Knowledge kills action – why principles should play a limited role in policy-making

References

• Beauchamp, Tom, and James Childress. 1979. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bozeman, Barry, and Craig Boardman. 2009. “Broad Impacts and Narrow Perspectives: Passing the Buck on Science and Social Impacts.” Special Issue: Social Epistemology: US National Science Foundation's Broader Impacts Criterion 23 (3–4): 183–198.
   Google Scholar
• Briggle, Adam. 2009. “The Kass Council and the Politicization of Ethics Advice.” Social Studies of Science 39 (2): 309–326. doi: 10.1177/0306312708101048
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briggle, Adam. 2013. “Let Politics, Not Science Decide the Fate of Fracking.” Slate, March 12. http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/03/12/fracking_bans_let_politics_not_science_decide.html.
   Google Scholar
• Briggle, Adam, Robert Frodeman, and J. Britt Holbrook. 2006. “Introducing a Policy Turn in Environmental Philosophy.” Environmental Philosophy 3 (1): 70–77. doi: 10.5840/envirophil2006317
   Google Scholar
• Brown, Mark. 2009. Science in Democracy: Expertise, Institutions, and Representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Callahan, Daniel. 1973. “Bioethics as a Discipline.” Hasting Center Studies 1 (1): 66–73. doi: 10.2307/3527474
   Google Scholar
• Clark, Tim. 2002. The Policy Process: A Practical Guide for Natural Resource Professionals. London: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clouser, K. Danner, and Bernard Gert. 1990. “A Critique of Principlism.” The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 15 (2): 219–236. doi: 10.1093/jmp/15.2.219
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins, H. M., and Robert Evans. 2002. “The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience.” Social Studies of Science 32 (2): 235–296. http://sss.sagepub.com/content/32/2/235.short. doi: 10.1177/0306312702032002003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins, H. M., and Robert Evans. 2007. Rethinking Expertise. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, Michael, and Kelly Laas. 2013. “‘Broader Impacts’ or ‘Responsible Research and Innovation’? A Comparison of Two Criteria for Funding Research in Science and Engineering.” Science and Engineering Ethics 1–21. doi:10.1007/s11948-013-9480-1. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11948-013-9480-1
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Douglas, Heather. 2009. Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
   Google Scholar
• Elliott, Kevin C. 2011. Is a Little Pollution Good for You? Incorporating Societal Values in Environmental Research. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2000. Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle, COM 1. Brussels: EC.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, John. 2006. “Between Technocracy and Democratic Legitimation: A Proposed Compromise Position for Common Morality Public Bioethics.” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 31 (3): 213–234. doi: 10.1080/03605310600712834
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ezrahi, Yaron. 1990. The Descent of Icarus: Science and the Transformation of Contemporary Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, Frank. 1990. Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, Frank. 2000. Citizens, Experts, and the Environment. London: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, Frank. 2009. Democracy and Expertise: Reorienting Policy Inquiry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Foster, K. R., P. Vecchia, and M. H. Repacholi. 2000. “Science and the Precautionary Principle.” Science 288 (5468): 979–981. doi: 10.1126/science.288.5468.979
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frodeman, Robert, and Adam Briggle. 2012. “The Dedisciplining of Peer Review.” Minerva 50 (1): 3–19. doi: 10.1007/s11024-012-9192-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frodeman, Robert, Adam Briggle, and J. Britt Holbrook. 2012. “Philosophy in the Age of Neoliberalism.” Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture, and Policy 26 (3–4): 311–330. doi: 10.1080/02691728.2012.722701
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frodeman, Robert, Julie Thompson Klein, and Carl Mitcham, eds. 2010. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fuller, Steve. 2005. The Intellectual. Cambridge: Icon Books.
   Google Scholar
• Fuller, Steve. 2012a. “Social Epistemology: A Quarter-Century Itinerary.” Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy, 26 (3–4): 267–283. doi: 10.1080/02691728.2012.714415
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuller, Steve. 2012b. “Precautionary and Proactionary as the New Right and the New Left of the Twenty-First Century Ideological Spectrum.” International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 25 (4): 157–174. doi: 10.1007/s10767-012-9127-2
   Google Scholar
• Fuller, Steve. 2012c. Preparing for Life in Humanity 2.0. Basingstoke: Palgrave Pivot.
   Google Scholar
• Fuller, Steve, and Veronika Lipinska. 2014. The Proactionary Imperative: A Foundation for Transhumanism. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Funtowicz, Silvio, and Jerome Ravetz. 2003. “Post-Normal Science.” International Encyclopedia of Ecological Economics. http://isecoeco.org/pdf/pstnormsc.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott, and Martin Trow. 1994. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Gorman, Michael, ed. 2010. Trading Zones and Interactional Expertise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Guston, David. 2000. Between Politics and Science: Assuring the Integrity and Productivity of Research. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Guston, David. 2013. “Understanding Anticipatory Governance.” Social Studies of Science. doi:10.1177/0306312713508669. Published online 15 November 2013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guston, David, and Daniel Sarewitz. 2002. “Real-Time Technology Assessment.” Technology in Society 24 (1): 93–109. doi: 10.1016/S0160-791X(01)00047-1
   Google Scholar
• Hamlett, Patrick. 2005. “Consensus Conferences.” In The Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics, 4 vols, edited by Carl Mitcham, 412–414. New York: Macmillan Reference USA.
   Google Scholar
• Haraway, Donna. 1997. Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium.FemaleMan_Meets_OncoMouse: Feminism and Technoscience. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Holbrook, J. Britt. 2009. “Editor's Introduction.” Special Issue: Social Epistemology: US National Science Foundation's Broader Impacts Criterion 23 (3–4): 177–181.
   Google Scholar
• Holbrook, J. Britt. 2012. “Re-assessing the Science – Society Relation: The Case of the US National Science Foundation's Broader Impacts Merit Review Criterion (1997–2011).” In Peer Review, Research Integrity, and the Governance of Science – Practice, Theory, and Current Discussions, edited by Robert Frodeman, J. Britt Holbrook, Carl Mitcham, and Hong Xiaonan, 328–362. Beijing: People's Publishing House.
   Google Scholar
• Holbrook, J. Britt. 2013. “What is Interdisciplinary Communication? Reflections on the Very Idea of Disciplinary Integration.” Synthese, 190 (11): 1865–1879. doi: 10.1007/s11229-012-0179-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holbrook, J. Britt, and Robert Frodeman. 2011. “Peer Review and the Ex Ante Assessment of Societal Impacts.” Research Evaluation 20 (3): 239–246. doi:10.3152/095820211X12941371876788.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James, William. 2009 [1896]. “The Will to Believe.” In The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy. Project Gutenberg edition. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/26659/26659-h/26659-h.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, Sheila. 1990. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, Sheila. 2007. “Technologies of Humility.” Nature 450 (7166): 33–33. doi: 10.1038/450033a
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, Sheila. 2010. “A Field of its Own: The Emergence of Science and Technology Studies.” In The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, edited by Robert Frodeman, Julie Thompson Klein, and Carl Mitcham, 191–205. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kass, Leon. 2002. Life, Liberty, and the Defense of Dignity: The Challenge for Bioethics. San Francisco, CA: Encounter Books.
   Google Scholar
• Klein, Julie. 1996. Crossing Boundaries: Knowledge, Disciplinarities, and Interdisciplinarities. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kleinman, Daniel Lee, Jason Delborne, and Robyn Autry. 2008. “Beyond the Precautionary Principle in Progressive Politics: Toward the Social Regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms.” Tailoring Biotechnologies 4 (1/2): 41–54.
   Google Scholar
• Lacey, Hugh. 2005. Is Science Value Free? Values and Scientific Understanding. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, Bruno, and Catherine Porter. 2004. Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lindblom, Charles E. 1959. “The Science of ‘Muddling Through’.” Public Administration Review 19 (2, Spring): 79–88.
   Google Scholar
• Lövbrand, Eva, Roger Pielke, and Silke Beck. 2011. “A Democracy Paradox in Studies of Science and Technology.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 36 (4): 474–496. doi: 10.1177/0162243910366154
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luján, José Luis, and Oliver Todt. 2012. “Precaution: A Taxonomy.” Social Studies of Science 42 (1): 143–57. doi: 10.1177/0306312711431836
   Google Scholar
• Menzies, Charles, ed. 2006. Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Natural Resource Management. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
   Google Scholar
• Montgomery, Carl, and Michael Smith. 2010. “Hydraulic Fracturing: History of an Enduring Technology.” Journal of Petroleum Technology 62 (12): 26–41.
   Google Scholar
• More, Max. 2003. “Principles of Extropy.” Version 3.11. http://www.extropy.org/principles.htm.
   Google Scholar
• More, Max. 2005. “The Proactionary Principle.” Version 1.2. http://www.maxmore.com/proactionary.html.
   Google Scholar
• Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1967 [1872]. The Birth of Tragedy and the Case of Wagner. Translated by Walter Kaufmann. New York: Random House.
   Google Scholar
• Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, and Michael Gibbons. 2001. Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity.
   Google Scholar
• Oreskes, Naomi, and Erik Conway. 2010. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York: Bloomsbury.
   Google Scholar
• Pielke, Roger Jr., 2002. “Policy, Politics, and Perspective.” Nature 416 (6879): 367–368. doi: 10.1038/416367a
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pielke, Roger Jr., 2007. The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pielke, Roger Jr., and Rad Byerly. 1998. “Beyond Basic and Applied.” Physics Today 51 (2): 42–46. doi: 10.1063/1.882141
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• President's Council on Bioethics. 2003. Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
   Google Scholar
• Resnik, David. 2012. Environmental Health Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rip, Arie, Thomas J. Misa, and Johan Schot. 1995. Managing Technology in Society: The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment. London: Pinter.
   Google Scholar
• Rittell, Horst, and Melvin Webber. 1973. “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.” Policy Sciences 4 (2): 155–169. doi: 10.1007/BF01405730
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sabbatier, Paul, ed. 1999. Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sarewitz, Daniel. 1996. Frontiers of Illusion: Science, Technology, and the Politics of Progress. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sarewitz, Daniel. 2004. “How Science Makes Environmental Controversies Worse.” Environmental Science and Policy 7 (5): 385–403. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2004.06.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarewitz, Daniel, and Pielke Roger Jr. 2007. “The Neglected Heart of Science Policy: Reconciling Supply of and Demand for Science.” Environmental Science & Policy 10 (1): 5–16. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2006.10.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Savelescu, Julian. 2007. “Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Enhancement of Human Beings.” In Oxford Handbook of Bioethics, edited by Bonnie Steinbock, 516–535. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sclove, Richard E. 1995. Democracy and Technology. New York: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sclove, Richard E. 2010. “Reinventing Technology Assessment: A 21st Century Model.” STIP. http://loka.academia.edu/RichardSclove/Papers/238116/Reinventing_Technology_Assessment_A_21st_Century_Model.
   Google Scholar
• Shapin, Steven, and Simon Schaffer. 1985. Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stirling, Andrew. 2007. “Risk, Precaution and Science: Towards a More Constructive Policy Debate.” EMBO Reports 8 (4): 309–315. doi: 10.1038/sj.embor.7400953
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sunstein, Cass. 2005. Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sunstein, Cass. 2008. “Throwing Precaution to the Wind.” Boston Globe, July 13. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/07/13/throwing_precaution_to_the_wind/?page=full.
   Google Scholar
• Turner, Stephen. 2003. Liberal Democracy 3.0 Civil Society in an Age of Experts. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Von Schomberg, René. 2012. “The Precautionary Principle: Its Use Within Hard and Soft Law.” European Journal of Risk Regulation 2: 147–156.
   Google Scholar
• Von Schomberg, René. 2013. “A Vision of Responsible Research and Innovation.” In Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society, edited by R. Owen, J. Bessant, and M. Heintz, 51–74. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. doi:10.1002/9781118551424.ch3.
   Google Scholar
• Winner, Langdon. 1986. The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wynne, Brian. 1996. “May the Sheep Safely Graze? A Reflexive View of the Expert–Lay Knowledge Divide.” In Risk, Environment & Modernity: Towards a New Ecology, edited by Scott Lash, Bronislaw Szerszynski, and Brian Wynne, 44–83. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Yearley, Steven. 2000. “Making Systematic Sense of Public Discontents with Expert Knowledge: Two Analytical Approaches and a Case Study.” Public Understanding of Science 9 (2): 105–122. doi: 10.1088/0963-6625/9/2/302
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar