We postulate that there are seven ways in which an individual who currently holds a theory can respond to anomalous data: (1) ignore the data; (2) reject the data; (3) exclude the data from the domain of the current theory; (4) hold the data in abeyance; (5) reinterpret the data; (6) make peripheral changes to the current theory; or (7) change the (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Nicholas Evans (2010). Speak No Evil: Scientists, Responsibility, and the Public Understanding of Science. [REVIEW] Nanoethics 4 (3):215-220.score: 12.0
    In this paper, I will discuss the responsibilities that scientists have for ensuring their work is interpreted correctly. I will argue that there are three good reasons for scientists to work to ensure the appropriate communication of their findings. First, I will argue that scientists have a general obligation to ensure scientific research is communicated properly based on the vulnerability of others to the misrepresentation of their work. Second, I will argue that scientists have a special (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Dietmar Braun (2012). Why Do Scientists Migrate? A Diffusion Model. Minerva 50 (4):471-491.score: 12.0
    This article improves our understanding of the reasons underlying the intellectual migration of scientists from existing cognitive domains to nascent scientific fields. To that purpose we present, first, a number of findings from the sociology of science that give different insights about scientific migration. We then attempt to bring some of these insights together under the conceptual roof of an actor-based approach linking expected utility and diffusion theory. Intellectual migration is seen as the choice of scientists who decide (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Matthew K. Chew (2009). The Monstering of Tamarisk: How Scientists Made a Plant Into a Problem. [REVIEW] Journal of the History of Biology 42 (2):231 - 266.score: 12.0
    Dispersal of biota by humans is a hallmark of civilization, but the results are often unforeseen and sometimes costly. Like kudzu vine in the American South, some examples become the stuff of regional folklore. In recent decades, "invasion biology," conservation-motivated scientists and their allies have focused largely on the most negative outcomes and often promoted the perception that introduced species are monsters. However, cases of monstering by scientists preceded the rise of popular environmentalism. The story of tamarisk (Tamarix (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Christine Leeb (2011). The Concept of Animal Welfare at the Interface Between Producers and Scientists: The Example of Organic Pig Farming. Acta Biotheoretica 59 (2):173-183.score: 12.0
    In organic farming animal welfare is one important aspect included in the internationally agreed organic principles of health, ecology, fairness and care (IFOAM 2006), reflecting expectation of consumers and farmers. The definition of organic animal welfare includes—besides traditional terms of animal welfare—‘regeneration’ and ‘naturalness’. Organic animal welfare assessment needs to reflect this and use complex parameters, include natural behaviour and a systemic view. Furthermore, various parties with seemingly conflicting interests are involved, causing ethical dilemmas, such as the use of nose (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. E. B. Davies (2003). Science in the Looking Glass: What Do Scientists Really Know? Oxford University Press.score: 12.0
    In this wide-ranging book, Brian Davies discusses the basis for scientists' claims to knowledge about the world. He looks at science historically, emphasizing not only the achievements of scientists from Galileo onwards, but also their mistakes. He rejects the claim that all scientific knowledge is provisional, by citing examples from chemistry, biology and geology. A major feature of the book is its defense of the view that mathematics was invented rather than discovered. A large number of examples are (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. James J. Dooley & Helen M. Kerch (2000). Evolving Research Misconduct Policies and Their Significance for Physical Scientists. Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (1):109-121.score: 12.0
    Scientific misconduct includes the fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP) of concepts, data or ideas; some institutions in the United States have expanded this concept to include “other serious deviations (OSD) from accepted research practice.” It is the absence of this OSD clause that distinguishes scientific misconduct policies of the past from the “research misconduct” policies that should be the basis of future federal policy in this area. This paper introduces a standard for judging whether an action should be considered research (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Jocelyn Grunwell, Judy Illes & Katrina Karkazis (2009). Advancing Neuroregenerative Medicine: A Call for Expanded Collaboration Between Scientists and Ethicists. Neuroethics 2 (1):13-20.score: 12.0
    To date, ethics discussions about stem cell research overwhelmingly have centered on the morality and acceptability of using human embryonic stem cells. Governments in many jurisdictions have now answered these “first-level questions” and many have now begun to address ethical issues related to the donation of cells, gametes, or embryos for research. In this commentary, we move beyond these ethical concerns to discuss new themes that scientists on the forefront of NRM development anticipate, providing a preliminary framework for further (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Mercy Kamara (2009). The Typology of the Game That American, British, and Danish Crop and Plant Scientists Play. Minerva 47 (4):441-463.score: 12.0
    Drawing from contemporary social science studies on the shifting regime of research governance, this paper extends the literature by utilizing a metaphoric image—research is a game—observed in a field engagement with 82 American, British, and Danish crop and plant scientists. It theorizes respondents’ thinking and practices by placing the rules of the research game in dynamic and interactive tension between the scientific, social, and political-economic contingencies that generate opportunities or setbacks. Scientists who play the game exploit opportunities and (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Neil Levy (2010). Scientists and the Folk Have the Same Concepts. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (4):344.score: 12.0
    If Knobe is right that ordinary judgments are normatively suffused, how do scientists free themselves from these influences? I suggest that because science is distributed and externalized, its claims can be manipulated in ways that allow normative influences to be hived off. This allows scientists to deploy concepts which are not normatively suffused. I suggest that there are good reasons to identify these normatively neutral concepts with the folk concepts.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Mathieu Albert, Suzanne Laberge & Brian Hodges (2009). Boundary-Work in the Health Research Field: Biomedical and Clinician Scientists' Perceptions of Social Science Research. [REVIEW] Minerva 47 (2):171-194.score: 12.0
    Funding agencies in Canada are attempting to break down the organizational boundaries between disciplines to promote interdisciplinary research and foster the integration of the social sciences into the health research field. This paper explores the extent to which biomedical and clinician scientists’ perceptions of social science research operate as a cultural boundary to the inclusion of social scientists into this field. Results indicated that cultural boundaries may impede social scientists’ entry into the health research field through three (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Till Grüne-Yanoff (2014). Teaching Philosophy of Science to Scientists: Why, What and How. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 4 (1):115-134.score: 12.0
    This paper provides arguments to philosophers, scientists, administrators and students for why science students should be instructed in a mandatory, custom-designed, interdisciplinary course in the philosophy of science. The argument begins by diagnosing that most science students are taught only conventional methodology: a fixed set of methods whose justification is rarely addressed. It proceeds by identifying seven benefits that scientists incur from going beyond these conventions and from acquiring abilities to analyse and evaluate justifications of scientific methods. It (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 1000