Sustainability science, as described by the PNAS website, is “…an emerging field of research dealing with the interactions between natural and social systems, and with how those interactions affect the challenge of sustainability: meeting the needs of present and future generations while substantially reducing poverty and conserving the planet's life support systems.” Over the past 7 y, PNAS has published over 300 papers in its unique section on sustainability science and has received and reviewed submissions for many hundreds more. What kind of a science is sustainability science?
The concepts of sustainable development have experienced extraordinary success since their advent in the 1980s. They are now an integral part of the agenda of governments and corporations, and their goals have become central to the mission of research laboratories and universities worldwide. However, it remains unclear how far the field has progressed as a scientific discipline, especially given its ambitious agenda of integrating theory, applied science, and policy, making it relevant for development globally and generating a new interdisciplinary synthesis across fields. To address these
In a sustainable world, human needs would be met without chronic harm to the environment and without sacrificing the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Addressing the grand challenge of sustainability, the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) has developed a coordinated research and education framework, called the Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability (SEES) portfolio (http://www.nsf.gov/sees). The growing family of SEES activities, currently consisting of 11 programs, represents a major interdisciplinary investment by NSF that reflects the following topical
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Tim KilleenBen Van Der PluumMarge Cavanaugh
The National Science Foundation (NSF) supports the most meritorious ideas submitted as proposals from researchers and educators in all fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Creating opportunities and developing innovative strategies to broaden participation among diverse individuals, institutions, and geographic areas are critical to the NSF mission of identifying and funding work at the leading edge of discovery. The creative engagement of diverse ideas and perspectives is essential to enabling the transformative research that invigorates our nation’s scientific
The purpose of this document is to build on best practices and offer new approaches toward creating "a bold new initiative" to augment the Foundation's ongoing efforts to increase participation in STEM from underrepresented groups.
Science and technology are embedded in virtually every aspect of modern life. As a result, people face an increasing need to integrate information from science with their personal values and other considerations as they make important life decisions about medical care, the safety of foods, what to do about climate change, and many other issues. Communicating science effectively, however, is a complex task and an acquired skill. Moreover, the approaches to communicating science that will be most effective for specific audiences and circumstances are not obvious. Fortunately, there is an
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
Framing ‘science and society’ as a conflict has diverted us from more important problems. Our economic environment urges the commercialisation and social acceptance of new technologies, and science communicators and their publics contribute work to these ends. These activities neglect existing, uncontroversial technologies that, in a collaboration between responsible scientists and their publics, could be deployed to address global problems.
How did industrial museums cross the Atlantic? When the first American museums of science and industry were created in the 1920s, they looked to Europe in order to import what was seen at that time as a burgeoning cultural institution. In this article, I look at this process of appropriation through an analysis of the changing perceptions of European industrial museums as expressed in the reports, surveys and books written by the curators, directors and trustees of the New York Museum of Science and Industry. I will pay particular attention to the 1927 film Museums of the New Age, documenting
Peter Weingart and Lars Guenther have written a short but nevertheless comprehensive stock-taking of science communication and the issue of trust. I fully agree with almost all of their theoretical and critical observations. My aim is to critically discuss the understanding of trust as expressed in the traditional discourse on science communication. From my point of view, this concept of trust in science reveals severe shortcomings. As a consequence, communication strategies following this concept could even jeopardize trust in science.
Peter Weingart and Lars Guenther suggest that the public's trust in science has become endangered due to a new ecology of science communication. An implicit theoretical base of their argument is that the integrity of science as an institution depends on the integrity of science as a profession. My comment aims to reconstruct and question this specific institutional understanding of science. I argue that rust in technologies of knowledge production might be a potential equivalent to trust in professions.
Trust in science is, to a considerable extent, the outcome of communication. News and online media in particular are important mediators of trust in science. So far, however, conceptual works on mediated trust in science are lacking. Taking a cue from Weingart & Guenther, this commentary proposes a concept of mediated trust in science and for its measurement, and shows where it could be used in the science of science communication.
Science communication, whether internally or to the general public depends on trust, both trust in the source and trust in the medium of communication. With the new 'ecology of communication' this trust is endangered. On the one hand the very term of science communication has been captured by many different actors (e.g., governments, PR experts, universities and research institutions, science journalists, and bloggers) apart from scientists themselves to whom science communication means different things and whose communication is tainted by special interests. Some of these actors are probably