Insights from the Office of Technology Assessment and Other Assessment Experiences

Science and Technology Advice for Congress

Volumn , Issue , 2003, Pages 77-89

  Guston, David H ^a  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84920489758     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781936331208-11     Document Type: Chapter

References (46)

1. Agrawala, Shardul, Kenneth Broad, and David H. Guston. 2001. Integrating Climate Forecasts and Societal Decisionmaking: Challenges to an Emergent Boundary Organization. Science, Technology, & Human Values 26: 454-477.
2. Andersen, I.E., and B. Jaeger. 1999. Scenario Workshops and Consensus Conferences: Towards More Democratic Decision-making. Science and Public Policy 26: 331-340.
3. Andrews, Clinton J. 2002. Humble Analysis: The Practice of Joint Fact-Finding. Westport, CT: Praeger.
4. Bereano, Philip L. 1997. Reflections of a Participant-Observer: The Technocratic-Democratic Contradiction in the Practice of Technology Assessment. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 54: 163-176.
5. Berger, Margaret A. 2000. Expert Testimony: The Supreme Court's Rules. Issues in Science and Technology 16: 57-63.
6. 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.
7. Breyer, Stephen G. 2000. Science in the Courtroom. Issues in Science and Technology 16: 52-56.
8. Cash, David W. 2001. 'In Order To Aid in Diffusing Useful and Practical Information': Agricultural Extension and Boundary Organizations. Science, Technology, & Human Values 26: 431-453.
9. Cash, David W., William C. Clark, Frank Alcock, Nancy M. Dickson, Noelle Eckley, David H. Guston, Jill Jaeger, and Ronald B. Mitchell. 2003. Knowledge Systems for Sustainable Development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100: 8086-8091.
10. Chubin, Daryl, and Edward Hackett. 1990. Peerless Science: Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
11. Clark, William C., and Nancy Dickson. 1999. The Global Environmental Assessment Project: Learning from Efforts To Link Science and Policy in an Interdependent World. Acclimations 8: 6-7.
12. Clark, William C., and Giandomenico Majone. 1985. The Critical Use of Scientific Inquiries with Policy Implications. Science, Technology, & Human Values 10(3): 6-19.
13. Council of State Governments (CSG). 1999. A State Official’s Guide to Sound Science. Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments.
14. Dahl, Robert. 1989. Democracy and Its Crítics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
15. Dürrenberger, G., H. Kastenholz, and J. Behringer. 1999. Integrated Assessment Focus Groups: Bridging the Gap between Science and Policy. Science and Public Policy 26: 341-349.
16. Ezrahi, Yaron. 1990. The Descent of Icarus: Science and the Transformation of Contemporary Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
17. Farrell, Alex, and Jill Jaeger [eds]. 2003. The Design of Environmental Assessment: Global and Regional Cases. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
18. Gibbons, John H. 1993. Science, Technology, and Law in the Third Century of the Constitution. In Science and Technology Advice to the President, Congress, and Judiciary, edited by William T. Golden. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science Press, 415-419.
19. Gieryn, Thomas F. 1999. Cultural Boundarìes of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20. Global Environmental Assessment Project (GEA). 2000. Annual Progress Report to the National Science Foundation for Academic Year 1999-2000, available at environment.harvard.edu:80/gea/pubs/00prpt.html (accessed May 4, 2003).
21. Grin, J., H. van de Graaf, and R. Hoppe. 1997. Technology Assessment through Interaction: A Guide. Working Document 57, The Hague: Rathenau Institute.
22. Guston, David H. 1997. Critical Appraisal in Science and Technology Policy Analysis: The Example of Science, The Endless Frontier. Policy Sciences 30: 233-255.
23. Guston, David H.. 1999. Evaluating the First U.S. Consensus Conference: The Impact of the Citizens' Panel on Telecommunications and the Future of Democracy. Science, Technology, & Human Values 24: 451-482.
24. Guston, David H. 2000a. Between Politics and Science: Assuring the Integrìty and Productivity of Research. New York: Cambridge University Press.
25. Guston, David H. 2000b. Regulatory Peer Review. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Political Science Association. September 2, Washington, DC.
26. Guston, David H. 2001. Boundary Organizations in Environmental Policy and Science: An Introduction. Science, Technology, & Human Values 26: 399-408.
27. Guston, David H., and Bruce Bimber. 1998. Technology Assessment for the New Century. Working paper No. 7, Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, available at policy.rutgers.edu/papers/7.pdf (accessed May 4, 2003).
28. Guston, David H., and Daniel Sarewitz. 2001. Real-Time Technology Assessment. Technology in Society 23: 93-109.
29. Hill, Christopher. 1997. The Congressional Office of Technology Assessment: A Reoo-spective and Prospects for the Post-OTA World. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 54: 191-198.
30. Horning, G. 1999. Citizens' Panels as a Form of Deliberative Technology Assessment. Science and Pubhc Policy 26: 351-359.
31. Jasanoff, Sheila. 1990. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
32. Joss, Simon, and John Durant. 1995. Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe. London: Science Museum.
33. Keating, Terry J. 2001. Lessons from the Recent History of the Health Effects Institute. Science, Technology, & Human Values 26: 409-430.
34. La Porte, Todd M. 1997. New Opportunities for Technology Assessment in the Post-OTA World. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 54: 199-214.
35. Lindblom, Charles E. 1990. Inquiry and Change: The Troubled Attempt To Understand and Shape Society. New Haven, CT Yale University Press.
36. Miller, Clark. 2001. Hybrid Management: Boundary Organizations, Science Policy, and Environmental Governance in the Climate Regime. Science, Technology, & Human Values 26: 478-500.
37. Morgan, M. Granger, and Jon M. Peha. 2003. Analysis, Governance, and the Need for Better Institutional Arrangements. In Science and Technology Advice fot Congress, edited by M. Granger Morgan and Jon M. Peha. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, Chapter 1.
38. National Research Council. 1993. The Structure and Performance of the Health Effects Institute. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
39. National Science Board (NSB). 2001. The Scientific Allocation of Scientific Resources. (draft for comment, March 29), NSB 01-39. Arlington, VA: National Science Board.
40. Price, Don K. 1965. The Scientific Estate. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
41. Schot, Johan, and Arie Rip. 1997. The Past and Future of Constructive Technology Assessment. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 54: 251-268.
42. Sclove, Richard E. 1999. The Democratic Politics of Technology: The Missing Half. The Loka Institute, available at www.loka.org/idt/intro.htm (accessed May 4, 2003).
43. Smith, Bruce L.R. 1992. The Advisers: Scientists in the Policy Process. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
44. Smith, Bruce L.R., and Jeffrey K. Stine. 2003. Technical Advice for Congress: Past Trends and Present Obstacles. In Science and Technology Advice for Congress, edited by M. Granger Morgan and Jon M. Peha. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, Chapter 2.
45. Social Learning Group. 2001. Learning To Manage Global Environmental Risks, Vols. 1 and 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
46. Vig, Norman J., and Herbert Paschen. 2000. Parhaments and Technology: The Development of Technology Assessment in Europe. Albany: State University of New York Press.