第五部門(mén)

前言

　　1945年8月6日投放在日本廣島的原子彈不僅奪去了很多生命，毀壞了大量建筑，同時(shí)也粉碎了科學(xué)家能在他們創(chuàng)造的知識(shí)使用中置身事外的神話(huà)。幾位杰出的物理學(xué)家就原子彈投放地點(diǎn)向戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)部長(zhǎng)亨利·劉易斯·史汀生提供了建議，他們的名字被不光彩地載入了史冊(cè)。這些災(zāi)難性事件之后，提供科學(xué)咨詢(xún)隨即變成一個(gè)更為平凡和普及的過(guò)程。盡管這一過(guò)程很少被公之于眾，也幾乎沒(méi)有受到相應(yīng)的監(jiān)督，但它對(duì)我們?nèi)粘Ｉ畹挠绊憛s與日俱增。譬如，我們是否可以食用超市里的蘋(píng)果、使用發(fā)膠、在市中心駕車(chē)、焚毀垃圾、生產(chǎn)核能或?qū)⑥D(zhuǎn)基因生物投放到生態(tài)系統(tǒng)中等等。對(duì)于這類(lèi)問(wèn)題，我們希望政治決策者能征求專(zhuān)家們的意見(jiàn)，但幾乎沒(méi)有人進(jìn)一步了解具體是哪些專(zhuān)家在提供咨詢(xún)意見(jiàn)，他們對(duì)公共政策的影響又有多大?！　”緯?shū)旨在揭開(kāi)現(xiàn)代科學(xué)咨詢(xún)過(guò)程的面紗，使其成為公共政策分析的焦點(diǎn)——這是它理所當(dāng)然的位置。我從1985年起開(kāi)始對(duì)科學(xué)顧問(wèn)委員會(huì)的作用進(jìn)行調(diào)查研究，當(dāng)時(shí)正值政府機(jī)構(gòu)的科學(xué)公信力遭到政治左翼與右翼的質(zhì)疑。他們普遍認(rèn)為監(jiān)管者在制定有關(guān)健康、安全和環(huán)境的政策時(shí)，沒(méi)有付出足夠的努力去獲取高質(zhì)量的科學(xué)建議，還指責(zé)聯(lián)邦政府故意將政治與科學(xué)混為一談。他們一致認(rèn)為，獨(dú)立的科學(xué)共同體應(yīng)該發(fā)揮更為積極的作用，以使監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)的官員能遵循更高標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的科學(xué)問(wèn)責(zé)制。

內(nèi)容概要

本書(shū)為“決策科學(xué)化譯叢”之一，批判了指導(dǎo)監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)運(yùn)用科學(xué)知識(shí)的兩種普遍公認(rèn)的范式——“民主論”模式和“技術(shù)統(tǒng)治論”模式，并通過(guò)研究美國(guó)環(huán)保局、美國(guó)食品藥品監(jiān)督局的相關(guān)案例，如致癌原風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)估指南的制定過(guò)程、甲醛的監(jiān)管問(wèn)題等，闡釋并評(píng)價(jià)了美國(guó)社會(huì)作出關(guān)于科學(xué)和技術(shù)選擇的決策過(guò)程，討論了咨詢(xún)委員會(huì)以外的其他決策咨詢(xún)機(jī)制，并就如何提高科學(xué)咨詢(xún)的質(zhì)量提出了建設(shè)性設(shè)想。

作者簡(jiǎn)介

Sheila Jasanoff is an American academic and significant contributor to the field of Science and Technology Studies. She is Pforzheimer Professor of Science and Technology Studies at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, where she directs the Program on Science, Technology, & Society. [1] Her research focuses on science and the state in contemporary democratic societies. Her work is relevant to science & technology studies, comparative politics, law and society, political and legal anthropology, and policy analysis. Jasanoff’s research has considerable empirical breadth, spanning the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, the European Union, and India, as well as emerging global regimes in areas such as climate and biotechnology.
One line of Jasanoff’s work demonstrates how the political culture of different democratic societies influences how they assess evidence and expertise in policymaking. Her first book (with Brickman and Ilgen), Controlling Chemicals (1985), examines the regulation of toxic substances in the United States, Germany, and the United Kingdom.[2] The book showed how the routines of decision making in these countries reflected different conceptions of what counts as evidence and of how expertise should operate in a policy context. In Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States (2005), she has shown how different societies employ different modes of public reasoning when making decisions involving science and technology. [3] These differences, which in part reflect distinct "civic epistemologies," are deeply embedded in institutions and shape how policy issues are framed and processed by the bureaucratic machinery of modern states.
Jasanoff has also contributed to scholarship on the interaction of science and law. Science at the Bar (1995), for example, reached beyond the prevailing diagnoses of structural incompatibilities between science and law to explore how these socially-embedded institutions interact and, to a certain extent, mutually constitute each other. [4] The concept of regulatory science, conducted for the purposes of meeting legally-mandated standards, and the "boundary" drawing activities of science advisory committees are analyzed in The Fifth Branch (1990).[5] More recently, she has explored the "rise of the statistical victim" in toxic torts, as the law with its individualistic orientation has increasingly encountered, and sought ways to accommodate, the statistical vision of such fields as epidemiology.[6] In her work on science and law, as well as her research on science in the state, she takes an approach that links ideas from constitutional law, political theory, and science studies to consider the "constitutional" role of science in modern democratic states.[7]
Jasanoff has considered the politics of science not only in a comparative but also in a global context. Examples include her work on the transnational aspects of the Bhopal disaster (Learning from Disaster 1994); her research on the formation and politics of global scientific advisory bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; and her research on national and global environmental movements (e.g., Earthy Politics, 2004).
Jasanoff also has contributed to building Science and Technology Studies as a field. Prior to moving to Harvard, she was the founding chair of the Department of Science & Technology Studies at Cornell University. She is also the founder of the Science & Democracy Network, a group of scholars interested in the study of science and the state in democratic societies that has met annually since 2002. Her research has been recognized with many awards, including the Bernal Prize from the Society for Social Studies of Science.
She is married to Jay Jasanoff, and has two children, Maya Jasanoff, who is an associate professor in the Department of History at Harvard, Alan Jasanoff, is a neuroscientist at MIT.

書(shū)籍目錄

第1章  政治理性化  社會(huì)管制的興起  科學(xué)與政策制定  專(zhuān)業(yè)能力與信任  知識(shí)的偶然性  改革的爭(zhēng)論  一個(gè)替代方案第2章  有瑕疵的決策  亞硝酸鹽事件  2、4、5-涕事件  拉夫運(yùn)河事件  職業(yè)性癌癥評(píng)估  技術(shù)統(tǒng)治論者的反應(yīng)  批判性反駁第3章  有益于人民的科學(xué)  公共科學(xué)的基本原理  “新興”專(zhuān)家機(jī)構(gòu)  科學(xué)咨詢(xún)與政務(wù)公開(kāi)  科學(xué)政策的司法審查  科學(xué)政策范式的弱化第4章  同行評(píng)議與管制科學(xué)  同行評(píng)議的傳統(tǒng)  實(shí)踐中的同行評(píng)議制度  失誤的啟示  管制科學(xué)的內(nèi)容與背景  監(jiān)管領(lǐng)域同行評(píng)議的含義第5章  美國(guó)環(huán)保局及其科學(xué)顧問(wèn)委員會(huì)  早期的政治挑戰(zhàn)  一項(xiàng)新的合作  劃界行為  科學(xué)顧問(wèn)委員會(huì)對(duì)政策的影響  結(jié)論第6章  清潔空氣的科學(xué)與政策  清潔空氣科學(xué)顧問(wèn)委員會(huì)和國(guó)家空氣質(zhì)量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)程序  科學(xué)與標(biāo)準(zhǔn)  重新定義清潔空氣科學(xué)顧問(wèn)委員會(huì)的角色  一氧化碳的爭(zhēng)論  清潔空氣科學(xué)顧問(wèn)委員會(huì)的作用：鏈接科學(xué)與政策第7章  當(dāng)顧問(wèn)成為敵人  科學(xué)顧問(wèn)小組  執(zhí)行不可能的任務(wù)  二溴乙烷  三氯殺螨醇事件  丁酰肼  權(quán)威的破碎第8章  美國(guó)食品藥品監(jiān)督局的咨詢(xún)網(wǎng)絡(luò)  對(duì)藥物的科學(xué)評(píng)估  專(zhuān)家意見(jiàn)和食物安全  咨詢(xún)意見(jiàn)和決策第9章  應(yīng)對(duì)新知識(shí)  探求有原則的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)估  甲醛：一個(gè)不確定的致癌原   結(jié)論第10章  再論技術(shù)統(tǒng)治論  面向科學(xué)的公私伙伴關(guān)系  沒(méi)有政治的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)估    公眾質(zhì)詢(xún)委員會(huì)  廣泛的應(yīng)用第11章  好科學(xué)的政治功能  從咨詢(xún)到政策  可接受的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)  科學(xué)咨詢(xún)的合法化：協(xié)商及劃界活動(dòng)  定義“好科學(xué)”  規(guī)范意義結(jié)論譯后記

章節(jié)摘錄

　　在1983～1984年召開(kāi)的一系列關(guān)于殺蟲(chóng)劑注冊(cè)的聽(tīng)證會(huì)上，眾議院政府運(yùn)作委員會(huì)的一個(gè)分委員會(huì)聽(tīng)取了有關(guān)美國(guó)環(huán)保局如何處理三氯殺螨醇的證詞，自此三氯殺螨醇開(kāi)始受到政治關(guān)注。②在這個(gè)系列聽(tīng)證中，環(huán)保利益集團(tuán)明顯要比農(nóng)業(yè)利益集團(tuán)更具影響力。該分委員會(huì)的成員表示了極大的憂(yōu)慮，因?yàn)樗麄儼l(fā)現(xiàn)，從美國(guó)環(huán)保局禁用DDT到發(fā)現(xiàn)三氯殺螨醇的制備劑也被相關(guān)化合物污染之間發(fā)生了不合理的延遲。1957年開(kāi)始，三氯殺螨醇制造商就向政府提交秘密報(bào)告，證明DDT是一種雜質(zhì)。然而，這一事實(shí)直到美國(guó)環(huán)保局在1979年發(fā)起對(duì)三氯殺螨醇的注冊(cè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)評(píng)審時(shí)，才被正式公告。③根據(jù)美國(guó)環(huán)保局自己的規(guī)定，DDT作為一種禁用物質(zhì)，一旦出現(xiàn)，僅此就足夠啟動(dòng)可駁回注冊(cè)假定評(píng)審；但事實(shí)上，直到美國(guó)環(huán)保局完成了三氯殺螨醇的注冊(cè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)程序，它仍在觀望。國(guó)會(huì)的調(diào)查人員對(duì)美國(guó)環(huán)保局的“只有先完成注冊(cè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，才能作出更有效的行政決策”的說(shuō)法不屑一顧。在要求對(duì)三氯殺螨醇采取實(shí)際行動(dòng)的壓力之下，1984年末美國(guó)環(huán)保局發(fā)出通知取消了這種殺蟲(chóng)劑的注冊(cè)資格。

編輯推薦

　　“決策科學(xué)化譯叢”是中國(guó)第一套系統(tǒng)研究科學(xué)咨詢(xún)的理論與實(shí)踐的譯叢。本譯叢收入了當(dāng)前國(guó)際科學(xué)咨詢(xún)領(lǐng)域的10部名著，從政治學(xué)、社會(huì)學(xué)、歷史學(xué)和哲學(xué)等不同的學(xué)科視角，對(duì)科學(xué)家的社會(huì)責(zé)任、科學(xué)咨詢(xún)的演進(jìn)過(guò)程及制度設(shè)計(jì)等方面進(jìn)行了深入探討，有助于科研院所、科學(xué)團(tuán)體以及專(zhuān)門(mén)決策咨詢(xún)機(jī)構(gòu)有效參與政府決策咨詢(xún)過(guò)程，推進(jìn)我國(guó)決策科學(xué)化和科學(xué)咨詢(xún)事業(yè)的發(fā)展。

圖書(shū)封面

圖書(shū)標(biāo)簽Tags

無(wú)

評(píng)論、評(píng)分、閱讀與下載

---

    第五部門(mén) PDF格式下載

---