Matching Items (28)
Description
The greatest challenge facing humanity in the twenty-first century is our ability to reconcile the capacity of natural systems to support continued improvement in human welfare around the globe. Over the last decade, the scientific community has attempted to formulate research agendas in response to what they view as the problems of sustainability. Perhaps the most prominent and wide-ranging of these efforts has been sustainability science, an interdisciplinary, problem-driven field that seeks to address fundamental questions on human-environment interactions. This project examines how sustainability scientists grapple with and bound the deeply social, political and normative dimensions of both characterizing and pursuing sustainability. Based on in-depth interviews with leading researchers and a content analysis of the relevant literature, this project first addresses three core questions: (1) how sustainability scientists define and bound sustainability; (2) how and why various research agendas are being constructed to address these notions of sustainability; (3) and how scientists see their research contributing to societal efforts to move towards sustainability. Based on these results, the project explores the tensions between scientific efforts to study and inform sustainability and social action. It discusses the implications of transforming sustainability into the subject of scientific analysis with a focus on the power of science to constrain discourse and the institutional and epistemological contexts that link knowledge to societal outcomes. Following this analysis, sustainability science is repositioned, borrowing Herbert Simon's concept, as a "science of design." Sustainability science has thus far been too focused on understanding the "problem-space"--addressing fundamental questions about coupled human-natural systems. A new set objectives and design principles are proposed that would move the field toward a more solutions-oriented approach and the enrichment of public reasoning and deliberation. Four new research streams that would situate sustainability science as a science of design are then discussed: creating desirable futures, socio-technical change, sustainability values, and social learning. The results serve as a foundation for a sustainability science that is evaluated on its ability to frame sustainability problems and solutions in ways that make them amenable to democratic and pragmatic social action.
ContributorsMiller, Thaddeus R. (Author) / Minteer, Ben A (Thesis advisor) / Redman, Charles L. (Committee member) / Sarewitz, Daniel (Committee member) / Wiek, Arnim (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2011
Description
Extant evaluation studies of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 have focused primarily on its effects on the pace of innovation and on the norms and practices of academic research but neglected other public values. Seeking to redress this shortcoming, I begin by examining Bayh-Dole with respect to other relevant public values following the Public Value Failure approach. From that analysis, equity emerges as a pressing issue. I define equity issues, in a loosely Rawlsian sense, as situations of unfair distribution of political power and economic resources. My analysis identifies a business model of offices of technology transfer--that I call "nurturing start-ups"--that is likely to become a standard of practice. This model can foster either firm competition or concentration in emerging industries and will therefore have an impact on the distribution of economic benefits from innovation. In addition, political influence to reform Bayh-Dole is allocated disproportionately in favor of those who stand to gain from this policy. For instance, elite universities hold a larger share of the resources and voice of the university system. Consequently, adjusting the nurturing start-ups model to foster competition and increasing cooperation among universities should lead to a more equitable distribution of economic benefits and political voice in technology transfer. Conventional policy evaluation is also responsible for the neglect of equity considerations in Bayh-Dole studies. Currently, "what is the policy impact?" can be answered far more systematically than "why the impact matters?" or "is this policy designed and implemented legitimately?" The problem lies with the consequentialist theory of value that undergirds evaluation. Hence, I propose a deontological theory of evaluation to reaffirm the discipline's commitment to democratic policy making.
ContributorsValdivia, Walter (Author) / Guston, David H. (Thesis advisor) / Sarewitz, Daniel (Committee member) / Bozeman, Barry (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2011
Description
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a powerful framework for environmental decision making because the broad boundaries called for prevent shifting of burden from one life-cycle phase to another. Numerous experts and policy setting organizations call for the application of LCA to developing nanotechnologies. Early application of LCA to nanotechnology may identify environmentally problematic processes and supply chain components before large investments contribute to technology lock in, and thereby promote integration of environmental concerns into technology development and scale-up (enviro-technical integration). However, application of LCA to nanotechnology is problematic due to limitations in LCA methods (e.g., reliance on data from existing industries at scale, ambiguity regarding proper boundary selection), and because social drivers of technology development and environmental preservation are not identified in LCA. This thesis proposes two methodological advances that augment current capabilities of LCA by incorporating knowledge from technical and social domains. Specifically, this thesis advances the capacity for LCA to yield enviro-technical integration through inclusion of scenario development, thermodynamic modeling, and use-phase performance bounding to overcome the paucity of data describing emerging nanotechnologies. With regard to socio-technical integration, this thesis demonstrates that social values are implicit in LCA, and explores the extent to which these values impact LCA practice and results. There are numerous paths of entry through which social values are contained in LCA, for example functional unit selection, impact category selection, and system boundary definition - decisions which embody particular values and determine LCA results. Explicit identification of how social values are embedded in LCA promotes integration of social and environmental concerns into technology development (socio-enviro-technical integration), and may contribute to the development of socially-responsive and environmentally preferable nanotechnologies. In this way, tailoring LCA to promote socio-enviro-technical integration is a tangible and meaningful step towards responsible innovation processes.
ContributorsWender, Ben A. (Author) / Seager, Thomas P (Thesis advisor) / Crozier, Peter (Committee member) / Fraser, Matthew (Committee member) / Guston, David (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
Description
Corporations in biomedicine hold significant power and influence, in both political and personal spheres. The decisions these companies make about ethics are critically important, as they help determine what products are developed, how they are developed, how they are promoted, and potentially even how they are regulated. In the last fifteen years, for-profit private companies have been assembling bioethics committees to help resolve dilemmas that require informed deliberation about ethical, legal, scientific, and economic considerations. Private sector bioethics committees represent an important innovation in the governance of emerging technologies, with corporations taking a lead role in deciding what is ethically appropriate or problematic. And yet, we know very little about these committees, including their structures, memberships, mandates, authority, and impact. Drawing on an extensive literature review and qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with executives, scientists and board members, this dissertation provides an in-depth analysis of the Ethics and Public Policy Board at SmithKline Beecham, the Ethics Advisory Board at Advanced Cell Technology, and the Bioethics Committee at Eli Lilly and offers insights about how ideas of bioethics and governance are currently imagined and enacted within corporations. The SmithKline Beecham board was the first private sector bioethics committee; its mandate was to explore, in a comprehensive and balanced analysis, the ethics of macro trends in science and technology. The Advanced Cell Technology board was created to be like a watchdog for the company, to prevent them from making major errors. The Eli Lilly board is different than the others in that it is made up mostly of internal employees and does research ethics consultations within the company. These private sector bioethics committees evaluate and construct new boundaries between their private interests and the public values they claim to promote. Findings from this dissertation show that criticisms of private sector bioethics that focus narrowly on financial conflicts of interest and a lack of transparency obscure analysis of the ideas about governance (about expertise, credibility and authority) that emerge from these structures and hamper serious debate about the possible impacts of moving ethical deliberation from the public to the private sector.
ContributorsBrian, Jennifer (Author) / Robert, Jason S (Thesis advisor) / Maienschein, Jane (Committee member) / Hurlbut, James B (Committee member) / Sarewitz, Daniel (Committee member) / Brown, Mark B. (Committee member) / Moreno, Jonathan D. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2012
Description
Investments in climate science come with an expectation of social benefit. Science policy--decision processes through which individuals and organizations support, manage, and evaluate research--plays an important role in determining those outcomes. Yet the details of how climate science policy actually works have received very little attention amid academic and policy-focused discussions of climate science. This dissertation examines climate science policy with particular attention to how it supports "public values" that justify research investments. It is widely recognized funding for climate science in the US has advanced knowledge considerably in recent decades but failed to produce useful information for decision makers. In Chapter 2, I use a methodological approach known as Public Value Mapping (PVM) to investigate this failure of the science policy system. My results show that science funding institutions have been ineffective at guiding climate science toward desired outcomes because of problematic, but common assumptions about the links between science and societal benefit. The remaining chapters look more closely at the implications of these tacit assumptions, which are held by individuals, and embedded in the organizations that implement climate science policy. Chapter 3 examines the notion that prediction is essential to climate science. Wide acceptance of the "prediction imperative" limits the scope of climate science policy. Chapter 4 examines the interplay of values and assumptions in two recently established organizations in Australia, each supporting research on climate change adaptation. In Chapter 5 I document a widespread assumption in the climate science literature that agreement among multiple models should bolster confidence in their results. This can only be correct if the models are independent of one another. Climate scientists have not demonstrated this to be true, nor have they offered a plausible framework for doing so. This dissertation adds an important dimension to our understanding of how climate science knowledge is produced, while offering constructive and practical recommendations to science policy decision makers working in government programs that fund climate science. Insight from these chapters suggests that an explicit and reflexive focus on values in science policy can be helpful to organizations pursuing science policy innovation.
ContributorsMeyer, Ryan McLaren (Author) / Sarewitz, Daniel (Thesis advisor) / David, Guston (Committee member) / Andrew, Hamilton (Committee member) / Clark, Miller (Committee member) / Roger, Pielke Jr (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2010
Description
This thesis studies the 1998-2003 doubling of the National Institutes of Health budget to evaluate how assertions about the impact of research investments compare with actual health and research outcomes. Stakeholders in the doubling noted a variety of outcomes intended to result from the effort. Using public value mapping (Bozeman and Sarewitz, 2005), I have compared stakeholders' stated intentions of what the doubling ought to achieve with the health and research outcomes actually produced. In applying public value mapping, I first conducted interviews and reviewed press releases, Congressional record, news, and other data from the doubling period. Six public values were commonly represented in this data: (1) improving health outcomes (2) reducing the cost of healthcare (3) producing application-relevant knowledge (4) building biosecurity and biodefense capabilities (5) developing the research enterprise (6) economic growth I then inferred causal logic chains by which increasing funding could lead to achievement of the public values and identified four investment intermediaries through which funding would pass in advancing public values. Finally, using proxies, I evaluated if the public values had advanced in a way directly attributable to funding increases. This analysis identified (5) as achieved. (1), (3), (4), and (6) were indeterminate in one of the two components necessary for evaluating public value achievement: either no clear advancement or no direct link between outcomes and doubling investments. (2) was a failure due to the increase in healthcare costs throughout and following the doubling period. These results indicate that complex societal outcomes used to justify incremental research investments are challenging to causally attribute to those same investments, and thus uncertain premises on which to base policy.
ContributorsSrinivasan, Sanjay (Author) / Sarewitz, Daniel (Thesis director) / Cook-Deegan, Robert (Committee member) / Levinson, Rachel (Committee member) / Chemical Engineering Program (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2017-05
Description
This research interconnects three case studies to examine survivability as a framework through which to explore historic, current, and future collaborations in the face of existential threats, social-ecological-technical uncertainty, and indeterminate futures. Leveraging archival research, document analysis, and ethnographic field work, this study focuses on artist Georgia O’Keeffe’s mid-20th-century construction of a nuclear fallout shelter, the COVID Tracking Project’s response work in the first year of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, and three decades of future-facing scientific research performed at Biosphere 2. These cases demonstrate multidisciplinary collaborations across individual, organizational, and institutional configurations at local, national, and international scales in threat contexts spanning nuclear weapons, pandemics, and increasing climate catastrophe. Within each of the three cases, I examine protagonists’ collaborations within knowledge systems, their navigation of scientific disciplinary boundaries, their acknowledgement and negotiation of credibility and expertise, and how their engagements with these systems impact individual and collective survivability. By combining complex adaptive systems (CAS) framings with Science and Technology Studies concepts, I explore ways in which transformations of hierarchy and epistemological boundaries impact, and particularly increase, social-ecological-technical systems (SETS) survivability. Including notions of who and what systems deem worthy of protection, credibility, expertise and agency, imaginations, and how concepts of systems survivability operate, this work builds a conceptual scaffolding to better understand the dynamic workings of quests for survival in the 21st century.
ContributorsWasserman, Sherri (Author) / Selin, Cynthia (Thesis advisor) / Richter, Jennifer (Committee member) / Jalbert, Kirk (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2022
Description
As one of the countries highly vulnerable to climate change, Nepal has developed climate adaptation policy objectives and integrated risk management strategies to avoid severe impacts from changing climatic conditions. The country has been developing local level adaptation initiatives to create synergy between the policy objectives at the higher levels and location-specific needs of communities. This dissertation analyzes how these initiatives have been shaped by the national and global level discourse on climate adaptation and how they translate into building resilience at the community level. More specifically, using the case of Nepal’s flagship adaptation programs - Local Adaptation Plans of Action (LAPA) and Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) - this dissertation seeks to understand institutional and technological innovations that contributed to the governance of climate adaptation initiatives in Nepal. Methodologically, this dissertation applies a mixed method. Quantitative data was collected by interviewing local level stakeholders using semi-structured questionnaires and from policy documents. The transcripts from the open-ended interviews with the regional and national level stakeholders form the basis for qualitative analysis. Overall, the findings from this dissertation reveal that most of the adaptation activities proposed by local communities were low cost, based on experiential learning, and could be implemented by mobilizing local resources. The case of LAPA shows that community-based adaptation activities are strongly connected to local development goals, revealing the synergy between adaptation policy objectives and development. Likewise, the case of CSA demonstrates how innovations, both technological and institutional, are fostered to co-produce locally specific knowledge required to adapt to changing climate. The collaborative efforts by different institutions operating at multiple levels for scaling CSA through the Climate Smart Village approach provide justification for working together to address the climate adaptation policy objectives. The findings of this dissertation also reveal that the distinction between local and scientific knowledge makes little sense at the community level as successful climate adaptation requires hybrid approaches. This dissertation makes a strong case to enhance the governance of adaptation initiatives through stronger collaboration between local to national and global actors.
ContributorsGhimire, Rajiv (Author) / Chhetri, Netra (Thesis advisor) / Sarewitz, Daniel (Thesis advisor) / Crow-Miller, Brittany (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2021
Description
Effective collaboration and cooperation across difference are at the heart of present and future sustainability challenges and solutions. Collaboration among social groups (intragenerational), across time (intergenerational), and across species (interspecies) is each central to achieving sustainability transitions in the 21st century. In practice, there are three types of differences that limit collaboration and cooperation toward sustainability outcomes: differences among social groups, differences across time, and differences across species. Each of these differences have corresponding cognitive biases that challenge collaboration. Social cognitive biases challenge collaboration among social groups; temporal cognitive biases challenge collaboration across time; and anthropocentric cognitive biases challenge collaboration across species. In this work, I present three correctives to collaboration challenges spanning the social, temporal, and species cognitive biases through intervention-specific methods that build beyond traditional framings of empathy, toward social, futures, and ecological empathy. By re-theorizing empathy across these domains, I seek to construct a multidimensional theory of empathy for sustainability, and suggest methods to build it, to bridge differences among people, time horizons, and species for sustainability practice.
ContributorsLambert, Lauren Marie-Jasmine (Author) / Selin, Cynthia (Thesis advisor) / Schoon, Michael (Thesis advisor) / Tomblin, David (Committee member) / Berbés-Blázquez, Marta (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2023
Description
Over the last few hundred years, best practice in some fields of human action—e.g., the treatment of heart disease, the transportation of persons, goods, and messages, and the destruction of landscapes, structures, and lives—has become dramatically more effective. At the same time, best practice in other fields, e.g., the amelioration of poverty or the teaching of reading, writing, or math, has improved more slowly, if at all. I argue that practice and technology (“know-how”) can only improve rapidly under rather special conditions: that, at any given point in time, some fields are more “progressible” than others.I articulate a conceptual framework describing several characteristics of practice in a field that may facilitate rapid progress. These characteristics, while not fixed, tend to remain fairly stable for long periods of time. I argue that know-how can improve more quickly 1) when offline “vicarious trial” of variations in practice is feasible and useful; 2) when practice is formal and standardized; 3) when practice is substantially performed by artifacts rather than by humans; 4) when outcomes of variations in practice may be rapidly evaluated; 5) when goals of practice are consistently agreed upon; 6) when contexts and objects of practice may be treated as, or have been made, consistent for the purposes of intervention; 7) when components of task systems are not heavily interdependent; and 8) when labor is finely and sharply divided.
I illustrate and elaborate this framework through comparative case studies on efforts to improve practice in three differentially “progressible” fields. I examine rapid improvement in a COVID-19 testing lab, inconsistent improvement in undergraduate algebra instruction, and ambiguous improvement in regional water modeling to support municipal water management. These cases indicate that my theory may inform judgments about the plausibility of rapid advance within a field of practice, absent disruptive change in methods or problem formulation. My theory may also shed light on which varieties of innovative effort may and may not foreseeably contribute to improving practice in a given field—more formal, theoretical, and context-independent work in high-progressibility domains, more tacit, grounded, and localized work in low-progressibility ones.
ContributorsNelson III, John Paul (Author) / Sarewitz, Daniel (Thesis advisor) / Bozeman, Barry (Committee member) / Guston, David (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2023