Since the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) published a report
on alleged misuses of science in policymaking, the Bush administration
has had to contend with the accusation by vocal parts of the scientific
community that not everything is as it should be when it comes to
science’s integrity in policymaking. Since this debate carries an
importance and significance that goes well beyond the immediate
incidents and is of interest to other nations, many of which have
modeled their approach to science & technology policy on the U.S.,
we have decided to report more extensively on this controversial issue.
In looking at the debate’s genesis, its continued momentum, the
arguments that both sides bring to the fore, and at what scholars of
S&T policy have to say on the matter, we were lucky in being
granted interviews with a number of the people who have played decisive
roles in this debate. You can read the results in the article
“Pandora’s box – bringing science into politics.” This article is
complemented by contributions on John Marburger, the science advisor to
President George W. Bush, and David Goldston, the Republican chief of
staff of the House Science Committee. Turning our attention to the
realm of scientific advice in international policymaking, Ilona Aberl
writes about the work of the International Institute of Applied Systems
Analysis (IIASA).
"We are witnessing an assault on the
basic principle that science should inform policy, not echo a political
agenda," claimed Congressman Henry Waxman, a Democrat from California,
before a group of science writers on February 14, 2005. Waxman’s
statement was made at the annual conference of the national association
of science writers (NASW) and preceded an address given by John
Marburger, science advisor to President George W. Bush [see article in this bridges issue "John Marburger: A Practical Scientist Advising the President"]. In his speech, John Marburger did not refer at all to
Waxman’s unequivocal criticism of the administration.
“The fight will be a bloody one,” said Richard Escritt, chief architect
for the 7th Framework Programme (FP7) of the European Union, at a press
conference on the occasion of the annual meeting of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in February 2005. If
Europe wants to realize its self-imposed goal of becoming the world’s most
competitive knowledge-based society by 2010, investment in research
needs reinforcement. Nevertheless, the demand by DG Research to double
Europe’s research and innovation budget will face strong challenges,
mainly from its agricultural counterparts.
Embryonic stem (ES) cell research became a major issue in the 2004 presidential election [see bridges vol. 4 article “When Politics and Science Collide”
by Johann Sattler], and has remained one of the most discussed and
hotly debated issues in U.S. science policy. Although federal
regulation on funding ES cell research hasn’t changed since the Bush
decision in 2001, several States already have or soon will pass their
own – widely varying – legislation on how to handle ES cell research
within their state borders.
Introduction and background
The 1995 signing of the Dayton Peace Accords affecting Croatia,
Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Serbia, and the subsequent NATO occupation of
Kosovo in 1999, brought an end to armed conflict within the former
Yugoslavia. By the end of the wars, an estimated 250,000 persons were
dead and another 40,000 were missing and presumed dead. In 1996, the
International Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP) was created at the
G-7 Summit in Lyon, France to help resolve the fate of missing persons
within the former Yugoslavia.
