Advocacy and credibility of ecological scientists in resource decisionmaking: A regional study

BioScience

Volumn 53, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 170-178

  Lach, Denise ^a   List, Peter ^a   Steel, Brent ^a   Shindler, Bruce ^a  

^a OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Advocacy; Credibility; LTER (Long Term Ecological Research) Network; Police

Indexed keywords

EID: 0037322916     PISSN: 00063568     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[0170:AACOES]2.0.CO;2     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Brown G, Harris C. 1992. The USDA Forest Service: Toward the new resource management paradigm? Society and Natural Resources 5: 231-245.
2. Collingridge D, Reeve C. 1986. Science Speaks to Power: The Role of Experts in Policy Making. New York: St. Martin's Press.
3. Dewey J. 1927. The Public and Its Problems. New York: Swallow Press.
4. Dunlap R, Mertig AG, eds. 1990. American Environmentalism: The U.S. Environmental Movement 1970-1990. Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis.
5. Earman S. 1996. The intersection of science and law: Who has the right-of-way? In Soden D, ed. At the Nexus: Science Policy. New York: Nova Science.
6. Ehrlich PR. 2002. Human natures, nature conservation, and environmental ethics. Bioscience 52: 31-43.
7. Ezrahi Y. 1990. The Descent of Icarus: Science and the Transformation of Contemporary Democracy. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.
8. Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. 1993. Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment. Washington (DC): US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, US Fish and Wildlife, National Park Service, Environmental Protection Agency.
9. Fischer F. 2000. Citizens, Experts, and the Environment. Durham (NC): Duke University Press.
10. Franklin JF, Bledsoe CS, Callahan JT. 1990. Contributions of the long-term ecological research program. BioScience 40: 509-523.
11. Freeman D. 2000. Wicked water problems: Sociology and local water organizations in addressing water resources policy. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 36: 483-491.
12. Hobbie JE. 2003. Scientific accomplishments of the Long Term Ecological Research program: An introduction. BioScience 53: 17-20.
13. Kuklinski J, Metlay D, Lay W. 1982. Citizen knowledge and choices on the complex issues of nuclear energy. American Journal of Political Science 26: 615-642.
14. Lane N. 1997. An Open Letter to Scientists and Engineers. Washington (DC): National Science Foundation.
15. Lee K. 1993. Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment. Washington (DC): Island Press.
16. List P, ed. 2000. Environmental advocacy by environmental scientists. Reflections: Newsletter of the Program for Ethics, Science and the Environment 4 (special issue, April). Oregon State University, Department of Philosophy.
17. Lubchenco J. 1998. Entering the century of the environment: A new social contract for science. Science 279: 491-497.
18. Luoma JR. 1999. The Hidden Forest: The Biography of an Ecosystem. New York: Henry Holt.
19. Meidinger E, Antypas A. 1996. Science-Intensive Policy Disputes: An Analytical Overview of the Literature. Report Prepared for the People and Natural Resources Program. Seattle (WA): US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
20. Oregonian. 2000. Scientists send letter asking Clinton to breach lower Snake River dams. 19 December, p. D5.
21. Peters RG, Covello VT, McCallum DB. 1997. The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental risk communication: An empirical study. Risk Analysis 17: 43-54.
22. Pierce J, Lovrich N. 1986. Water Resources, Democracy and the Technical Information Quandary. New York: Associated Faculty Press.
23. Pierce J, Steger M, Steel B, Lovrich N. 1992. Citizens, Political Communication, and Interest Groups: A Study of Environmental Organizations in Canada and the United States. New York: Praeger.
24. Priest S. 1995. Information equity, public understanding of science, and the biotechnology debate. Journal of Communications 45: 39-55.
25. Rittel H, Webber M. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4: 155-169.
26. Rykiel EJ Jr. 2001. Scientific objectivity, value systems, and policymaking. BioScience 51: 433-436.
27. Shindler B, List P, Steel B. 1996. Public judgments of adaptive management: A response from forest communities. Journal of Forestry 94: 5-12.
28. Shrader-Frechette KS, McCoy ED. 1993. Method in Ecology. Cambridge (United Kingdom): Cambridge University Press.
29. Steel BS, Lovrich NP. 1997. An introduction to natural resource policy and the environment: Changing paradigms and values. Pages 3-15 in Steel BS, ed. Public Lands Management in the West: Citizens, Interest Groups, and Values. Westport (CT): Praeger.
30. Steel B, Lach D, List P, Shindler B. 2001. The role of scientists in the natural resource policy process: A comparison of Canadian and American publics. Journal of Environmental Systems 28: 135-157.
31. Swanson F, Gregory S, Harmon M. 1996. H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest LTER4 1996-2002 Proposal. Corvallis: Oregon State University.
32. Thornton J. 1991. Risking democracy. Greenpeace 16 (March-April): 17.
33. Wagner FH. 1999. Analysis and/or advocacy: What role(s) for ecologists? Santa Barbara (CA): National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis. EcoEssay Series no. 3.
34. Weber JR, Word CS. 2001. The communication process as evaluative context: What do nonscientists hear when scientists speak? BioScience 51: 487-495.
35. Weber M. 1946. Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Gerth H, Mills CW, eds. and trans. New York: Oxford University Press.
36. Yankelovich D. 1991. Coming to Public Judgment: Making Democracy Work in a Complex World. Syracuse (NY): Syracuse University Press.