I have a new column out in Bridges on a scenario for the climate policy end game by the Bush Administration — read it here.

Faculty Position, Center Director
Science and Technology Policy Research
CIRES, University of Colorado at Boulder

This is a fantastic opportunity for individuals who conduct science and technology policy research. Please see our webpage at: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/ for the wide range of research and outreach going on at the Center. If you have questions about the Center or the University of Colorado, please feel free to contact me, Lisa Dilling, at ldilling AT colorado.edu. Please forward to colleagues!

(more…)

Jonathan Adler of Case Western University School of Law has written a thoughtful review of The Honest Broker. You can find a link to his full review here.

Through February you can get THB at 20% off via Cambridge University Press.

Cambridge University Press is offering The Honest Broker at 20% off — for the coupon code visit the CUP site here.

I’ll be blogging on climate policy over at the Breakthrough blog, check it out, my first post is up!

Guest Submission by Hans von Storch and Dennis Bray

In the following we outline a research strategy to characterize sub-groups of climate scientists; the idea is to first propose a short operational list of certain interesting, mostly exclusive but not complete subgroups; these are related to three general criteria.

At this time we ask for comments on both the list of the four categories and on the three general criteria. When we have come to a conclusion with regard to the list and to these criteria, we will try to map the responses collected in our surveys of climate scientists to these groups and criteria – with the idea that in this way we may describe the a host of views , conceptions and perceptions held by these different groups.

We begin with operational definitions of the categories. They are:

1. Advocate Pro.

Scientists in this category are those who are convinced of the reality on ongoing and future anthropogenic climate change. It is the contention of these scientists that climate change will have catastrophic impacts if left unmitigated. This category of scientists perceive it as a moral and professional obligation to alert the public to the impending dangers of climate change and to lobby for political resolve in terms of significant reductions of GHG emissions and the necessary changes in lifestyle and global economy.

2. Advocate Con

Scientists in this category consider the concept of anthropogenic climate change as either insignificant or outright false. They consider the drive towards climate change policy as ill conceived and, sometimes, as a tool to push for a broader environmentalist agenda. Similar to the “advocate pro”, this groups sees lobbying as a necessity, but it is lobbying for goals that stand in opposition to the “advocate pro”.

3. Concerned Pro

Scientists in this category, like those in the “advocate pro” category, are convinced of ongoing and future anthropogenic climate change. They also contend that climate change will have significant impacts. This category differs, however, from the “advocate pro” in as much as these scientists, while accepting as a professional responsibility the undertaking of informing the public to possible dangers, do so without pushing for specific policy choices. In other words, they are information, not solution brokers.

4. Doubters

This category of scientists holds no strong conviction concerning anthropogenic climate change or its potential impacts. In this category, climate change is perceived of as a relevant scientific issue but the challenge is to generate more knowledge. Until further knowledge is available they consider anthropogenic climate change to be a significant, but albeit not dominant, issue.

We want to characterize these four categories by employing three dimensions of scientific perceptions. These dimensions are interpretation, consequence and action. Before providing dimensions we again provide operational definitions of these terms. They are:

(more…)

Do you know what governments need when they turn to the science, technology, and innovation policy research community for models and research results? Can you tell them what works, what doesn’t, and under what circumstance?

Are you scratching your head for answers as you adjust to the shifting landscape of global innovation? Georgia Tech invites you to learn from leading experts at the Atlanta Conference on Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy 2007 in October.

Test models of innovation. Explore emerging STI policy issues. Share research results through

• Keynote addresses—Sheila Jasanoff of the Kennedy School at Harvard University and Luc Soete of UNU-MERIT, Maastricht;
• State of the Field Plenary speakers—Kaye Husbands Fealing of the National Science Foundation and Philippe Larédo, ManchesterBusiness School and ENPC, Paris;
• research by the innovation studies community, and
• networking opportunities.

Topics focus on emerging issues of science, technology, and innovation in global economy and society and include:

• Innovation in new forms and formats; markets, organizations, and industries in transition;
• Emerging global networks of scientific communication;
• Workforces and workplaces of science and technology; career opportunities for scientists and engineers; and
• Government policies for encouraging knowledge based—and learning economies, North and South.

Explore the Challenges and Opportunities for Innovation in the Changing Global Economy on Friday-Saturday, Oct. 19-20, at Georgia Tech Global Learning Center.

Register by Friday, Sept. 21, and save $50. Don’t delay!

Click here for the most up-to-date information.