Original language | English (US) |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 177-181 |
Number of pages | 5 |
Journal | Social Epistemology |
Volume | 23 |
Issue number | 3-4 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - Jul 2009 |
Externally published | Yes |
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Philosophy
- General Social Sciences
Access to Document
Other files and links
Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver
}
In: Social Epistemology, Vol. 23, No. 3-4, 07.2009, p. 177-181.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Editorial › peer-review
TY - JOUR
T1 - Editor's introduction
AU - Holbrook, J. Britt
N1 - Funding Information: The genesis of this volume was a research workshop in August 2007 held at the Colorado School of Mines on “Making Sense of the Broader Impacts of Science and Technology” supported by NSF and co-sponsored by the Colorado School of Mines’ Hennebach Program in the Humanities and the Scientific Freedom, Responsibility & Law Program of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Several of the contributors to this special issue—Warren Burggren, Erik Fisher, Robert Frodeman, Kristen Intemann, and Jonathan Parker—were participants in the 2007 workshop. As we continued to pursue our research on BIC, we encountered a number of other researchers with their own distinctive approaches to making sense of broader impacts. Despite their varied disciplinary backgrounds, all of the contributors to this issue are united in taking seriously the aim of Social Epistemology to serve as a guide for directing contemporary knowledge enterprises. Featuring articles from scientists, philosophers, researchers in science and technology studies, informal science education and public outreach professionals, and instructors in responsible conduct of research, we hope this volume will become an essential reference for scientists, engineers, and funding agency staff, as well as for policy-makers and citizens interested in the return on their investments in basic research. Funding Information: Since April 2009, applicants for funding from the Research Councils UK have been required to include both an “impact summary” and an “impact plan” to ensure that researchers have considered the impact on society of their proposed research, as well as how to maximize that (presumably positive) impact. A story from the Times Higher Education Supplement, 15 January 2009,2 strikes a familiar tone, at least to anyone who has paid attention to the US context for the past 12 years. Researchers seeking funding are concerned that such impact criteria are likely to reduce opportunities for funding— especially for those researchers whose main interest is in pursuing basic research. Meanwhile, funding agency officials insist that the effect of impact criteria on what research is actually funded will be minimal.
PY - 2009/7
Y1 - 2009/7
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=74249123312&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=74249123312&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/02691720903438169
DO - 10.1080/02691720903438169
M3 - Editorial
AN - SCOPUS:74249123312
SN - 0269-1728
VL - 23
SP - 177
EP - 181
JO - Social Epistemology
JF - Social Epistemology
IS - 3-4
ER -