中国科学院自然科学期刊作者、审者、编者道德守则（试行）

中国科学院自然科学期刊作者、审者、编者道德守则（试行）自然科学期刊的任务是宣传党和国家的科技方针、政策、报道科技成果，传播科技信息，进行学术交流，普及科技知识，发现和培养科技人才，以推动科技事业发展，促进科技成果转化为现实生产力，团结广大科技工作者为...     

关于培育引导环保社会组织有序发展的指导意见

各省、自治区、直辖市环境保护厅(局),计划单列市环境保护局,各派出机构、直属单位: 环保社会组织是以人与环境的和谐发展为宗旨,从事各类环境保护活动,为社会提供环境公益服务的非营利性社会组织,包括环保社团、环保基金会、环保民办非企业单位等多种类型.为促进环保社会组织的健康、有序发展,充分发挥环保社会组织在建设资源节约型和环境友好型社会中的作用,制定本指导意见.     

节约型社会提出的现实背景、理论前提及其法律内涵

通过对节约型社会提出的现实背景的阐述,认为节约型社会的理论前提和基础有生态政治理论、环境资源承载能力理论、资源生态经济理论、资源生态化和环境资源化理论等。并对节约型社会的目标、节约型社会的理念、基本原则等进行了探讨。最后在以上分析的基础上对节约型社会的法律内涵进行界定。认为节约型社会在第一层面的涵义是以供定需的发展战略和资源禀赋导向型的发展规划;第二层面的内涵是资源生态承载能力范围内的经济发展道路选择;第三层面的内涵是对自然资源进入社会经济生产的全过程进行规划和调控。     

林业的社会与自然协调发展--林业社会化发展方式

我国林业发展没有取得令人满意效果的主要原因是社会系统与自然系统不能协调发展.土地所有者虚位、国家投入不足、急功近利等都是人组成的社会系统这一控制主体自以为是的结果.树立人与自然是"伙伴关系"的观念,针对社会系统出现的与自然系统不协调的问题采取对策,采取林业社会化发展方式,必将实现林业的社会与自然协调发展.     

基于MSIASM方法的中国不同区域社会代谢分析

通过社会代谢多尺度综合分析方法,评价东北、华北、西北、西南、华中、华东2003年和2007年的社会代谢状况,并结合社会代谢多尺度综合分析与因素分解等方法进行对比分析,识别出限制区域可持续发展的关键因素。结果表明,华北、东北、西北、华中和华东区迫切需要采取措施调整区域产业结构;西南区亟需加大资本技术的引进力度,以解决不同区域经济发展中的资本技术聚集与区域产业结构的不协调问题。从与2003年的对比来看,2007年社会负担出现南方转移到北方的倾向,而且除东北地区外其他地区的资源品质和数量与技术水平的改善状况与社会发展需求不相协调,致使六大区的社会代谢状况略显异常。     

天津经济技术开发区(TEDA)社会发展预警系统建立的研究

本文根据社会发展的统计指标体系,结合评价可持续发展的社会指标体系构成,得出社会发展警情、警兆指标体系,然后根据统计数据,采用实证和理论分析相结合的方法,给出社会发展警情预报的警情警限值,并利用其研究ＴＥＤＡ的社会发展态势,最终给出ＴＥＤＡ警源形成因素及排警对策。     

人口增长对经济发展的影响

本文提出了人类社会生产的两个方面即物质生产、人口生产,指出人口生产必须与社会经济发展相一致,如果人口生产过多人口增长过快,就会影响社会经济的发展,因此我国必须对人口进行控制,实行计划生育.     

肾移植患者社会支持对其心理健康影响的研究进展

综述了影响肾移植患者心理健康的原因以及社会支持与心理健康的相关性,并探讨通过社会支持提高肾移植患者心理健康水平的途径.从而提示护理工作者在工作中应尽可能调动肾移植患者本人、家庭成员及社会的主观能动性,以提高肾移植患者的心理健康水平.     

老龄化社会现状分析与对策

老龄工作是党和政府工作的重要组成部分,做好老龄工作是实践"三个代表"重要思想的具体体现.随着社会老龄化步伐的加快,老年人问题日渐突出,老龄工作必然与时俱进向更高层次发展.做好老龄工作重在落实、贵在实践,只有坚持"党政主导、社会参与、全民关怀"的老龄工作方针,才能为社会发展服务,才能为老年人服务,才能把老龄工作做得更好.因此,结合老龄工作实际,对当前老龄化社会的形成,社会服务和保障,就如何开展老龄工作谈谈几点体会和认识.参4.     

自然环境恶化的社会经济原因

从社会经济学的角度 ,剖析自然环境恶化的原因 ,得出如下结论 :环境恶化的社会经济原因从直观上表现为市场调节和政府干预两种机制的失灵 ;导致这两种机制失灵的根本原因是自然资源产权不明晰、自然资源的价值衡量标准的缺乏和开发利用自然资源的项目和政策造成的社会环境成本的衡量标准的缺乏 3方面。社会要阻止和修复自然环境的恶化 ,就必须从根本上解决这 3个方面的问题     

Comparative study of Chinese ecological agriculture and sustainable agriculture

Although sustainable development has already been promulgated as one of its fundamental strategies by the national government since 1993, sustainable development, as an exotic new paradigm characteristic of profound philosophical and ethical thinking initiated in developed countries, is still not familiar to the Chinese people. Fortunately, in parallel to the evolution of sustainable agriculture, mainly in developed countries, since the beginning of the 1980s, Chinese agricultural scientists and technicians have already innovated their own unique form of Chinese Ecological Agriculture (CEA), on the basis of traditional agriculture that has been sustained for more than 4000 years. The basic principle of CEA emphasizes the obeying of both ecological rules and economic rules, as well as the approach of systematics and ecological engineering exactly corresponding to those adopted by sustainable development. The major difference between the two is that CEA has already been executed on a very large scale and has served as an effective and popularized way to implement sustainable agriculture in most parts of China. Also, as an active way of intensifying agriculture in terms of more inputs of skills, knowledge and labour, CEA is contributing much to all-round rural development throughout China.     

Interagency Resource Teams: a Model for Collaborative Approaches to Environmental Education

Abstract: The Undergraduate Interagency Resource Teams at the White Mountain Research Station of the University of California were created in 1994 to support resource-agency mandates and academic research objectives by providing qualified students who can learn, apply, and improve research and agency monitoring protocols. Drawing from documented elements of other successful internship programs, we identified four basic components that we believe may enhance the potential success of the interns: (1) self-directed learning methodologies, (2) multidisciplinary approaches to science, (3) reflection on and documentation of intern learning, and (4) principles of a positive work environment, including teamwork, conflict resolution, and effective communication. During a 10-week summer session, the Interagency Resource Teams expose approximately 17 students to the professional worlds of natural resource agencies and research scientists. In this environment, we have also observed that the internship program not only exposes students to resource management careers but may also help bridge the gap between resource agency specialists and academic researchers.     

On Advocacy by Environmental Scientists: What, Whether, Why, and How

Abstract:  Debate about the nature and appropriateness of advocacy by environmental scientists is important—it represents understanding the role of these citizens in our society. Much has been written about advocacy by scientists, and that literature describes substantial diversity in reasons why advocacy by scientists is or is not appropriate. Despite the nature of this literature there has been no comprehensive, systematic review of why some favor and others oppose advocacy by environmental scientists. Through a literature review we catalogued, categorized, and critiqued the arguments used for and against the appropriateness of advocacy by environmental scientists. Most arguments, whether for or against advocacy, are characterized by some significant deficiency. From our analysis of the literature an argument emerges that to date has never been fully articulated: that advocacy is nearly unavoidable, and that scientists, by virtue of being citizens first and scientists second, have a responsibility to advocate to the best of their abilities, to improve their advocacy abilities, and to advocate in a justified and transparent manner. We also discuss the meaning and relevance of advocacy being justified and transparent. We suggest scientists expend their efforts to better understand what constitutes appropriate advocacy and spend less effort pondering whether they should advocate .     

Climate policies and skill-biased employment dynamics: Evidence from EU countries

The political acceptability of climate policies is undermined by job-killing arguments, especially for the least-skilled workers. However, evidence of the distributional impacts for different workers remains scant. We examine the associations between climate policies, proxied by energy prices, and workforce skills for 14 European countries and 15 industrial sectors over the period 1995–2011. Using a shift-share instrumental variable estimator and controlling for the influence of automation and globalization, we find that climate policies have been skill biased against manual workers and have favoured technicians. The long-term change in energy prices accounted for between 9.2% and 17.5% (resp. 4.2% and 8.0%) of the increase (resp. decrease) in the share of technicians (resp. manual workers).     

The role of scientists in statutory interpretation of the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Like many federal statutes, the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) contains vague or ambiguous language. The meaning imparted to the ESA's unclear language can profoundly impact the fates of endangered and threatened species. Hence, conservation scientists should contribute to the interpretation of the ESA when vague or ambiguous language contains scientific words or refers to scientific concepts. Scientists need to know at least these 2 facts about statutory interpretation: statutory interpretation is subjective and the potential influence of normative values results in different expectations for the parties involved. With the possible exception of judges, all conventional participants in statutory interpretation are serving their own interests, advocating for their preferred policies, or biased. Hence, scientists can play a unique role by informing the interpretative process with objective, policy‐neutral information. Conversely, scientists may act as advocates for their preferred interpretation of unclear statutory language. The different roles scientists might play in statutory interpretation raise the issues of advocacy and competency. Advocating for a preferred statutory interpretation is legitimate political behavior by scientists, but statutory interpretation can be strongly influenced by normative values. Therefore, scientists must be careful not to commit stealth policy advocacy. Most conservation scientists lack demonstrable competence in statutory interpretation and therefore should consult or collaborate with lawyers when interpreting statutes. Professional scientific societies are widely perceived by the public as unbiased sources of objective information. Therefore, professional scientific societies should remain policy neutral and present all interpretations of unclear statutory language; explain the semantics and science both supporting and contradicting each interpretation; and describe the potential consequences of implementing each interpretation. A review of scientists’ interpretations of the phrase “significant portion of its range” in the ESA is used to critique the role of scientists and professional societies in statutory interpretation.     

Shared ways of thinking in Brazil about the science–practice interface in ecology and conservation

The debate in the literature on the science–practice interface suggests a diversity of opinions on how to link science and practice to improve conservation. Understanding this diversity is key to addressing unequal power relations, avoiding the consideration of only dominant views, and identifying strategies to link science and practice. In turn, linking science and practice should promote conservation decisions that are socially robust and scientifically informed. To identify and describe the viewpoints of scientists and decision makers on how the science–practice interface should work in order to improve conservation decisions, we interviewed Brazilian scientists (ecologists and conservation scientists, n = 11) and decision makers (n = 11). We used Q methodology and asked participants to rank their agreement with 48 statements on how the science–practice interface should work in order to improve conservation decisions. We used principal component analysis to identify shared viewpoints. The predominant viewpoint, shared by scientists and decision makers, was characterized by valuing the integration of scientific and strategic knowledge to address environmental problems. The second viewpoint, held mostly by decision makers, was distinguished by assigning great importance to science in the decision-making process and calling for problem-relevant research. The third viewpoint, shared only by scientists, was characterized by an unwillingness to collaborate and a perception of scientists as producers of knowledge that may help decision makers. Most participants agreed organizations should promote collaboration and that actors and knowledge from both science and practice are relevant. Disagreements concerned specific roles assigned to actors, willingness to collaborate, and organizational and institutional arrangements considered effective to link science and practice. Our results suggest there is ample room for collaborations and that impediments lie mainly in existing organizations and formal institutional arrangements rather than in negative attitudes between scientists and decision makers.     

Science, Policy Advocacy, and Marine Protected Areas

Abstract:  Much has been written in recent years regarding whether and to what extent scientists should engage in the policy process, and the focus has been primarily on the issue of advocacy. Despite extensive theoretical discussions, little has been done to study attitudes toward and consequences of such advocacy in particular cases. We assessed attitudes toward science and policy advocacy in the case of marine protected areas (MPAs) on the basis of a survey of delegates at the First International Marine Protected Areas Congress. Delegates were all members of the international marine conservation community and represented academic, government, and nongovernmental organizations. A majority of respondents believed science is objective but only a minority believed that values can be eliminated from science. Respondents showed only partial support of positivist principles of science. Almost all respondents supported scientists being integrated into MPA policy making, whereas half of the respondents agreed that scientists should actively advocate for particular MPA policies. Scientists with a positivist view of science supported a minimal role for scientists in policy, whereas government staff with positivist beliefs supported an advocacy or decision-making role for scientists. Policy-making processes for MPAs need to account for these divergent attitudes toward science and advocacy if science-driven and participatory approaches are to be reconciled.     

Publishing science without results and recycling research

Most scientists focus too much on publishing original articles. In doing so, scientists are restricting their writing skills to this form of highly specialised publication, which is poorly readable by scientists from other disciplines. In the context of rising interdisciplinary research and data abundance, there is a need for more publications that recycle existing research and communicate to a wider audience. Therefore, I present here five types of publications that do not require additional experiments, namely reviews, methods, data papers, meta-analyses and videos. Benefits include more citations, larger visibility, wider dissemination, easier job finding, grant success and better recycling of research.     

Inadvertent advocacy

Policy advocacy is an issue regularly debated among conservation scientists. These debates have focused on intentional policy advocacy by scientists, but advocacy can also be unintentional. I define inadvertent policy advocacy as the act of unintentionally expressing personal policy preferences or ethical judgments in a way that is nearly indistinguishable from scientific judgments. A scientist may be well intentioned and intellectually honest but still inadvertently engage in policy advocacy. There are two ways to inadvertently engage in policy advocacy. First, a scientist expresses an opinion that she or he believes is a scientific judgment but it is actually an ethical judgment or personal policy preference. Second, a scientist expresses an opinion that he or she knows is an ethical judgment or personal policy preference but inadvertently fails to effectively communicate the nature of the opinion to policy makers or the public. I illustrate inadvertent advocacy with three examples: recovery criteria in recovery plans for species listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, a scientific peer review of a recovery plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), and the International Union for Conservation of Nature's definition of threatened. In each example, scientists expressed ethical judgments or policy preferences, but their value judgments were not identified as such, and, hence, their value judgments were opaque to policy makers and the public. Circumstances suggest their advocacy was inadvertent. I believe conservation scientists must become acutely aware of the line between science and policy and avoid inadvertent policy advocacy because it is professional negligence, erodes trust in scientists and science, and perpetuates an ethical vacuum that undermines the rational political discourse necessary for the evolution of society's values. The principal remedy for inadvertent advocacy is education of conservation scientists in an effort to help them understand how science and values interact to fulfill the mission of conservation science.     

Defending the scientific integrity of conservation‐policy processes

Government agencies faced with politically controversial decisions often discount or ignore scientific information, whether from agency staff or nongovernmental scientists. Recent developments in scientific integrity (the ability to perform, use, communicate, and publish science free from censorship or political interference) in Canada, Australia, and the United States demonstrate a similar trajectory. A perceived increase in scientific‐integrity abuses provokes concerted pressure by the scientific community, leading to efforts to improve scientific‐integrity protections under a new administration. However, protections are often inconsistently applied and are at risk of reversal under administrations publicly hostile to evidence‐based policy. We compared recent challenges to scientific integrity to determine what aspects of scientific input into conservation policy are most at risk of political distortion and what can be done to strengthen safeguards against such abuses. To ensure the integrity of outbound communications from government scientists to the public, we suggest governments strengthen scientific integrity policies, include scientists’ right to speak freely in collective‐bargaining agreements, guarantee public access to scientific information, and strengthen agency culture supporting scientific integrity. To ensure the transparency and integrity with which information from nongovernmental scientists (e.g., submitted comments or formal policy reviews) informs the policy process, we suggest governments broaden the scope of independent reviews, ensure greater diversity of expert input and transparency regarding conflicts of interest, require a substantive response to input from agencies, and engage proactively with scientific societies. For their part, scientists and scientific societies have a responsibility to engage with the public to affirm that science is a crucial resource for developing evidence‐based policy and regulations in the public interest.