Knowledge,experience and the circus: academic perspectives on the processes of communicating the environmental and health impacts of electric vehicles

The translation of research findings into public realms has important implications for alternative technologies, such as electric vehicles (EVs). Much existing science communication research focuses on the agency of different publics in processes of scientific knowledge uptake. This study uses research related to the environmental and health impacts of EVs as a case study to explore how the individual agency of academic researchers can influence communication. Challenges to communication and opportunities to enhance the agency of researchers to engage in public dialogue are identified, with a focus on academics at different stages of their careers. This paper proposes a new way of understanding how these individualised nuances impact the communication of a particular researcher’s findings. These nuances are built through the researcher’s agency; a construct of their past experiences, professional and personal relationships with other actors and previous practices of communicating to publics. Communication models have previously concentrated on the heterogeneity of other actors and publics with the huge assumption that academics work consistently, homogenously, in a neutral way to the benefit of society. EVs were chosen as an appropriate case study as they are a contemporary technology that relies on the communication of knowledge and the public understanding of this knowledge to cater for future needs. The responses elicited from the interviews highlight the individual geographies of knowledge. Hence, a reflexive understanding of their role as an individual can provide valuable insights into how a researcher may distribute knowledges more effectively in their geographies to publics     

Knowledge for environmental governance: probing science–policy theory in the cases of eutrophication and fisheries in the Baltic Sea

How science and policy interact has been a major research focus in the International Relations (IR) tradition, using the epistemic community (EC) concept, as well as in the alternative perspective of Science and Technology Studies (STS). Should science be autonomous and as apolitical as possible in order to ‘speak truth to power’, as suggested by EC or should the inevitable entanglement of science and politics be accepted and embraced so as to make advice more conducive to negotiating the explicit travails of political decision-making as suggested by STS? With this point of departure, we compare similarities and differences between science–policy interactions in the issue areas of eutrophication and fisheries management of the Baltic Sea. To examine how knowledge is mobilised, the concepts of ‘uncertainty’ and ‘coherence’ are developed, drawing on both EC and STS thinking. We then reflect on the explanatory value of these approaches in both cases and discuss how a separation of science and policy-making in the pursuit of achieving scientific consensus leads to ineffectual policies. Drawing on STS thinking, we urge for a re-conceptualisation of coherence in order to accommodate a more reflexive practice of science–policy interactions.     

An investigation of environmental and sustainability discourses associated with the substantive purposes of environmental assessment

This paper investigates the discursive construction of the substantive purposes of environmental assessment (EA). It addresses these purposes by exploring the complex and often multifaceted linkages between political factors and plural views of democracy, public participation, and the role of science that are embedded in environmental and sustainability discourses. The interaction between policy-making and public actors leads to the formulation of divergent and potentially competing rationales for public participation, and for social appraisal more generally. Participatory approaches have also given impetus to the development of several interpretations on the role of science in assessment procedures. Science is important in mediating public participation and the two are therefore reciprocally linked. This leads to discourses that become manifest in the construction of substantive purposes. Discourse analysis in EA is a relevant method for examining trends and patterns in sustainable development. It is argued that public participation is an important, if not decisive, variable in the articulation and civil legitimacy of certain purposes. A general proposition that results from this paper is that EA, although typically presented as an objective scientific tool, is an intrinsically normative process. Enhanced knowledge on the construction, and reconstruction over time, of substantive purposes is required if environmental and sustainability discourses are to be used and understood as meaningful analytical instruments to assess the socio-political implications of EA.     

环境科研论文撰写与发表的方法和策略

概要地介绍了中文环境科技核心期刊、美国《工程索引》（EI）和《科学引文索引》（SCI）收录中国科研论文的情况，以及两份知名英文环境期刊的论文评审标准。EI和SCI收录其来源期刊中英文摘要符合要求的论文。一篇好英文摘要有助于论文被国际环境期刊录用和增加论文的影响力。基于目前EI及SCI的来源期刊中缺少中文专业期刊，国内的环境科研人员可以先将其重要研发成果陆续在中文环境核心期刊上发表，形成系列文章，然后再融合这些文章，投寄英文国际环境期刊。这个策略可及时将研发成果公开发表，提高论文被国际期刊录用的几率，并增加中文环境核心期刊的知名度和声望。     

基于1983—2019年文献计量对多环芳烃降解基因研究及进展的剖析

为全面、系统地了解1983—2019年37年间多环芳烃降解基因研究领域的发文趋势、主要的研究国家和机构、研究热点及其变化趋势等,本文以Web of Science核心数据库为数据源,利用文献计量学方法对此进行分析,结果表明：①全球对多环芳烃降解基因研究的重视程度越来越高,而且分子生物学的技术手段在该研究领域中得到了广泛应用,发文主要集中于微生物学、生物技术与应用微生物学、环境科学等3个学科;②美国、中国、日本、德国等国家发文较多,相比其他国家,中国需进一步加强与其他研究机构间的交流合作;③1983—1995年该研究领域侧重于高效降解菌的筛选及其特性研究,1996—2019年则大规模展开了对其降解途径多样性的研究,近年来更侧重于运用多种生物信息技术来研究多环芳烃的代谢机理及构建生物降解调节机制;④目前已报道了nah、phd、nag、phn、nar和nid等6类多环芳烃降解菌的功能基因,为污染场地的生物修复提供了相应支撑.     

实施科技兴安战略的思考

科技兴安战略是安全生产工作的指导思想之一,安全生产以"管理为基础,科技为支撑",不断增强安全生产科技进步与创新,是安全发展的动力。我国安全科技发展存在安全科技人才匮乏、安全科技研发投入少、安全基础理论研究滞后、科技研发成果和技术装备推广应用进展缓慢、安全技术支撑平台不健全等突出矛盾和问题。坚持超前感知安全生产科技发展方向、"大、微、智"安全技术装备发展方向,大力实施科技兴安战略,加快安全生产科技研发、推广应用、技术监督三大体系是当前安全科技工作的迫切任务。     

国家自然科学基金“土地科学和自然资源管理”申请代码领域研究格局、热点透视与发展展望

支持基础研究是国家自然科学基金的职责使命。自然资源管理是地理科学交叉融合创新的重要领域。划分国家自然科学基金土地科学和自然资源管理申请代码领域的研究方向,分析该领域申报与资助格局,透视研究热点,提出发展展望。研究发现：2021年以来土地科学和自然资源管理领域的申报格局以交叉且偏向人文要素研究为主,交叉类研究占55%以上,人文要素为主类研究占30%,自然要素为主类研究占15%;以土地资源为对象研究占73%,以生态资源为对象占14%,以其他自然资源为对象的研究占13%。资助格局中土地资源类项目占主导,在75%以上,其他自然资源资助比例不高且资助率不稳定,在土地资源中,农用地、建设用地与土地系统是主要资助领域。为推动自然资源管理领域的健康持续发展,要创新该领域研究范式,增强基础研究属性,树立交叉融合研究典范,坚持申请代码初衷内涵。     

基于Web of Science的1900～2012年长江研究文献计量分析

为了揭示有关长江研究的热点与发展动态,以Web of Science数据库为资料来源,利用文献计量学方法及TDA软件,对1900~2012年长江研究文献的发文量、国家、机构、作者、期刊、学科、关键词进行数据统计与分析。结果表明:(1)长江研究大致分为3个阶段:初步发展时期;探索时期;快速发展时期;(2)中国发表的关于长江研究的论文最多,国外主要国家及机构来自美国、日本、澳大利亚;(3)中国科学院是国内长江研究的主要机构;(4)国内外十分关注地质学、环境科学、水资源和气象学的研究。     

Scientists as policy actors: A study of the language of biofuel research

Theory suggests that the influence of science on policy will be greater when scientific discourse is aligned with the language and meaning of wider social concerns. Seeking to assess whether scientists may be guided by such propositions in a controversial environmental policy arena, we examine the language and content of public-facing, UK scientific research grant abstracts on biofuels for the period 2007–2011, comparing these to stakeholder position statements and newspaper articles of the same period. We find that UK scientists have indeed broadly reflected societal concerns about biofuels during this period. However we also find that both science and society have paid less attention to procedural issues. We comment on the implications of the findings for the role of science in environmental policy development.     

Misdefining “climate change”: consequences for science and action

The restricted definition of “climate change” used by the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) has profoundly affected the science, politics, and policy processes associated with the international response to the climate issue. Specifically, the FCCC definition has contributed to the gridlock and ineffectiveness of the global response to the challenge of climate change. This paper argues that the consequences of misdefining “climate change” create a bias against adaptation policies and set the stage for the politicization of climate science. The paper discusses options for bringing science, policy and politics in line with a more appropriate definition of climate change such as the more comprehensive perspective used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.