Science, governance and self-understanding: from anthropocentricism to ecocentrism?

References

• BAAS ( British Association for the Advancement of Science), 2005. Connecting science: what we know and what we don’t know about science in society. London: British Association for the Advancement of Science. Available from: http://www.britishscienceassociation.org/NR/rdonlyres/CE852B1D-7699-43A1-91C4-382DB5877D45/0/ConnectingScience_review.pdf [Accessed 12 January 2010].
   Google Scholar
• Bäckstrand, K., 2003. Civic science for sustainability: reframing the role of experts, policy-makers and citizens in environmental governance. Global environmental politics, 3 (4), 24–41.
   Google Scholar
• Bäckstrand, K., 2004. Scientisation vs. civic enterprise in environmental governance: eco-feminist, eco-modern and post-modern responses. Environmental politics, 13 (4), 695–714.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnett, M. and Duvall R., eds, 2005. Power in global governance. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, U., 1992. Risk society: towards a new modernity. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Benestad, R.E. and Schmidt, G.A., 2009. Solar trends and global warming. Journal of geophysical research, 114, D14101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bevir, M. and Rhodes, R.A.W., 2001. A decentred theory of governance: rational choice, institutionalism and interpretation. Working paper, 2001–10, Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California. Available from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/0bw2p1gp [Accessed 6 February 2014].
   Google Scholar
• Bishop, J.M., 2003. How to win the Nobel Prize. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Boden, R., et al., 2003. Scrutinising science: the changing UK government of science. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Bohm, D., 2002. Wholeness and the implicate order. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Boudourides, M.A., 2002. Governance in science and technology. Paper given at the EASST 2002 Conference, 31 July–3 August, University of York.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, G.E. Jr, 1993. The objectivity crisis. Science and technology policy yearbook, 1992. Washington, DC: AAAS.
   Google Scholar
• Brubaker, R. and Cooper, F., 2000. Beyond ‘identity’. Theory and society, 29, 1–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chilvers, J., 2010. Sustainable participation? Mapping out and reflecting on the field of public dialogue on science and technology. Harwell: Sciencewise Expert Resource Centre.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, H. and Pinch, T., 1993. The golem: what everyone should know about science. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cotgrove, S. and Box, S., 1970. Science, industry and society: studies in the sociology of science. London: George Allen and Unwin.
   Google Scholar
• Cox, B., 2010. Science: a challenge to TV orthodoxy. Hugh Weldon Memorial Lecture. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00wfnqg [Accessed 21 June 2011].
   Google Scholar
• Cozzens, S.E., et al., 1990. The research system in transition. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Curry, P., 2011. Ecological ethics: an introduction. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• De La Mothe, J., 2001. Introduction. In: J. de la Moth, ed. Science, technology and governance. London: Routledge, 3–12.
   Google Scholar
• Du Gay, P., 2007. Organizing identity. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Eckersley, R., 1992. Environmentalism and political theory: toward an ecocentric approach. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Eckersley, R., 2004. The green state: rethinking democracy and sovereignty. Boston MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, P.N. and Schneider, S.H., 2001. Self-governance and peer review in science-for-policy: the case of the IPCC second assessment report. In: C. Miller and P.N. Edwards, eds. Changing the atmosphere: expert knowledge and environmental governance. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 219–246.
   Google Scholar
• Eels, R.S.F., 1960. The meaning of modern business: an introduction to the philosophy of large corporate enterprise. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Elam, M. and Bertilsson, M., 2003. Consuming, engaging and confronting science: the emerging dimensions of scientific citizenship. STAGE (Science, Technology and Governance in Europe), Discussion Paper One. European journal of social theory, 6 (2), 233–251.
   Google Scholar
• Frickel, S. and Moore K., eds, 2006. The new political sociology of science: Institutions, networks and power. Madison: University of Winconsin Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fuller, S., 2000. The governance of science: ideology and the future of the open society. Buckingham: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Funtowicz, S. and Ravetz, J.R., 2008. Post-normal science. Encyclopedia of earth 1–7. Available from: http://www.eoearth.org/article/Post-Normal_Science [Accessed 14 January 2010].
   Google Scholar
• Funtowicz, S.O. and Ravetz, J.R., 1995. Science for the post normal age. In: L. Westra and J. Lemons, eds. Perspectives on ecological integrity. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 146–161.
   Google Scholar
• Galison, P. and Hevly, B., 1992. Big science: growth of large-scale research. Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Galison, P. and Stump, D.J., eds, 1996. The disunity of science: Boundaries, contexts and power. Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gardiner, S., 2011. A perfect moral storm: the ethical tragedy of climate change. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbons, M., 2001. Governance and the new production of knowledge. In: J. De La Mothe, ed. Science, technology and governance. London: Routledge, 33–50.
   Google Scholar
• Gieryn, T.F., 1983. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American sociological review, 48 (6), 781–795.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilbert, G.N. and Mulkay, M., 1984. Opening Pandora’s box: a sociological analysis of scientists' discourse. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Guillemin, J., 2006. Scientists and the history of biological weapons. EMBO reports, 7, S45–S49.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• G8 + 5 Academies’ joint statement, 2009. Climate change and the transformation of energy technologies for a low carbon future. Available from: http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf [Accessed 6 February 2014].
   Google Scholar
• Hagendijk, R. and Kallerud, E., 2003. Changing conceptions and practices of governance in science and technology in Europe: a framework for analysis. STAGE (Science, Technology and Governance in Europe), Discussion Paper Two. Available from: http://www.stage-research.net/STAGE/downloads/StageDiscussPaper2.pdf [Accessed 6 February 2014].
   Google Scholar
• Harding, S., 1986. The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harding, S., ed., 1993. The racial economy of science. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Haywood, C.T., 2000. De-facing power. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hirst, P., 2000. Democracy and governance. In: J. Pierre, ed. Debating governance. Oxford University Press, 13–35.
   Google Scholar
• Hoggan, J. and Littlemore, R., 2009. Climate cover-up: the crusade to deny global warming. London: Greystone Books.
   Google Scholar
• Knorr-Cetina, K., 1999. Epistemic cultures: how the sciences make knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lacey, H., 1999. Is science value-free? London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lahsen, M., 2008. Experiences of modernity in the greenhouse: a cultural analysis of a physicist ‘trio’ supporting the backlash against global warming. Global environmental change, 18, 204–219.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lahsen, M., 2013. Anatomy of dissent: a cultural analysis of climate skepticism. American behavioral scientist, 57 (6), 732–753.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lash, S., Szerszynski, B., and Wynne, B., 1996. Risk, environment and modernity: towards a new ecology. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. and Woolgar, S., 1979. Laboratory life: the social construction of scientific facts. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Levidow, L. and Morris, C., 2001. Science and governance in Europe: lessons from the case of agricultural biotechnology. Science and public policy, 28 (5), 345–360.
   Google Scholar
• Lyall, C. and Tait, J., eds, 2005. New modes of governance: developing an integrated policy approach to science. Aldershot: Gower.
   Google Scholar
• Merchant, C., 1990. The death of nature: women, ecology and the scientific. San Francisco, CA: Harper.
   Google Scholar
• Merton, R.K., 1969. The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mirowski, P., 2011. Science-mart. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, K., 2008. Disrupting science: social movements, American scientists, and the politics of the military, 1945–1975. Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mouffe, C., 2000. The democratic paradox. London: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Nowotny, H., 2005. The changing nature of public science. In: H. Nowotny et al., eds. The public nature of science under assault: politics, markets, science and the law. Berlin: Springer, 1–28.
   Google Scholar
• Nowotny, H., et al., eds, 2005. The public nature of science under assault: politics, markets, science and the law. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, 2009. Postnote: the dual use dilemma, July, Number 340. Available from: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn340.pdf [Accessed 22 December 2010].
   Google Scholar
• Perry, B., 2007. The multi-level governance of science policy in England. Regional studies, 41 (8), 1051–1067.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rhodes, R.A.W., 1996. The new governance: governing without government. Political studies, XLIV, 652–667.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rhodes, R.A.W., 2011. Everyday life in British government. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rouse, J., 1992. What are cultural studies of scientific knowledge? Configurations, 1 (1), 57–64.
   Google Scholar
• The Royal Society, 2009. Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty. London: The Royal Society.
   Google Scholar
• Scarfetta, N. and West, B.J., 2007. Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the northern hemisphere surface temperature records since 1600. Journal of geophysical research, 112, D24S03.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scarfetta, N. and West, B.J., 2008. Is climate sensitive to solar variability? Physics today, March, 50–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shapin, S., 2008. The scientific life: a moral history of a late modern vocation. Chicago University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shapin, S., 2010. Never pure. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sikka, T., 2012. A critical discourse analysis of geoengineering advocacy. Critical discourse studies, 9 (2), 163–175.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singer, S.F. and Avery, D.T., 2007. Unstoppable global warming. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Sokal, A., 2008. Beyond the hoax: science, philosophy and culture. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Strauss, A. and Rainwater, L., 1962. The professional scientist: a study of American chemists. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
   Google Scholar
• Sundqvist, G., 2004. Constrained deliberation: public involvement in Swedish nuclear waste management. Discussion Paper 25, Science, Technology and Governance in Europe, Department of Science and Technology Studies, Göteborg University.
   Google Scholar
• Turner, G.M., 2008. A comparison of the limits to growth with 30 years of reality. Global environmental change, 18 (3), 397–411.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turnpenny, J., Lorenzoni, I., and Jones, M., 2009. Noisy and definitely not normal: responding to wicked issues in the environment, energy and health. Environmental science & policy, 12 (3), 347–358.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitley, R. and Gläser J., eds, 2007. The changing governance of the sciences: the advent of research evaluation systems. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Wong, S.L. and Hodson, D., 2008. From the horse’s mouth: what scientists say about scientific investigation and scientific knowledge. Science education, 93 (21), 109–130.
   Google Scholar
• Wynne, B., 2003. Seasick on the third wave? Subverting the hegemony of propositionalism: response to Collins and Evans, 2002. Social studies of science, 33 (3), 401–417.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Žižek, S., 1989. The sublime object of ideology. London: Verso.
   Google Scholar