Applied Filters
- Perspective
- Science and PolicyRemove filter
- Science and SocietyRemove filter
- FACETSRemove filter
- Open AccessRemove filter
Topics
Publication Date
Author
- Cooke, Steven J2
- Adamson, S1
- Aiken, Alice1
- Amirfazli, Alidad1
- Anagnostou, Michelle1
- Anastakis, Dimitry1
- Ansari, Daniel1
- Antle, Alissa N1
- Babel, Molly1
- Bailey, Jane1
- Bergsieker, Hilary B1
- Bernstein, Daniel M1
- Birnbaum, Rachel1
- Bourassa, Carrie1
- Calcagno, Antonio1
- Campana, Aurélie1
- Cassey, Phillip1
- Chen, Bing1
- Christianson, Amy Cardinal1
- Coe, Imogen R1
- Collins, Karen1
- Connelly, Catherine E1
- Copes-Gerbitz, Kelsey1
- Daniels, Lori D1
- Decker, Jennifer E1
Access Type
1 - 7of7
Save this search
Please login to be able to save your searches and receive alerts for new content matching your search criteria.
Filters
Search Name | Searched On |
---|---|
[Paper Type: Perspective] AND [Subject Areas: Science and Policy] AND [Subject Area... (7) | 13 Sep 2024 |
You do not have any saved searches
- OPEN ACCESSPolicy-makers are confronted with complex problems that require evaluating multiple streams of evidence and weighing competing interests to develop and implement solutions. However, the policy interventions available to resolve these problems have different levels of supporting scientific evidence. Decision-makers, who are not necessarily scientifically trained, may favour policies with limited scientific backing to obtain public support. We illustrate these tensions with two case studies where the scientific consensus went up against the governing parties’ chosen policy. What mechanisms exist to keep the weight of scientific evidence at the forefront of decision-making at the highest levels of government? In this paper, we propose that Canada create “Departmental Chief Science Advisors” (DCSAs), based on a program in the UK, to help complement and extend the reach of the newly created Chief Science Advisor position. DCSAs would provide advice to ministers and senior civil servants, critically evaluate scientific work in their host department, and provide public outreach for the department’s science. We show how the DCSAs could be integrated into their departments and illustrate their potential benefits to the policy making process and the scientific community.
- OPEN ACCESS
- Eleanor Haine-Bennett,
- Hilary B. Bergsieker,
- Imogen R. Coe,
- Andrea Koch-Kraft,
- Eve Langelier,
- Suzanne Morrison,
- Katrin Nikoleyczik,
- Toni Schmader,
- Olga Trivailo,
- Sue Twine, and
- Jennifer E. Decker
Science and engineering research excellence can be maximized if the selection of researchers is made from 100% of the pool of human talent. This requires policies and approaches that encourage broad sections of society, including women and other underrepresented groups, to participate in research. Institutional policies, interpersonal interactions, and individuals’ attitudes are drivers of workplace culture. Here, some new evidence-based and systematic approaches with a focus on culture are proposed to foster women’s inclusion and success in science and engineering. - OPEN ACCESS
- Steven J. Cooke,
- Vivian M. Nguyen,
- Dimitry Anastakis,
- Shannon D. Scott,
- Merritt R. Turetsky,
- Alidad Amirfazli,
- Alison Hearn,
- Cynthia E. Milton,
- Laura Loewen,
- Eric E. Smith,
- D. Ryan Norris,
- Kim L. Lavoie,
- Alice Aiken,
- Daniel Ansari,
- Alissa N. Antle,
- Molly Babel,
- Jane Bailey,
- Daniel M. Bernstein,
- Rachel Birnbaum,
- Carrie Bourassa,
- Antonio Calcagno,
- Aurélie Campana,
- Bing Chen,
- Karen Collins,
- Catherine E. Connelly,
- Myriam Denov,
- Benoît Dupont,
- Eric George,
- Irene Gregory-Eaves,
- Steven High,
- Josephine M. Hill,
- Philip L. Jackson,
- Nathalie Jette,
- Mark Jurdjevic,
- Anita Kothari,
- Paul Khairy,
- Sylvie A. Lamoureux,
- Kiera Ladner,
- Christian R. Landry,
- François Légaré,
- Nadia Lehoux,
- Christian Leuprecht,
- Angela R. Lieverse,
- Artur Luczak,
- Mark L. Mallory,
- Erin Manning,
- Ali Mazalek,
- Stuart J. Murray,
- Lenore L. Newman,
- Valerie Oosterveld,
- Patrice Potvin,
- Sheryl Reimer-Kirkham,
- Jennifer Rowsell,
- Dawn Stacey,
- Susan L. Tighe,
- David J. Vocadlo,
- Anne E. Wilson, and
- Andrew Woolford
Various multiple-disciplinary terms and concepts (although most commonly “interdisciplinarity,” which is used herein) are used to frame education, scholarship, research, and interactions within and outside academia. In principle, the premise of interdisciplinarity may appear to have many strengths; yet, the extent to which interdisciplinarity is embraced by the current generation of academics, the benefits and risks for doing so, and the barriers and facilitators to achieving interdisciplinarity, represent inherent challenges. Much has been written on the topic of interdisciplinarity, but to our knowledge there have been few attempts to consider and present diverse perspectives from scholars, artists, and scientists in a cohesive manner. As a team of 57 members from the Canadian College of New Scholars, Artists, and Scientists of the Royal Society of Canada (the College) who self-identify as being engaged or interested in interdisciplinarity, we provide diverse intellectual, cultural, and social perspectives. The goal of this paper is to share our collective wisdom on this topic with the broader community and to stimulate discourse and debate on the merits and challenges associated with interdisciplinarity. Perhaps the clearest message emerging from this exercise is that working across established boundaries of scholarly communities is rewarding, necessary, and is more likely to result in impact. However, there are barriers that limit the ease with which this can occur (e.g., lack of institutional structures and funding to facilitate cross-disciplinary exploration). Occasionally, there can be significant risk associated with doing interdisciplinary work (e.g., lack of adequate measurement or recognition of work by disciplinary peers). Solving many of the world’s complex and pressing problems (e.g., climate change, sustainable agriculture, the burden of chronic disease, and aging populations) demands thinking and working across long-standing, but in some ways restrictive, academic boundaries. Academic institutions and key support structures, especially funding bodies, will play an important role in helping to realize what is readily apparent to all who contributed to this paper—that interdisciplinarity is essential for solving complex problems; it is the new norm. Failure to empower and encourage those doing this research will serve as a great impediment to training, knowledge, and addressing societal issues. - OPEN ACCESS
- Kira M. Hoffman,
- Amy Cardinal Christianson,
- Sarah Dickson-Hoyle,
- Kelsey Copes-Gerbitz,
- William Nikolakis,
- David A. Diabo,
- Robin McLeod,
- Herman J. Michell,
- Abdullah Al Mamun,
- Alex Zahara,
- Nicholas Mauro,
- Joe Gilchrist,
- Russell Myers Ross, and
- Lori D. Daniels
Indigenous fire stewardship enhances ecosystem diversity, assists with the management of complex resources, and reduces wildfire risk by lessening fuel loads. Although Indigenous Peoples have maintained fire stewardship practices for millennia and continue to be keepers of fire knowledge, significant barriers exist for re-engaging in cultural burning. Indigenous communities in Canada have unique vulnerabilities to large and high-intensity wildfires as they are predominately located in remote, forested regions and lack financial support at federal and provincial levels to mitigate wildfire risk. Therefore, it is critical to uphold Indigenous expertise in leading effective and socially just fire stewardship. In this perspective, we demonstrate the benefits of cultural burning and identify five key barriers to advancing Indigenous fire stewardship in Canada. We also provide calls to action to assist with reducing preconceptions and misinformation and focus on creating space and respect for different knowledges and experiences. Despite growing concerns over wildfire risk and agency-stated intentions to establish Indigenous Peoples as partners in wildfire management, power imbalances still exist. The future and coexistence with fire in Canada needs to be a shared responsibility and led by Indigenous Peoples within their territories. - OPEN ACCESSShortcomings in the rigour and reproducibility of research have become well-known issues and persist despite repeated calls for improvement. A coordinated effort among researchers, institutions, funders, publishers, learned societies, and regulators may be the most effective way of tackling these issues. The UK Reproducibility Network (UKRN) has fostered collaboration across various stakeholders in research and are creating the infrastructure necessary to advance rigorous and reproducible research practices across the United Kingdom. Other Reproducibility Networks, modelled on UKRN, are now emerging in other countries. Canada could benefit from a comparable network to unify the voices around research quality and maximize the value of Canadian research.
- OPEN ACCESSThere is a global focus by governments on retrofitting buildings, as well as incorporating energy efficiency into new construction, as a means to address climate change. Initiatives to reduce energy use, source renewable electricity, and use low-carbon materials are aimed at leading by example, where governments attempt to showcase innovation through green building strategies. Greening government initiatives are promoted to reduce operating costs, improve energy system resilience, grow the “green” economy, support clean energy development, and encourage sustainable building practices. Here, we outline the benefits of greening government initiatives by examining Canada's Greening Government Strategy as a case study approach for transitioning to a low-carbon building portfolio. We focus our review on initiatives that outline how public institutions can transition buildings to reduce their carbon footprint by (1) pairing greening government mandates with adequate support structures for public agencies, (2) using an integrated energy management process for the planning and development of carbon-neutral portfolios, and (3) overcoming barriers to low-carbon project implementation with procurement standards, financial instruments, and staff training. These approaches are defined to offer leadership in the green building industry, strategically identify carbon reduction projects, and reduce barriers to a low-carbon building portfolio.
- OPEN ACCESS
- Delon Omrow,
- Michelle Anagnostou,
- Phillip Cassey,
- Steven J. Cooke,
- Sheldon Jordan,
- Andrea E. Kirkwood,
- Timothy MacNeill,
- Tanner Mirrlees,
- Isabel Pedersen,
- Peter Stoett, and
- Michael F. Tlusty
International and transnational cooperation is needed to strengthen environmental governance initiatives with advanced technologies. In January 2023, Ontario Tech University hosted a symposium entitled Tech With a Green Governance Conscience: Exploring the Technology–Environmental Policy Nexus. Attendees spanned diverse disciplines, sectors, and countries, bringing unique and diverse perspectives to the technology–environmental policy nexus. Emergent themes arising from the symposium include the role of artificial intelligence in environmental governance, while eliminating the detrimental social impacts associated with these advanced technologies via algorithmic bias, misunderstanding, and unaccountability. The symposium explored the tech–society–ecology interface, such as the authoritarian intensification of digitalized environmental governance, “technocracy”, and the ethical implications of sacrificing democratic legitimacy in the face of imminent environmental destruction. Select participants (i.e., co-authors) at the symposium provided input on a preliminary framework, which led to this perspective article focused on the politics surrounding green governance in the 21st century. We conclude that while emerging technologies are being deployed to address grand environmental challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and resource depletion, the use of these various technologies for progressive environmental policy development and enforcement requires co-productivist approaches to constructive technology assessments and embracing the concept of technologies of humility. This necessitates a space for dialogue, reflection, and deliberation on leading adaptive environmental governance in the face of power and politics, as we interrogate the putative neutrality of advanced technology and techno-solutionism.