Explore the vast range of titles available.

Numerous popular and scholarly accounts have exposed the deep impact of patrons on the production of scientific knowledge and its applications.Shaky Foundationsprovides the first extensive examination of a new patronage system for the social sciences that emerged in the early Cold War years and took more definite shape during the 1950s and early 1960s, a period of enormous expansion in American social science. By focusing on the military, the Ford Foundation, and the National Science Foundation, Mark Solovey shows how this patronage system presented social scientists and other interested parties, including natural scientists and politicians, with new opportunities to work out the scientific identity, social implications, and public policy uses of academic social research. Solovey also examines significant criticisms of the new patronage system, which contributed to widespread efforts to rethink and reshape the politics-patronage-social science nexus starting in the mid-1960s. Based on extensive archival research,Shaky Foundationsaddresses fundamental questions about the intellectual foundations of the social sciences, their relationships with the natural sciences and the humanities, and the political and ideological import of academic social inquiry.

Given that research on sustainable development usually relates to real-world challenges, it requires researchers to align scientific knowledge production with concrete societal problem situations. To empirically explore how researchers frame scientific contributions when designing and planning projects, we conducted a qualitative study on land use–related projects based on the methodology of grounded theory. We identified major influence factors and various types of research design. Among the factors that influence project framing, scientific considerations were found to be more important than expected. Core characteristics of project framings concerned (a) type of scientific contributions envisaged; (b) real-world sustainability challenges addressed, and (c) researchers’ conceptions of how knowledge would reach its addressees. Three different types of project framing were found, suggesting that framing strongly depends on (the researchers’ perception of) how well a real-world problem situation is understood scientifically and how strongly are societal actors aware of the problem and act upon it. The spectrum of how researchers planned that knowledge would reach its addressees comprised communicating results to interactive conceptions allowing for mutual learning throughout the research process. The typology reveals a variety of useful and promising project framings for sustainable development research. The typology may serve to reconcile conceptual ideals and expectations with researchers’ realities.

Purpose of Review Rapid urban expansion of the world’s cities is placing unprecedented demands on the energy, water, food, and other (X) systems (e.g., mobility) that each offer multiple life-supporting services. Coordination that considers inter-sectoral connections among these urban systems and services remains nascent in practice, yet are critical to the future well-being, resource/operational efficiency, and resilience of urban areas. This paper therefore proposes an applied “urban nexus science” framework to identify integrated and synergistic pathways toward achieving urban sustainability. Recent Findings The design, planning, and operation of urban W-E-F systems can benefit from integrated analyses to accelerate infrastructure, land use, and hazard mitigation planning and decision-making. New knowledge quantifying the key effects of W-E-F systems designed in isolation versus an increasingly integrated systems, especially when exposed to hazards, health risks, or extreme events, are a critical need. Summary Interactive system modeling and participatory technologies are needed to support stakeholder engagement and two-way (and multi-directional) information flow, for exploring outcomes of alternative solutions for integrating W-E-F sectors. To support such important efforts, research is needed to fill critical gaps in data, identify tradeoffs, and develop synergistic solutions that measure sustainability co-benefits based on different levels of urban integration among W-E-F systems and services.

Puzzled by the question why evidence-based policy (EBP) thrives despite evidence against it, we reconstruct the development and spread of EBP in inter- and transnational contexts and find that this process is characterised by some of the same dynamics (including ‘structural promises’ and ‘problem chasing’) that have also been observed in many policy instruments. We therefore propose a double reframing: EBP is (1) a ‘meta-instrument’ aiming to establish a particular role for research in policymaking (our ideational reframing) and (2) co-evolving with an ‘instrument constituency’ motivated not only by normative goals but also by the prospect of securing an occupational niche for itself (our social reframing). Taken together, these reframings reveal the neglected politics behind EBP and prompt us to treat EBP as a political device rather than as an analytical framework to explain how policymaking actually relates to research.

Background:The emergency response to the COVID-19 pandemic has required a rapid acceleration of policy decision making, and raised a wide range of ethical issues worldwide, ranging from vaccine prioritisation, welfare and public health ‘trade-offs’, inequalities in policy impacts, and the legitimacy of scientific expertise. Aims and objectives:This paper explores the legacy of the pandemic for future science-advice-policy relationships by investigating how the UK government’s engagement with ethical advice is organised institutionally. We provide an analysis of some key ethical moments in the UK Government response to the pandemic, and institutions and national frameworks which exist to provide ethical advice on policy strategies. Methods:We draw on literature review, documentary analysis of scientific advisory group reports, and a stakeholder workshop with government ethics advisors and researchers in England. Findings:We identify how particular types of ethical advice and expertise are sought to support decision making. Contrary to a prominent assumption in the extensive literature on ‘governing by expertise’, ethical decisions in times of crisis are highly contingent. Discussion and conclusions:The paper raises an important set of questions for how best to equip policymakers to navigate decisions about values in situations characterised by knowledge deficits, complexity and uncertainty. We conclude that a clearer pathway is needed between advisory institutions and decision makers to ensure ethically-informed debate.

Environmental problems caused by human activities are increasing; biodiversity is disappearing at an unprecedented rate, soils are being irreversibly damaged, freshwater is increasingly in short supply, and the climate is changing. To reverse or even to reduce these trends will require a radical transformation in the relationship between humans and the natural environment. Just how this can be achieved within, at most, a few decades is unknown, but it is clear that academia must play a crucial role. Many believe, however, that academic institutions need to become more effective in helping societies move toward sustainability. We first synthesize current thinking about this crisis of research effectiveness. We argue that those involved in producing knowledge to solve societal problems face three particular challenges: the complexity of real-world sustainability problems, maintaining impartiality when expert knowledge is used in decision making, and ensuring the salience of the scientific knowledge for decision makers. We discuss three strategies to meet these challenges: conducting research in interdisciplinary teams, forming research partnerships with actors and experts from outside academia, and framing research questions with the aim of solving specific problems (problem orientation). However, we argue that implementing these strategies within academia will require both cultural and institutional change. We then use concepts from transition management to suggest how academic institutions can make the necessary changes. At the level of system optimization, we call for: quality criteria, career incentives, and funding schemes that reward not only disciplinary excellence but also achievements in inter-/transdisciplinary work; professional services and training through specialized centers that facilitate problem-oriented research and reciprocal knowledge exchange with society; and the integration of sustainability and inter-/transdisciplinary research practices into all teaching curricula. At the level of system innovation, we propose radical changes in institutional structures, research and career incentives, teaching programs, and research partnerships. We see much value in a view of change that emphasizes the complementarity of system innovation and system optimization. The goal must be a process of change that preserves the traditional strengths of academic research, with its emphasis on disciplinary excellence and scientific rigor, while ensuring that institutional environments and the skills, worldviews, and experiences of the involved actors adapt to the rapidly changing needs of society.

Agriculture systems require evidence-based management approaches to minimize impacts from climate change and to minimize greenhouse gas emissions. This is critical in global regions with a Mediterranean-type climate where the impacts are expected to intensify greater than the global average, thus threatening crop yields. A significant knowledge gap exists regarding the agronomic interventions that are suitable for climate-smart agriculture considering their net effects on climate adaptation and mitigation. This study seeks to fill this gap in the context of a Mediterranean-type climate. A systematic map study was conducted on peer-reviewed research focusing on climate change relevant agronomic interventions in crop production systems. The aim was to assess the extent of the research pertaining to climate mitigation and/or climate adaptation and the readiness to inform evidence-based climate-smart agriculture policy. A total of 722 articles were identified from database searches, 648 articles were screened for relevance, and 158 articles were selected for further analysis. Information was extracted on geographic location of the research, timing of the research, type of climate change outcome researched, interventions studied, and crops studied. The study found that the knowledge base was significantly inadequate of what can be implemented to adapt and/or mitigation climate change and the net climate effects of interventions. 27 interventions were studied across 55 unique crops since 1996, mostly in Spain and Italy. More studies were relevant to climate adaptation (62%) than mitigation (22.5%). 15.2% of studies considered both adaptation and mitigation together and only 1 of 158 considered impacts on yield, adaptation, net mitigation. This study concluded that a larger evidence base is needed to inform policy on which crop management interventions are suitable to maximize positive impacts of both climate mitigation and adaptation together, with positive or acceptable yield outcomes. It is also recommended that further research into interventions should include yield and product quality, as well as economic and social benefits and trade-offs.

Research aiming at generating effective contributions to sustainable development faces particular complexity related challenges. This article proposes an analytical framework disentangling and structuring complexity issues with which research for sustainable development is confronted. Based on theoretical conceptions from fields like policy sciences and transdisciplinary research as well as on an in-depth analysis of the concept of sustainable development, three meta-perspectives on research for sustainable development are introduced and elaborated. The first perspective focuses on notions of sustainable development, sorting out the problem of unclear or ambiguous interpretations of the general sustainability objectives in specific contexts. The second perspective introduces a broad conception of the policy process representing the way societal change towards sustainable development is brought about. It supports identifying those academic and non-academic actors and stakeholders that are relevant for coming up with effective knowledge contributions. The third perspective identifies different forms of knowledge that are needed to tackle sustainability problems as well as the significance of their mutual interrelations. How the framework perspectives support reflecting on the fundamental complexity issues research for sustainable development is confronted with is illustrated using a case example from natural scientific research in the field of land use. We argue that meeting the complexity inherent in the concept of sustainable development requires joint learning in policy processes, working out shared visions being in line with the core objectives of sustainable development and generating knowledge about empirical, normative and pragmatic aspects.

Scientific advisory committees (SACs) are a critically important part of global environmental policy. This commentary reviews the role of SACs in six global and regional environmental regimes, defined here as the set of rules, norms, and procedures that are developed by states and international organizations out of their common concerns and used to organize common activities. First, SACs play a critical role in putting issues on the political agenda and the creation of an overarching regime. Second, the effectiveness of a given SAC and the associated regime is highly variable. Third, there is also considerable variation in the extent to which the regime is driven by an overarching scientific consensus, for example, high in the case of climate change, lower in the case of whaling. Fourth, the role of science in a given regime is also a function of whether the problem being addressed is relatively benign or more malign, that is to say, marked by deep political disagreements (i.e., climate change). Finally, the cases examined here suggest that the institutional design of the SAC matters and can influence the overall effectiveness of the SAC and by extension, the regime, but it is seldom decisive. Scientific advisory committees (SACs) play an important role in international environmental politics, but their ability to be effective in influencing policies depends on the context. This paper examines six different political and scientific contexts to demonstrate the role that scientific expertise can play.