| Letter from the Editor |
|
|
|
Dear Reader, 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). |
