Book contents
- Theory and Practice in Policy Analysis
- Theory and Practice in Policy Analysis
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Policy Analysis: An Overview
- Part I Making Decisions that Maximize Utility
- Part II Some Widely Used Analysis Tools and Topics
- Part III How Individuals and Organizations Actually Make Decisions
- Part IV The Policy Process and S&T Policy (Mainly) in the United States
- 16 Analysis and the Policy Process
- 17 The Period Prior to World War II
- 18 U.S. Science and Technology Policy from World War II to 1960
- 19 Science and Technology Advice to Government
- Book part
- Index
- References
19 - Science and Technology Advice to Government
from Part IV - The Policy Process and S&T Policy (Mainly) in the United States
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 August 2017
Book contents
- Theory and Practice in Policy Analysis
- Theory and Practice in Policy Analysis
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Policy Analysis: An Overview
- Part I Making Decisions that Maximize Utility
- Part II Some Widely Used Analysis Tools and Topics
- Part III How Individuals and Organizations Actually Make Decisions
- Part IV The Policy Process and S&T Policy (Mainly) in the United States
- 16 Analysis and the Policy Process
- 17 The Period Prior to World War II
- 18 U.S. Science and Technology Policy from World War II to 1960
- 19 Science and Technology Advice to Government
- Book part
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Theory and Practice in Policy AnalysisIncluding Applications in Science and Technology, pp. 521 - 566Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Abe, H., Shindo, M., and Kawato, S. (1994). “Chapter 5: Advisory Councils,” in The Government and Politics of Japan, University of Tokyo Press, 244pp.Google Scholar
Blair, P.D. (2013). Congress’s Own Think Tank: Learning from the Legacy of the Office of Technology Assessment (1972–1995), Palgrave Macmillan, 128pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boggs, D.J. (1988). “Science and Technology Advice in the Judiciary,” Technology in Society, 10, pp. 317–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breyer, S. (2000). “Science in the Courtroom,” Issues in Science and Technology, 16(4).Google Scholar
Carnegie Commission (1993). “Science and Technology in Judicial Decision-Making,” a report of the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government, 92pp.Google Scholar
Carter, A.B. (1984). Directed Energy Missile Defense in Space, Background Paper, U.S. Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, 97pp.Google Scholar
DSB (2012). Charter of the Defense Science Board. Available at: www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/charter.htm.Google Scholar
Dupree, A.H. (1986). Science in the Federal Government: A History of Politics and Activities, Johns Hopkins University Press, 460pp.Google Scholar
Finkbeiner, A. (2002). “DARPA and Jason Divorce in Spat over Membership,” Science, 295, p. 2340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Finkbeiner, A. (2006). The Jasons: The Secret History of Science’s Postwar Elite, Viking Press, 336pp.Google Scholar
GAO (2002). Technology Assessment: Using Biometrics for Border Security, GAO-03-174, Government Accountability Office, 242pp.Google Scholar
GAO (2011). Technology Assessment: Climate Engineering – Technical Status, Future Directions, and Potential Responses, GAO-11-71, Government Accountability Office, 135pp.Google Scholar
Golden, W.T. (ed.) (1988). Science and Technology Advice to the President, Congress, and Judiciary, Transaction Publishers, 523pp.Google Scholar
Guzzetti, L. (1995). A Brief History of European Union Research Policy, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 238pp.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (1990). The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policy Makers, Harvard University Press, 302pp.Google Scholar
Kantrowitz, A. (1975). “Controlling Technology Democratically,” American Scientist, 63 (Sep.–Oct.), pp. 505–509.Google Scholar
Knezo, G.J. (2005). “Technology Assessment in Congress: History and Legislative Options,” CRS report for Congress, RS21586, May 20. Available at: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21586.pdf.Google Scholar
Layton, C., Uri, P., and Dowling, W. (1968). L’Europe et les Investissements Américains, Gallimard, 255pp.Google Scholar
Margolis, R.M. and Guston, D.H. (2003). “Chapter 3: The Origins, Accomplishments, and Demise of the Office of Technology Assessment,” in Morgan, M.G. and Peha, J.M. (eds.), Science and Technology Advice for Congress, Resources for the Future Press, 236pp.Google Scholar
Mauter, W.R. (1998). “Churchill and the Unification of Europe,” The Historian, 61(1), pp. 67–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, J. (2016). Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires behind the Rise of the Radical Right, Doubleday, 449pp.Google Scholar
Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherché (2010). Les Mémoires de la Recherche: Etat des versements, Mission des archives, 302pp.Google Scholar
Morgan, M.G. (1975). Energy and Man: Technical and Social Aspects of Energy, IEEE Press, 536pp.Google Scholar
Morgan, M.G. (1997). “Why Congress Should Preserve the NRC’s Independent Technical Advice,” IEEE Spectrum, 34(12), pp. 59–60.Google Scholar
Morgan, M.G. and Peha, J.M. (2003). Science and Technology Advice for Congress, Resources for the Future Press, 236pp.Google Scholar
NRC (2008). State Science and Technology Policy Advice: Issues, Opportunities and Challenges, National Academy Press, 100pp.Google Scholar
NSF (1997). “Japanese Government Organization for Science and Technology,” U.S. National Science Foundation Report 97-11. Available at: www.nsf.gov/od/oise/tokyo/reports/trm/rm97-11.html.Google Scholar
OPECST (2015). “The Parliamentary Office for Scientific and Technological Assessment: A Presentation,” 4pp. Available at: www2.assemblee-nationale.fr/content/download/31593/288206/file/plaquette_opecst_anglais.pdf.Google Scholar
OTA (1985a). Ballistic Missile Defense Technologies, U.S. Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, 325pp.Google Scholar
OTA (1985b). Anti-Satellite Weapons, Counter Measures and Arms Control, U.S. Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, 146pp.Google Scholar
Pew (2007). “Investing in Innovation,” a report of the Pew Center on the States, 75pp.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, M. (1988). “Improving the Courts’ Ability to Absorb Scientific Information,” in Golden, W.T. (ed.), Science and Technology Advice to the President, Congress, and Judiciary, Pergamon, pp. 480–483.Google Scholar
Schneier, E.V. and Gross, B. (1993). Legislative Strategy: Shaping Public Policy, St. Martins Press, 289pp.Google Scholar
Schwartz, F. (1993). “Chapter 9: Of Fairy Cloaks and Familiar Talks: The Politics of Consultation,” in Allison, G.D. and Sone, Y. (eds.), Political Dynamics in Contemporary Japan, Cornell University Press, 311pp.Google Scholar
Serger, S., Wise, E., and Arnold, E. (2015). National Research and Innovation Councils as an Instrument of Innovation Governance, Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems, VINNOVA Analysis VA, 72pp.Google Scholar
Shepherd, G.B. (1996). “Fierce Compromise: The Administrative Procedures Act Emerges from New Deal Politics,” Northwestern University Law Review, 90(4), pp. 1557–1683.Google Scholar
Smith, B.L.R. (1992). The Advisers: Scientists in the Policy Process, Brookings, 238pp.Google Scholar
Vig, N.J. (2003). “Chapter 5: The European Experience,” in Morgan, M.G. and Peha, J. (eds.), Science and Technology Advice to Congress, RFF Press, pp. 90–98.Google Scholar
Vig, N.J. and Paschen, H. (eds.) (2000). Parliaments and Technology: The Development of Technology Assessment in Europe, State University of New York Press, 399pp.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by