C. Wright Mills,Power Structure Research,and the Failures of Mainstream Political Science

“Power Reconsidered” was the theme of the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association in 2006. In a steady stream of analytically focused and empirically rich books and articles over the last 40 years, G. William Domhoff had made a unique and challenging contribution to the study of power and politics in the United States. In this commentary, based on a presentation at an APSA panel sponsored by the New Political Science section, Domhoff criticizes the narrow and misleading ways in which the concept of power has been used by pluralist, state autonomy, and historical institutionalism approaches in political science. Drawing on the path-breaking work of C. Wright Mills and Floyd Hunter in the 1950s, Domhoff restates and develops his class and organizational interpretation of the American power structure. As a progressive and scholarly journal, New Political Science encourages authors to submit research articles that engage with the theoretical questions raised by Domhoff.     

Science,technology, and congress

James E. Katz is a sociologist and a member of staff at Bellcore, the research and engineering arm of the regional telephone companies. Among his books are Presidential Politics and Science Policy;and Congress and National Energy Policy.He has served as a Senate staff member. Research for this article was supported by the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government.     

Feminism, Science Wars, and the Twilight of Positivism

When we began theorizing our experiences during the women's movement ... we knew our task would be a difficult though exciting one. But I doubt in our wildest dreams we ever imagined we would have to reinvent both science and theorizing itself to make sense of women's social experience.     

Public Administration, Science, and Risk Assessment: A Case Study of the U.K. Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Crisis

The bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) outbreak in the United Kingdom is regarded as one of the worst public policy crises the British government has experienced during the postwar era. In material terms, it has led to the slaughter of 3.3 million cattle and estimated economic losses of £3.7 billion. In administrative terms, the crisis brought about the dissolution of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. This article examines the istitutional context in which decisions about the scientific evidence on BSE were made. The authors argue that a centralized system in which government agencies control science for government is inherently vulnerable to alliances of experts and interest groups that undermine the credible assessment of public health and safety risks. Specific societal conditions may encourage risk-opportunistic behavior among policy makers that is conducive to delays and inaction until such time as the evidence of a health risk becomes overwhelming.     

Science,passion and polemics

He has written thirteen books, including: The State of the Masses,with Richard Hamilton; Under the Gun,with Peter Rossi and Kathleen Daly; and, most recently, Homelessness and Health,with Dee Weber, and Address Unknown.     

Science three,religion zero

His research focuses on biosociology and the social aspects of technology and environment.     

Depleted Uranium,Public Science,and the Politics of Closure

The public controversy over depleted uranium (DU) seems to follow a standard trajectory—scientific closure, via the reduction of scientific uncertainty, led directly to policy closure, as government bureaucracies increasingly downplayed its dangers and denied redress to exposed individuals. Closer inspection, however, reveals a more complex dynamic. A series of expert, public science reports, while articulating a shared narrative of DU safety, actually accentuated great uncertainty concerning DU's biological effects, mirroring new uncertainties raised by ongoing scientific research. Policy closure is thus mirrored in neither the scholarly scientific literature nor in broader political realms, suggesting a close and unique relation between the expert reports and governmental policy making. Public science institutions and the expert reports they produce are crucial political resources for resolving governmental policy making but are decidedly less successful at closing the broader political debate.     

Open Data for Science,Policy, and the Public Good

Supporters of open data believe that free and complete access to research data is beneficial for science, public policy, and society. In environmental science and policy, open data systems can enable relevant research and inform evidence‐based governmental decisions. This article examines the unlikely case of Brazil's National Institute for Space Research's transition toward an open data model. Considering Brazil's young democracy, incipient practice of government transparency and accountability, and lacking a tradition of science‐policy dialogue, this case is a striking example of how open data can support public debate by making information about forest cover widely available. The case shows the benefits and challenges of developing such open data systems, and highlights the various forms of accessibility involved in making data available to the public.     

Behavioral symmetry,rent seeking,and the Republic of Science

The Olsonian distinction between roving and stationary bandits outlines the rationale behind the transition from anarchy to the emergence of the predatory state. This two-bandit model may, however, be expanded to include more bandit types. In the case of Viking Age England, local English kings were unable to monopolize violence and defend their realms against competing Viking raiders. As the Vikings’ time horizon grew, so did the accumulated value of more formal taxation, and bandit types evolved in four steps. The first step is the Olsonian roving bandit, who executed Viking hit-and-run attacks and plunders during the second half of the tenth century. The second step is the gafol bandit; gafol is payment for leaving, paid to, among others, Swein Forkbeard. The third step is the heregeld bandit; heregeld is a tax to support an army for hire; most notably Thorkell the Tall’s. The fourth step is the Olsonian stationary bandit, i.e. the strongest military leader among the Vikings, Cnut the Great, settled down as the new king. Overall, the Olsonian two-bandit model can be expanded to a four-bandit staircase model, in which the new gafol and heregeld bandit types explain the steps from anarchy and short-run raiding to long-run formal taxation in a predatory state.

     

Locke, Darwin, and the American Science of Modern Virtue

American “progress” has typically been reconstructed in terms of the Lockean understanding of who we are. That “progress” is only ambiguously progress. It highlights the truth about our personal freedom, but at the expense of the truth about who we are as free and relational beings. So our Lockeanism receives and deserves Darwinian criticism—criticism from the point of view of the social animals evolutionary theory says we are. This article is a scientific prelude to our openness to a theory that incorporates what’s true about Locke, what’s true about Darwin, and more.