BIOETHICS AND DEMOCRACY: COMPETING ROLES OF NATIONAL BIOETHICS ORGANISATIONS

In establishing National Bioethics Organisations (NBOs), liberal democracies seek to acknowledge the diversity of strongly held ethical positions and the imperative to engage in public debate about important bioethical decisions. NBOs are typically given a range of responsibilities, including contributing to and stimulating public debate; providing expert opinion on relevant issues for policy deliberations; and developing public policy. The state is now found to have an interest in areas previously thought to be a matter of individual choice. NBOs can provide one way of opening up public debate to allow the diversity of views to be heard in a manner that is well‐informed, articulate and responsive to both expert and ‘lay’ public views. We draw on debates in political theory about democratic decision‐making and on the policy making roles of some key NBOs. We are particularly interested in examining the capacity of NBOs to meet the democratic ideal of effective participation by the public, or citizenry, especially by those who are directly affected by the policies, in the development of effective public policy. We provide a basic framework for policy development involving NBOs that can begin to meet this ideal, a process of ‘contested deliberation’.     

The role of evolutionary processes in producing biodiversity patterns, and the interrelationships between taxonomic, functional and phylogenetic biodiversity

Patterns of biodiversity are ultimately the product of speciation and extinction. Speciation serves as the biodiversity pump while extinction serves as the agent that culls global to local levels of biodiversity. Linking these central processes to global and local patterns of biodiversity is a key challenge in both ecology and evolution. This challenge necessarily requires a simultaneous consideration of the species, phylogenetic, and functional diversity across space and the tree of life. In this review, I outline a research framework for biodiversity science that considers the evolutionary and ecological processes that generate and cull levels of biodiversity and that influence the inter-relationships between species, phylogenetic, and functional diversity. I argue that a biodiversity synthesis must begin with a consideration of the inherently ecological process of speciation and end with how global biodiversity is filtered into local-scale plant communities. The review ends with a brief outlook on future challenges for those studying biodiversity, including outstanding hypotheses that need testing and key data limitations.     

Institutions and Cultural Diversity: Effects of Democratic and Propaganda Processes on Local Convergence and Global Diversity

In a connected world where people influence each other, what can cause a globalized monoculture, and which measures help to preserve the coexistence of cultures? Previous research has shown that factors such as homophily, population size, geography, mass media, and type of social influence play important roles. In the present paper, we investigate for the first time the impact that institutions have on cultural diversity. In our first three studies, we extend existing agent-based models and explore the effects of institutional influence and agent loyalty. We find that higher institutional influence increases cultural diversity, while individuals'' loyalty to their institutions has a small, preserving effect. In three further studies, we test how bottom-up and top-down processes of institutional influence impact our model. We find that bottom-up democratic practices, such as referenda, tend to produce convergence towards homogeneity, while top-down information dissemination practices, such as propaganda, further increase diversity. In our last model—an integration of bottom-up and top-down processes into a feedback loop of information—we find that when democratic processes are rare, the effects of propaganda are amplified, i.e., more diversity emerges; however, when democratic processes are common, they are able to neutralize or reverse this propaganda effect. Importantly, our models allow for control over the full spectrum of diversity, so that a manipulation of our parameters can result in preferred levels of diversity, which will be useful for the study of other factors in the future. We discuss possible mechanisms behind our results, applications, and implications for political and social sciences.     

Opening up the politics of knowledge and power in bioscience

Public engagement is not in tension with science, but actually a way to be more rigorous - as well as more democratic - about social choice of biotechnology.     

Let's Make Gender Diversity in Data Science a Priority Right from the Start

The emergent field of data science is a critical driver for innovation in all sectors, a focus of tremendous workforce development, and an area of increasing importance within science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). In all of its aspects, data science has the potential to narrow the gender gap and set a new bar for inclusion. To evolve data science in a way that promotes gender diversity, we must address two challenges: (1) how to increase the number of women acquiring skills and working in data science and (2) how to evolve organizations and professional cultures to better retain and advance women in data science. Everyone can contribute.Every March we celebrate both International Women’s Day and Women’s History Month. These annual celebrations remind us that through our current individual and collective behavior, all stakeholders can influence how gender-diverse our future history is likely to be. This is especially important in data science, an emerging science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) field that is a critical driver for 21st century innovation.Data science focuses on the extraction of knowledge from data. It is a STEM discipline, but requires skills not yet widely taught in STEM disciplines: Skills in managing large datasets, novel analysis and inference approaches, rigorous statistical analysis, new ways to convey outcomes, and more. A recent McKinsey Report [1] indicates that the United States alone will need 1.5 million more data-savvy professionals and 140,000–190,000 more professionals with deep analytic skills by 2020. Helping to create and nurture a broad pool of individuals with data science skills is critical to addressing this growing need and will require intentional action.The emergent field of data science offers the opportunity to narrow the gender gap in STEM (in which only 13% of the engineering workforce and 25% of the computer and mathematical sciences workforce are women [2]) by making diversity a priority early on. In addition to this being the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do: studies show that companies with employees characterized by diverse inherent traits (traits you were born with) and acquired traits (traits you gain from experience) are 45% more likely to report a growth in market share over the previous year, and 70% more likely to report capture of a new market [3]. Companies with diverse executive boards show higher returns on equity [4]. In short, diversity is a competitive asset in the private sector. In addition, increased diversity in STEM fields, including data science, is a national research and education priority [5].What better time, with increased focus on data science in the public sector, emerging educational curricula and focus within universities, and greater need within the private sector, to foster greater inclusivity and gender diversity? What can we do now to grow data science in a way that reflects the gender diversity and potential for innovation of the greater society?To evolve data science in a way that makes it a rewarding and sustainable career choice for women, we need to address two challenges: how can we increase the number of women acquiring skills and working in data science, and how can we evolve organizations and professional cultures to better retain and advance women in data science?     

Generating spatial data for marine conservation and management

Do fishers know best when it comes to identifying areas with rare and depleted fish species? The global conservation crisis demands that managers marshal all available datasets to inform conservation management plans for depleted species, yet the level of trust placed in local knowledge remains uncertain. This study compares four methods for inferring species distributions of an internationally traded, rare and depleted genus of marine fishes (Hippocampus spp.): the use of (i) fisher interviews; (ii) government research trawls, (iii) scientific diving surveys, and (iv) citizen science contributions. We analyzed these four datasets at the genus and individual species levels to evaluate our conclusions about seahorse spatial occurrence, diversity of species present and the cost effectiveness of sampling effort. We found that fisher knowledge provided more information on our data-poor fish genus at larger spatial scales, with less effort, and for a cheaper price than all other datasets. One drawback was that fishers were unable to provide data down to the species level. People embarking on conservation endeavors for data-poor species may wish to begin with fisher interviews and use these to inform the application of government research, scientific diving, or citizen science programs.     

Scientific Citizenship and good governance: implications for biotechnology

In the wake of public distrust regarding biotechnology, it has been suggested that the debate should be moved "upstream", whereby the public help to set research priorities. Although many scientists see this as an illogical reaction to a loss of faith in science, we argue that the boundaries between science and its technological applications have become blurred and this produces conflicts of interests that have led to this crisis of trust. Furthermore, this distrust is also a crisis in governance that calls for a new open and democratic approach to scientific research. We propose that the concept of Scientific Citizenship, based on good governance, will help to restore public trust and bridge the gap between science and the society that it serves. Integral to this is the suggestion that the governance of science forms part of the training for scientists.     

How to (or not to) communicate science

Protagonists for 'the public understanding of science' still sometimes fail to recognize that there is also a need for 'the scientists' understanding of the public' and that for most of science most of the time we are all public. 'Science' is communicated to 'the public' through popular books, museums, TV, the Internet, but far too often the present state of scientific belief is presented uncritically as the onward march of truth as discovered by Euro-American males. This has contributed to a widespread public concern, if not mistrust, in many areas of science, not least genetics and neuroscience. Although researchers often criticize the media for misrepresenting their work, the hype and simplifications often begin with the press releases put out by the researchers, their institutions and the scientific journals themselves. I conclude by looking more optimistically at the ways in which, by bringing natural science into theatre, novels and other art forms, the fragmentation of our culture may be diminished.     

John W. Burgess,the racial state and the making of the American science of politics

This article examines the place of racial ideas in the constitution of political science as an academic discipline in the USA. For the Gilded Age generation that built the first PhD-granting departments in political science in the country, ‘race’ was the source of sovereignty, the basis of democratic legitimacy and a tool for delineating democracy's borders. It was also an important element of that cohort's aspiration to a ‘science’ of politics, distinct from what they viewed as the ‘abstract and formal’ theorizing of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Moreover, while the brand of racialism that characterized this founding moment came to seem outmoded within a few decades, in the 1920s political scientists seeking once again to claim an empirical, scientific basis for their discipline – and for American democracy – turned to new accounts and sciences of race.     

Limitations on diversity in basic science departments

It has been over 30 years since the beginning of efforts to improve diversity in academia. We can identify four major stages: (1) early and continuing efforts to diversify the pipeline by increasing numbers of women and minorities getting advanced degrees, particularly in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM); (2) requiring academic institutions to develop their own "affirmative action plans" for hiring and promotion; (3) introducing mentoring programs and coping strategies to help women and minorities deal with faculty practices from an earlier era; (4) asking academic institutions to rethink their practices and policies with an eye toward enabling more faculty diversity, a process known as institutional transformation. The thesis of this article is that research-intensive basic science departments of highly ranked U.S. medical schools are stuck at stage 3, resulting in a less diverse tenured and tenure-track faculty than seen in well-funded science departments of major universities. A review of Web-based records of research-intensive departments in universities with both medical school and nonmedical school departments indicates that the proportion of women and Black faculty in science departments of medical schools is lower than the proportion in similarly research-intensive university science departments. Expectations for faculty productivity in research-intensive medical school departments versus university-based departments may lead to these differences in faculty diversity.     

菌根学对生物类学科发展的意义

菌根（mycorrhiza）是真菌与植物之间形成的最广泛的共生体。菌根真菌（rnycorrhizal fungi）具有丰富遗传多样性、形态多样性、物种多样性、生态系统多样性和功能多样性。菌根真菌与植物协同进化,发挥生理生态功能,对促进农林牧业生产、保持生态系统的稳定及其可持续生产力具有重大而不可替代的作用。经过一个多世纪的研究发展,菌根学（mycorrhizology）——菌物学与植物学的杂交学科终于在21世纪诞生了。随着研究的深入,人们发现菌根学不仅与菌物学和植物学关系极为密切,而且还与生态学、土壤学、保护生物学、植物保护学、微生物学、食用菌学、园林园艺学、作物栽培与耕作学、昆虫学等密切相关。作为一门新兴学科,菌根学自身发展的同时,也大大促进了相关学科的进展。本文系统总结了菌根学对其他学科发展所作的贡献,旨在进一步加强菌根学与其他学科的交叉渗透,为菌根学与其他学科协同进化奠定理论基础、促进多学科合作研究,为21世纪生物学的更大发展注入新的活力。     

Cultivating inclusive instructional and research environments in ecology and evolutionary science

As we strive to lift up a diversity of voices in science, it is important for ecologists, evolutionary scientists, and educators to foster inclusive environments in their research and teaching. Academics in science often lack exposure to research on best practices in diversity, equity, and inclusion and may not know where to start to make scientific environments more welcoming and inclusive. We propose that by approaching research and teaching with empathy, flexibility, and a growth mind‐set, scientists can be more supportive and inclusive of their colleagues and students. This paper provides guidance, explores strategies, and directs scientists to resources to better cultivate an inclusive environment in three common settings: the classroom, the research laboratory, and the field. As ecologists and evolutionary scientists, we have an opportunity to adapt our teaching and research practices in order to foster an inclusive educational ecosystem for students and colleagues alike.     

Attitudes to biotechnology: estimating the opinions of a better-informed public

Public familiarity with basic scientific concepts and principles has been proposed as essential for effective democratic decision-making (Miller, 1998). Empirical research, however, finds that public 'scientific literacy' is generally low, falling well short of what normative criteria would consider 'acceptable.' This has prompted calls to better engage, educate and inform the public on scientific matters, with the additional, usually implicit assumption that a knowledgeable citizenry should express more supportive and favourable attitudes toward science. Research investigating the notion that 'to know science is to love it' has provided only weak empirical support and has itself been criticised for representing science and technology as a unified and homogenous entity. In practice, it is argued, how knowledge impacts on the favourability of attitudes will depend on a multiplicity of actors, not the least of which is the particular area of science in question and the technologies to which it gives rise (Evans & Durant, 1992). This article uses a new method for examining the knowledge-attitude nexus on a prominent area of 21st century science--biotechnology. The idea that greater scientific knowledge can engender change in the favourability of attitudes toward specific areas of science is investigated using data from the 2000 British Social Attitudes Survey and the 1999 Wellcome Consultative Panel on Gene Therapy. Together the surveys measure public opinion on particular applications of genetic technologies, including gene therapy and the use of genetic data, as well as more general attitudes towards genetic research. We focus our analysis on how two different measures of knowledge impact on these attitudes; one a more general measure of scientific knowledge, the other relating specifically to knowledge of modern genetic science. We investigate what impact these knowledge domains have on attitudes toward biotechnology using a regression-based modelling technique (Bartels, 1996; Althaus, 1998; Sturgis, 2003). Controlling for a range of socio-demographic characteristics, we provide estimates of what collective and individual opinion would look like if everyone were as knowledgeable as the currently best-informed members of the general public on the knowledge domains in question. Our findings demonstrate that scientific knowledge does appear to have an important role in determining individual and group attitudes to genetic science. However, we find no support for a simple 'deficit model' of public understanding, as the nature of the relationship itself depends on the application of biotechnology in question and the social location of the individual.     

Science and Restoration Under a Big, Demon Haunted Tent: Reply to Giardina et al. (2007)

In a recent editorial, I discussed how the culture of science, heterogeneity of nature, and real‐world human complexities can limit the practical relevance of formal scientific research and argued that less formal approaches might often be more efficient and effective. Giardina et al. criticized this editorial and argued that formal science has and increasingly will play a central role in ecological restoration in particular and human progress in general. Here, I respond to these arguments and expand upon the ideas presented in my previous editorial. I further illustrate how despite superficial appearances the utilitarian value of formal science may often be largely indirect. I also argue that the complexities of ecological and human systems combined with the subjective values and political beliefs underlying restoration make transforming this discipline into a unified “hard science” virtually impossible. Because values and politics also underlie most environmental conflicts, and scientific inquiry is inherently unsuitable for resolving these kinds of disputes, the future success of restoration may depend more on political support than scientific progress. Dogmatic, nonfalsifiable faith in the universal superiority of “rigorous” scientific knowledge and methodologies can foster arrogance and intolerance and blind us to the ephemeral nature of scientific “truths” and the double‐edged sword of scientific “progress.” My hope is that Society for Ecological Restoration International (SERI) will remain a big inclusive tent that embraces a healthy diversity of foci and approaches that emulate the extraordinary diversity we find within the natural ecosystems and human cultures we strive to preserve, restore, and reconnect.     

Marine science in the age of sail

Contrary to commonly expressed opinion, scientific interest in the deep ocean did not begin in the second half of the nineteenth century with the famous cruise of HMS Challenger . However, before the widespread use of steam power, any would-be deep sea scientist had a number of difficulties to overcome. This paper explores a few of the more obvious ones that probably explain why, prior to the Challenger voyage, attempts at deep ocean science were generally small scale, uncoordinated — and largely unsuccessful!     

Democratic governance of genomics: the case of UK Biobank

Biobanks are collections of human biological tissue used for genomics research. This promises a better understanding of the gene-based contribution to common disease and development of a more personalized approach to healthcare with safer drugs and more effective treatment. However, biobanks are also controversial owing to the ethical, legal, social and political issues raised about their collection and use of biological samples. Therefore, their democratic governance is not only a normative challenge but also an empirical one. This paper is concerned with both challenges: it attempts to “evaluate” processes of democratic governance of genomics by focusing on the case of UK Biobank. The overall argument is that although the UK Biobank performs well in terms of general democratic governance structures, there are epistemological and practical limits to specific democratic governance processes.     

Public discourses of stem cell science in Singapore (1997–2010)

In most industrialized countries, policy debates around stem cell science manifest in public discourse. Assuming that a functioning public sphere exists where matters of science policy can be discussed, examination of these discourses can help provide an understanding of how science policies evolve. The aim of this paper is to provide a preliminary analysis of how the public discourses around stem cell science have developed in Singapore. Using a theoretical model of “focused discourse,” our analysis indicates that there have been five distinct phases, marked by discernible shifts that reflect important changes in how biomedical science is funded in Singapore. While our results are preliminary, we argue that public discourses around science policies do exist in Singapore but are limited by a lack of diversity that would be expected in a more heterogeneous public sphere.     

Evolution of interdisciplinarity in biodiversity science

The study of biodiversity has grown exponentially in the last thirty years in response to demands for greater understanding of the function and importance of Earth's biodiversity and finding solutions to conserve it. Here, we test the hypothesis that biodiversity science has become more interdisciplinary over time. To do so, we analyze 97,945 peer‐reviewed articles over a twenty‐two‐year time period (1990–2012) with a continuous time dynamic model, which classifies articles into concepts (i.e., topics and ideas) based on word co‐occurrences. Using the model output, we then quantify different aspects of interdisciplinarity: concept diversity, that is, the diversity of topics and ideas across subdisciplines in biodiversity science, subdiscipline diversity, that is, the diversity of subdisciplines across concepts, and network structure, which captures interactions between concepts and subdisciplines. We found that, on average, concept and subdiscipline diversity in biodiversity science were either stable or declining, patterns which were driven by the persistence of rare concepts and subdisciplines and a decline in the diversity of common concepts and subdisciplines, respectively. Moreover, our results provide evidence that conceptual homogenization, that is, decreases in temporal β concept diversity, underlies the observed trends in interdisciplinarity. Together, our results reveal that biodiversity science is undergoing a dynamic phase as a scientific discipline that is consolidating around a core set of concepts. Our results suggest that progress toward addressing the biodiversity crisis via greater interdisciplinarity during the study period may have been slowed by extrinsic factors, such as the failure to invest in research spanning across concepts and disciplines. However, recent initiatives such as the Intergovernmental Science‐Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) may attract broader support for biodiversity‐related issues and hence interdisciplinary approaches to address scientific, political, and societal challenges in the coming years.     

Biology in the secondary science curriculum

The search for a model of balanced science has not so far been based on a detailed analysis of the nature and effects of the science curriculum. The present paper attempts to begin to fill the gap, from the perspective of biology, using data from the Assessment of Perform-ance Unit (APU). It is shown that, in England, the uptake of the subject as an option outstrips that of the other sciences, with pupils quoting its intrinsic interest as their motivation. Biology serves to attract to science pupils of all abilities and girls in particular. The other sciences are not so successful in this sphere. However, performance data show that the study of biology is not as effective in enhancing science performance as are the physical sciences.