The proposed release of genetically modified mosquitoes (GMM) in the Florida Keys to combat the spread of diseases such as Zika prompted heated local debate, turning a seemingly routine mosquito control policy into a public scientific controversy. Arguments about the GMM derive from inventional commonplaces where the historical conflict between democratic systems of civic deliberation and the epistemic authority of expertise is instantiated. This project analyzes the topoi that Keys participants gather around to generate their argumentative positions as published in public, local print and digital news articles, blog posts, and letters to the editor between 2011 and 2016. Investigating the commonplaces that orient the argumentative trajectories of Keys participants reveals that each relational topos intersects with individual worldviews, risk assessments, and standards and can therefore be used for contradictory arguments. The many complex and connected factors that influence participant positions must be appreciated and acknowledged in any such civic deliberation about a science-related policy or technology. There is no easy resolution for such conflicts, such as clarifying scientific data for the public, to generate consensus; the irresolvable tension between democracy and expertise underlies public scientific controversies and requires mutual respect and appreciation for the varied reasons why people disagree to move towards more productive civic discourse.

The problem of demarcation continues to attract attention, in part because solutions are perceived to have enormous social significance. The civic motivation, however, I argue is in tension with the heterogeneity of the sciences. Philosophers of science would be better employed reflecting on the features, causes, and consequences, of created, scientific controversies. These arise when relevant experts are in broad agreement about what conclusions can sensibly be drawn from available evidence, but the public perceives an expert community deeply divided and conclusions that are plagued by profound and systemic uncertainty. In the second part of the paper I explore this concept further.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-28T14:16:36Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Enezio Eugenio de Almeida Filho.pdf: 4288341 bytes, checksum: 6d7c3e5e0f23728ac321058b96f617c8 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008-10-17 / Discovery Institute - Center for Science and Culture / This research follows the line of History and Theory of Science that has as a goal to explain the construction of scientific thought by discussing the foundation of hypotheses and theories within their historical contexts. The goal of this thesis is to analyze Mivart´s critiques and Darwin´s answers, and to verify if they were scientifically well formulated and based considering the scientific context of that time. The reason for writing this work is an attempt to fill a gap in the History of Science about the scientific controversy between Mivart and Darwin on the role of natural selection in the origin of species. This work´s hypotheses are two: that Mivart´s critiques, despite being religiously motivated, were plausible scientifically, and that Darwin answered them fully. This research analyzes the primary sources of Mivart (Genesis of species) and Darwin's Origin of Species, and other secondary sources. The result reached was that Mivart´s critiques were indeed scientific, and that Darwin answered them according to the evidences and scientific knowledge then available / Esta pesquisa segue a linha de História e Teoria da Ciência que objetiva trazer esclarecimentos sobre a construção do pensamento científico através da discussão da fundamentação de hipóteses e teorias dentro do seu contexto histórico. O objetivo desta dissertação é analisar as críticas de Mivart e as respostas dadas por Darwin, e verificar se elas estavam bem formuladas e fundamentadas cientificamente considerando-se o contexto científico daquela época. A justificativa para a realização desta trabalho é tentar preencher uma lacuna em História da Ciência sobre a controvérsia científica entre Mivart e Darwin sobre o papel da seleção natural na origem das espécies. As hipóteses deste trabalho são duas: as críticas de Mivart, apesar de terem sido religiosamente fundamentadas, eram cientificamente plausíveis, e Darwin as respondeu satisfatoriamente. O aspecto teórico-metodológico foi a análise das fontes primárias de Mivart (Genesis of species) e de Darwin (Origin of species), e outras fontes secundárias. O resultado obtido foi que as críticas de Mivart eram científicas, e que Darwin respondeu-as conforme as evidências e o conhecimento científico da época

Depuis la naissance des sciences de gestion, les chercheurs questionnent la pertinence de leurs travaux pour la pratique des entreprises. Interroger le rapport de la recherche à la pratique, c'est s'intéresser à la façon dont sont produites les connaissances managériales. Nous nous focalisons tout d'abord sur la controverse développée autour du rapport de la recherche à la pratique en développant quatre approches complémentaires par lesquelles les académiques appréhendent le rapport à la pratique. Dans un deuxième temps, nous nous intéressons à la façon dont chercheurs et praticiens développent ensemble des innovations managériales et conceptualisons un processus de développement spécifique aux innovations managériales développées entre recherche et pratique. Dans un troisième temps, nous étudions le concept de Stratégie Océan Bleu et nous montrons comment ses innovateurs ont performé leur concept suivant ses préceptes. Enfin, nous nous intéressons au chercheur-praticien, un acteur qui d'une part se situe à la fois dans le monde de la recherche et dans celui de la pratique et qui d'autre part participe à la production des connaissances managériales. L'objectif est de mieux appréhender les conflits de rôle auxquels ils font face et la façon dont ils équilibrent leurs rôles. Ainsi, par ces quatre études, cette thèse éclaire la façon dont sont produites les connaissances managériales. / Since the early days of management research, its relevance to practice has been the subject of vigorous debate. Understanding the relationship between research and practice implies studying how management knowledge is produced. We first aim at understanding the controversy surrounding the relevance of management research. We develop four complementary approaches on how academics apprehend the relationship between research and practice. Then, we develop a framework that allows the identification of four modes of interactions between scholars and practitioners and discover a developmental process that is specific to the management innovations that are developed between research and practice. Then, we study how the strategic concept of “Blue Ocean Strategy” is performed. We show how its innovators have performed the concept by applying its own principles. Finally, we are interested in scholar-practitioners given they straddle the worlds of research and practice to produce management knowledge. We seek to understand how they overcome role conflicts related to their activities in both research and practice. These four studies shed light on how management knowledge is produced.

Doctorat effectué en cotutelle Pour le département d'histoire de l'Université de Montréal, M.M. Jacques G. Ruelland et Othmar Keel, Pour le laboratoire P.A.C.E.A.– U.M.R. 5199. C.N.R.S., de l'École doctorale des sciences Terre-Mer, directeurs successifs, M. P.-Y. Demars, puis M. Michel Lenoir. Thèse soutenue à Bordeaux le 6 juin 2012. / Cette thèse a pour objectif d’étudier sur le plan historique une controverse scientifique persistante en préhistoire : le problème de la transition entre Paléolithiques moyen et supérieur, en tentant d’en expliquer la durée en termes de construction et de transformation des modèles antagoniques, ainsi que le rôle de cette controverse dans l’acquisition de connaissances, afin d’élucider comment s’est produit le déplacement des enjeux que présente son état actuel. Il s’agit de dresser un historique de la controverse entourant la transition entre Paléolithiques moyen et supérieur afin de circonscrire sur le plan chronologique les persistances et l’évolution des positions antagonistes dans leurs composantes épistémologiques. Pour clarifier cette démarche, il faut d’abord caractériser ce qui constitue cette controverse particulière pour les préhistoriens à l’aide de l’apport de l’histoire des sciences, et quelle méthode d’analyse sera utilisée dans le présent travail. Il sera ainsi possible de relier ces éléments au problème scientifique choisi comme sujet d’étude, présenté dans ses caractères généraux et spécifiques, pour modéliser la définition structurale des modèles explicatifs protagonistes au débat sur la transition entre Paléolithiques moyen et supérieur. La méthodologie proposée sera ensuite appliquée à la controverse, pour découper son déroulement chronologique en trois phases historiques distinctes par leur axe de recherche spécifique, chacune des phases étant décrite sur trois niveaux structuraux (données et méthodologie, paradigmes opératoires, paradigme métaphysique), afin d’isoler les constantes et les inflexions, et d’établir un modèle explicatif de sa dynamique historique jusqu’à son état actuel. L’ambition de cette thèse est de s’appuyer sur l’histoire des sciences pour clarifier sur le plan théorique pour les préhistoriens la dynamique historique de cette controverse centrale à l’étude du changement culturel en préhistoire, et des modèles qui s’y confrontent toujours, et tenter, à partir de l’étude de ce problème d’archéologie préhistorique, d’ébaucher en retour un modèle historique et structural d’étude de cas d’une controverse spécifique et de son apport au niveau du changement conceptuel en science qui pourrait être utile à l’histoire des sciences. / This thesis’ main object is to study on an historical level a long-lasting scientific controversy in Prehistoric archaeology, the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition, by attempting to explain the persistence of that debate in terms of construction and transformation of antagonistic models of explanation, and by showing how that controversy had play a role on the acquisition of knowledge, to elucidate how the debate itself had change since its origin. On a chronological scale, the evolution of some epistemological elements inside the confrontation of opposed hypothesis could be contrasted with conservative notions. To make that process clear, it is necessary to characterize what constitute that specific controversy for prehistorians with the tool given by the history of sciences, and what kind of analytical methodology can be call upon for doing so. Then, it will be possible to link those elements with the scientific problem itself to establish a structural model of this debate’s theoretical positions of the protagonists. This methodology could then be use to separate the history of that debate in three sections, each with its specific research axis, each phase in three structural level (data and methods, paradigms, meta-paradigm) to create a general model of the evolution of that controversy. The ambition of that thesis is to use history of science’s contribution as a way to clarify on a theoretical level the goals of that debate, and its implication on the study of cultural change for prehistorical archaeologists community, and to initiate for science’s historians a historical and structural model of scientific controversies, and their weight on conceptual change base on a specific case study.