Science Advice as Procedural Rationality: Reflections on the National Research Council

Minerva

Volumn 48, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 259-275

  Feuer, Michael J ^a   Maranto, Christina J ^b  

^a GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

National Academy of Sciences; Science policy; Science government relations; Scientific advice

Indexed keywords

EID: 77956878946     PISSN: 00264695     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11024-010-9152-0     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Arrow, Kenneth J. 1970. Social choice and individual values. New Haven: Yale University Press.
2. Augier, Mie, and James March. 2004. Models of a man: Essays in memory of Herbert A. Simon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3. Bimber, Bruce. 1996. The politics of expertise in Congress: The rise and fall of the Office of Technology Assessment. Albany: State University of New York Press.
4. Bimber, Bruce, and David Guston. 1997. Introduction: The end of OTA and the future of technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 54: 125-130.
5. Blair, Peter. 1994. Technology assessment: Current trends and the myth of a formula. Office of Technology Assessment Archive. http://www. fas. org/ota/technology_assessment_and_congress/blair/. Accessed 24 May 2010.
6. Blair, Peter. 2006. Scientific advice for policy in the United States: Lessons from the National Academies and the former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. Symposium on quality control and assurance in scientific advice to policy. Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Science & Humanities Working Group on "Scientific Advice to Policy in Democracy" Berlin, Germany.
7. Cartwright, Nancy. 2007. Hunting causes and using them. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
8. Cochrane, Rexmond. 1978. The National Academy of Sciences: The first 100 years, 1863-1963. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
9. Dupree, A. Hunter. 1940. Science in the Federal Government: A history of policies and activities to 1940. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Harvard University Press.
10. Ellis, Joseph. 2000. Founding brothers: The revolutionary generation. New York: Knopf.
11. Encyclopedie. 2010. L'homme Propose et Dieu dispose. http://www. mon-expression. info/l-homme-propose-et-dieu-dispose. Accessed 20 May 2010.
12. Ezrahi, Yaron. 1980. Utopian and pragmatic rationalism: The political context of scientific advice. Minerva 18: 111-131.
13. Feuer, Michael. 2006. Moderating the debate: Rationality and the promise of American education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
14. Feuer, Michael. 2009. Moderation continued: Response to Robertson, Kerdeman, Bredo. Educational Theory 59(5): 549-558.
15. Fischhoff, Baruch. 1975. Hindsight is not equal to foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1: 288-299.
16. Gieryn, Thomas F. 1983. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review 48: 781-795.
17. Hilgartner, Stephen. 2000. Science on stage: Expert advice as public drama. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
18. Himmelfarb, Gertrude. 2009. Prizes for second best. Standpoint Magazine. http://www. standpointmag. co. uk/node/1490. Accessed 15 May 2009.
19. Jasanoff, Sheila. 1990. The fifth branch: Science advisers as policy makers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20. Kasparov, Garry. 2010. The chess master and the computer. New York Review of Books. http://www. nybooks. com/articles/archives/2010/feb/11/the-chess-master-and-the-computer. Accessed 3 June 2010.
21. National Academies. 2010a. An act to incorporate the National Academy of Sciences. http://www7. nationalacademies. org/archives/NAS Incorporation. html. Accessed 27 May 2010.
22. National Academies. 2010b. The Academy's early work for the government. http://www7. nationalacademies. org/archives/earlynaswork. html. Accessed 27 May 2010.
23. National Academies. 2010c. Federal Advisory Committee Act. http://www. nasonline. org/site/PageServer?pagename=ABOUT_FACA. Accessed 27 May 2010.
24. National Research Council. 1998. Preventing reading difficulties in young children. In Committee on the prevention of reading difficulties in young children, eds. Catherine Snow, M. Susan Burns, and Peg Griffin. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
25. National Research Council. 2005. Science and technology in the national interest: Ensuring the best presidential and federal advisory committee science and technology appointments. In Committee on ensuring the best presidential and federal advisory committee science and technology appointments and Committee on science, engineering, and public policy. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
26. Pielke, Roger. 2007. The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
27. Shepard, Roger N. 2006. Thought experiments in scientific discovery: What emergent mental capabilities underlie their efficacy? http://66. 102. 1. 104/scholar?hl=en& lr=& q=cache: DxXHZuLkmNoJ: www. cogsci. rpi. edu/CSJarchive/proceedings/2006/docs/p12. pdf.
28. Simon, Herbert A. 1976. From substantive to procedural rationality. In Method and appraisal in economics, ed. S. J. Latsis, 129-148. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
29. Simon, Herbert A. 1978. Rationality as process and as product of thought. Papers and proceedings of the ninetieth annual meeting of the American Economic Association (May). American Economic Review 68(2): 1-16.
30. Simons, Daniel J., and Chabris, Christopher F. 2010. The trouble with intuition. The Chronicle of Higher Education (May 30).
31. Weiss, Carol. 2002. What to do until the random assigner comes. In Evidence matters, eds. Robert F. Boruch, and Frederick Mosteller. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
32. Weiss, Michael. 2009. Second best is good enough. http://www. snarksmith. com. Accessed 14 May 2009
33. Williamson, Oliver. 1975. Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. New York: Free Press.