Editor's Introduction

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Acknowledgements

Thanks to all the participants of the August 2007 workshop in Golden, Colorado, USA (http://www.ndsciencehumanitiespolicy.org/workshop/index.php). The conversation begun then is continuing and widening in scope. In particular, however, I would like to single out the members of the organizing committee, Mark Frankel, Robert Frodeman, and Carl Mitcham for their invaluable contributions to making the workshop a success. All three have also continued to foster the research program we began together in 2007. Mark Frankel, Director of the Scientific Freedom, Responsibility & Law Program of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, graciously agreed to co‐sponsor the workshop. The Hennebach Program in the Humanities in the Division of Liberal Arts and International Studies at the Colorado School of Mines provided significant financial and logistical support for the workshop. I thank Robert Frodeman, Steve Fuller, and Carl Mitcham for their contributions in making this special issue come to fruition. Special thanks are also extended to Steven Hrotic for his excellent work formatting the articles. I also thank NSF because, as one says officially, this material is based upon work supported by NSF under Grant No. 064957. The opinions expressed in this special issue of Social Epistemology are solely those of the authors, however, and do not necessarily represent the view of NSF.

Notes

[1] The US National Institutes of Health recently changed the scoring system used in its peer review process to include an “impact score”, but this score is used to determine impact on science rather than societal impact. The US National Institutes of Health does consider societal impact, however, in the second tier of its review system with the involvement of members of the public on its Advisory Councils/Boards. Agencies worldwide have adopted various strategies for integrating SI considerations into their funding decision process, with many following NSF’s lead and integrating SI criteria into peer review. See http://www.csid.unt.edu/research/capr.html.

[2] Available at http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=404997 (accessed 23 September 2009).