Suchergebnisse

Across the globe, governments, industry and educationalists are in agreement that more needs to be done to increase and broaden participation in post-16 science. Schools, as well as teachers, are seen as key in this effort. Previous research has found that engagement with science, inclination to study science and understanding of the value of science strongly relates to a student's science capital. This paper reports on findings from the pilot year of a one-year professional development (PD) programme designed to work with secondary-school teachers to build students' science capital. The PD programme introduced teachers to the nature and importance of science capital and thereafter supported them to develop ways of implementing science capital-building pedagogy in their practice. The data comprise interviews with the participating teachers (n = 10), observations of classroom practices and analyses of the teachers' accounts of their practice. Our findings suggest that teachers found the concept of science capital to be compelling and to resonate with their own intuitive understandings and experiences. However, the ways in which the concept was operationalised in terms of the implementation of pedagogical practices varied. The difficulties inherent in the operationalisation are examined and recommendations for future work with teachers around the concept of science capital are developed.

Erwin Chemerinsky maintains that President George W. Bush took a historic opportunity to fill Supreme Court justice vacancies with ideologically right-of-center nominees. He explains that these justices will force the court to write opinions that break new ground in judicial activism. The areas that will be open to new adjudication include abortion rights, access to the courts, affirmative action, and presidential war powers. He describes the critical cases in each of these fields and the key points of contention. Professor Chemerinsky concludes that the incoming president may be able to offset the appointments of Justices Alito and Roberts with more centrist or center-left appointments if seats become open. John Yoo argues that presidents have historically resisted Supreme Court decisions especially strong presidents such as Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Reagan changed this calculus by politicizing the courts further through the appointment of ideological allies. He maintains that the second Bush administration has not transcended constitutional limits in its actions. He supports his case by arguing that previous presidents have taken exceptional actions in times of war and that the "war on terror" has given the administration a mandate for its policies. He concludes that Bush administration is in much more conflict with the Congress than with the Court. The accompanying audio files provide the complete recording of the two talks.

From its earliest beginnings down to current postmodern XXIst century, Christianity is struck a balance between two phenomena, holding one another in various and complex mounting tensions, of empathy and of awareness towards reason and science. Herein, critical appraisals override the consideration of legitimate autonomy of reason and science, therein, a religious and ethical respect tends to govern various forms and shades of critical esteem, in favour of the autonomy of reason and science. Sciences freed from theologies monopoly, sciences excelling in knowledge and technical performances, but there still remains however, modern and contemporary sciences with misconducts of naturalism, nominalism, narrow positivism or political ideologies.Irrespective of an unresolved conflict, arising from the anti-modernist fights, the Church's general councils of Vatican I (1869-1870: Constitution Dei Filius, chapter IV) and Vatican II (1962-1965: Constitution Gaudium et spes, 36) made huge steps forward : As the first reminds us of the legitimacy of science and reason in their specific areas of expertise, the second, while taking into account the progress of the theology of history, reflects deeper on the autonomy of worldly realities. With this background, with what canonical tools, could the safeguarding mission of the Roman Catholic character of the Church's universities, for example, and her protection of cultures, sciences and the world of scientists, - under the conditions - could be guaranteed ? ; De ses antiques origines à son actualité postmoderne du XXIe siècle, le christianisme est traversé par deux phénomènes, en tensions variables et complexes, d'empathie et de vigilance à l'égard de la raison et de la science : ici des vigilances critiques l'emportent sur la considération pour la légitime autonomie de la raison et de la science, là un respect théologal et éthique tend à présider dans l'économie de différentes formes et phases d'estimes critiques pour l'autonomie de la raison et de la science. Sciences ...

From its earliest beginnings down to current postmodern XXIst century, Christianity is struck a balance between two phenomena, holding one another in various and complex mounting tensions, of empathy and of awareness towards reason and science. Herein, critical appraisals override the consideration of legitimate autonomy of reason and science, therein, a religious and ethical respect tends to govern various forms and shades of critical esteem, in favour of the autonomy of reason and science. Sciences freed from theologies monopoly, sciences excelling in knowledge and technical performances, but there still remains however, modern and contemporary sciences with misconducts of naturalism, nominalism, narrow positivism or political ideologies.Irrespective of an unresolved conflict, arising from the anti-modernist fights, the Church's general councils of Vatican I (1869-1870: Constitution Dei Filius, chapter IV) and Vatican II (1962-1965: Constitution Gaudium et spes, 36) made huge steps forward : As the first reminds us of the legitimacy of science and reason in their specific areas of expertise, the second, while taking into account the progress of the theology of history, reflects deeper on the autonomy of worldly realities. With this background, with what canonical tools, could the safeguarding mission of the Roman Catholic character of the Church's universities, for example, and her protection of cultures, sciences and the world of scientists, - under the conditions - could be guaranteed ? ; De ses antiques origines à son actualité postmoderne du XXIe siècle, le christianisme est traversé par deux phénomènes, en tensions variables et complexes, d'empathie et de vigilance à l'égard de la raison et de la science : ici des vigilances critiques l'emportent sur la considération pour la légitime autonomie de la raison et de la science, là un respect théologal et éthique tend à présider dans l'économie de différentes formes et phases d'estimes critiques pour l'autonomie de la raison et de la science. Sciences ...

For the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), established in 2012, under the auspices of four United Nations entities (FAO, UNDP, UNEP and UNESCO), there is an urgent need to engage scholars in social sciences and humanities in assessing the state of the planet's biodiversity. This article addresses the fundaments for involving scientists from these fields of science in IPBES, and reflects on the existing barriers. It builds on previous research on IPBES from various perspectives, as well as on the author's insights from work in the organization. A fundamental condition recognized is that there needs to be a qualified understanding of what it means to integrate natural sciences and social sciences/humanities, and also that the latter have to be accepted on their own terms. Other barriers are related to the contextualisation of biodiversity issues and the more politically sensitive character of research carried out in social sciences and humanities. In the conclusions it is emphasized that the deliverables of the first round of IPBES assessments have to be solid enough from the perspectives of social sciences and humanities, in order to attract more of these scholars to work for the platform in the future.

For the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), established in 2012, under the auspices of four United Nations entities (FAO, UNDP, UNEP and UNESCO), there is an urgent need to engage scholars in social sciences and humanities in assessing the state of the planet's biodiversity. This article addresses the fundaments for involving scientists from these fields of science in IPBES, and reflects on the existing barriers. It builds on previous research on IPBES from various perspectives, as well as on the author's insights from work in the organization. A fundamental condition recognized is that there needs to be a qualified understanding of what it means to integrate natural sciences and social sciences/humanities, and also that the latter have to be accepted on their own terms. Other barriers are related to the contextualisation of biodiversity issues and the more politically sensitive character of research carried out in social sciences and humanities. In the conclusions it is emphasized that the deliverables of the first round of IPBES assessments have to be solid enough from the perspectives of social sciences and humanities, in order to attract more of these scholars to work for the platform in the future.

Introduction -- Fundamental rights and principles -- Restrictions on freedom of expression and media freedom -- The jurisdictional question -- Broadcasting and other audiovisual media services -- Internet governance and regulation -- Telecommunications -- Data protection -- Copyright -- Media competition law -- Media law and state aid

There has been deepening concern about political polarization in public attitudes toward the scientific community. The "intrinsic thesis" attributes this polarization to psychological deficiencies among conservatives as compared to liberals. The "contextual thesis" makes no such claims about inherent psychological differences between conservatives and liberals, but rather points to interacting institutional and psychological factors as the forces driving polarization. We evaluate the evidence for both theses in the context of developing and testing a theoretical model of audience response to dissonant science communication. Conducting a national online experiment ( N = 1,500), we examined audience reactions to both conservative-dissonant and liberal-dissonant science messages and consequences for trust in the scientific community. Our results suggest liberals and conservatives alike react negatively to dissonant science communication, resulting in diminished trust of the scientific community. We discuss how our findings link to the larger debate about political polarization of science and implications for science communicators.