Linking science and policy

The draft paper as at 24th April which is updated from the draft made for the oral presentation session (5th April 2017 does not contain any references and text errors needed corrections). The paper is still being worked on with more sections being added with some aspect areas clarified in more detail. Others are being reviewed. Due to the closure of the Parliament in the UK early for the snap elections, the text is still unfinished and will be resumed for the new Parliament session with no end date set yet. The document is best viewed by a download to Microsoft Word as web browsers tend to muddle the layout. Please note that the ice sheet mass balance changes occur mainly in nearby Iceland, Jan Mayen and the Mid-Atlantic Ridge rather than Greenland itself. (High viscous, low nucleation events pushing very cool, effusive, almost 'solid' lava incursions vertically up like the Mascarene volcanism of Mauritius are rare anomalies from a misaligned hotspot influencing further afield - and therefore far less likely.)

This short essay presents the case for a renewed research agenda in STS focused on the political economy of technoscience. This research agenda is based on the claim that STS needs to take account of contemporary economic and financial processes and how they shape and are shaped by technoscience. This necessitates understanding how these processes might impact on science, technology and innovation, rather than turning an STS gaze on the economy.

Current debates in science and technology studies emphasize that the bio-economy—or, the articulation of capitalism and biotechnology—is built on notions of commodity production, commodification, and materiality, emphasizing that it is possible to derive value from body parts, molecular and cellular tissues, biological processes, and so on. What is missing from these perspectives, however, is consideration of the political-economic actors, knowledges, and practices involved in the creation and management of value. As part of a rethinking of value in the bio-economy, this article analyzes three key political-economic processes: financialization, capitalization, and asseti-zation. In doing so, it argues that value is managed as part of a series of valuation practices, it is not inherent in biological materialities.

Climate change means that countries like Canada need to find suitable transition pathways to overcome fossil-fuel dependence; one such pathway is the so-called 'bio-economy'. The bio-economy is a term used to define an economic system in which biological resources (e.g., plants) form the basis of production and production processes. For example, it would involve the replacement of petroleum energy, inputs, chemicals, and products with bioenergy, biological inputs, bio-chemicals, and bio-products. A number of countries and jurisdictions have established policy strategies in order to promote and support the development of a bio-economy, exemplified by the European Union where the bio-economy represents a key pillar in its broader Horizon 2020 strategy. Other countries, like Canada, do not yet have an over-arching bio-economy strategy, but have a series of diverse, and often competing, policy visions and frameworks. It is useful to analyse countries like Canada in order to understand how these policy visions and policy frameworks are co-constituted, and what this might mean for the development of an over-arching bio-economy strategy. This raises a number of questions: How is the bio-economy imagined by different social actors? How are these imaginaries and policy frameworks co-produced?

During the last 30 years, growing demand for science-based policy making has contributed to the mobilization of scientific cooperation alongside transnational political arrangements for addressing  environmental issues. Following the contemporary trend toward regionalizing environmental policy and practice, many of these scientific joint efforts have focused on a regional scale. This article examines regional scientific cooperation in the context of the
institutionalization of mountain regions in Europe. Such cooperation can be observed from the Pyrenees to Central Asia, albeit with a degree of variation that largely remains unexplored in scientific research. Sometimes scientific cooperation served to lay the groundwork of a mountain policy initiative, other times it appeared in its wake; some examples appear as loose networks of individual scientists, others are set up as formalized monitoring and
observation centers; finally, some scientific joint efforts are formally linked to, or incorporated in a mountain policy initiative, while others are largely independent. The article proposes a new typology for understanding the interactions between regional scientific
mobilization and regional policy making and provides up-to-date portraits of six main cases.