Are foreign-born scientists different from native-born scientists with respect to research activity and performance? This question has important policy implications not only for immigration policy but also for science policy because a substantial part of scientific research in the United States is conducted by foreign-born scientists. This study examines the differences between foreign-born and native-born scientists in research collaboration, grants, and publication productivity. The data for this study are 443 curricula vitae (CVs) and survey of scientists and engineers that Research Value Mapping Program (RVM) at Georgia Tech conducted from 2000 to 2001. By using the multiple indicators, the findings show that foreign-born scientists do not differ significantly in research collaboration and grants from their native-born counterparts. But in terms of publication productivity, foreign-born scientists are consistently more productive than their native-born counterparts. This study also examines the impact of being foreign-born on research collaboration, grants, and productivity, and which factors account for the differences between foreign-born and native-born scientists in collaboration, grants, and productivity. When other relevant variables are controlled for, being foreign-born still has a strong positive effect on publication productivity. Collaboration and grants have a significant positive effect only on the productivity of native-born scientists, whereas strong research preference of foreign-born scientists contributes to their relatively higher productivity. Differences are also found among foreign-born scientists, largely depending on their national origin categorized by the similarity of language and culture. The theoretical and policy implications are also discussed.

Šiame darbe apžvelgiama Lietuvos mokslo politikos situacija ir institucijos, atsakingos už jos įgyvendinimą; problemos, kylančios ją įgyvendinant; aprašomas "slėnių" kūrimo Lietuvoje procesas nuo idėjos iki programų patvirtinimo; atliekama šiame procese dalyvavusių asmenų apklausa siekiant išsiaiškinti jų nuomonę apie "slėnių" kūrimo naudą ir efektyvumą bei apie "slėnių" kūrimo proceso eigą; lyginami pasiekti tarpiniai rezultatai (patvirtintos programos) su tikslais iškeltais proceso pradžioje. / This work reviews the situation in Lithuania's scientific policy and institutions responsible for its implementation; problems arising in the implementation; describes the process of "valleys" creation in Lithuania from idea to the programs; the interrogation of persons involved in the process to ascertain their views on the "valleys" creating value and effectiveness of the "valley" development process, was done; compared achieved the intermediate results (approved program) with the objective set in the beginning of the process.

Model Forests were developed to bridge the gap between the emerging policy and the practice of sustainable forest management (SFM) in the early 1990s and, as such, to facilitate uptake of research findings into practice. The purpose of this study was to explore mechanisms that may explain why some research results are used in the policy and practice of SFM and others are not. Based on interviews in three Model Forests in Canada, the most prominent factors influencing research utilization identified were (1) relevance of the research findings to users’ needs, (2) effective research design and scientific credibility, and (3) user involvement in the research process. However, it was evident that there is no one factor that influences uptake, but rather a combination dependent upon the circumstances of each situation. This study also deepens understanding of the science–practice/policy interface by exploring the notion of Model Forests as boundary organizations.

The debate on "Loss and Damage" (L&D) has gained traction over the last few years. Supported by growing scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change amplifying frequency, intensity and duration of climate-related hazards as well as observed increases in climate-related impacts and risks in many regions, the "Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage" was established in 2013 and further supported through the Paris Agreement in 2015. Despite advances, the debate currently is broad, diffuse and somewhat confusing, while concepts, meth ods and tools, as well as directions for policy remain vague and often contested. This book, a joint effort of the Loss and Damage Network - a partnership effort by scientists and practitioners from around the globe - provides evidence-based insight into the L&D discourse by highlighting state-of-the-art research conducted across multiple disciplines, by showcasing applications in practice and by providing insight into policy contexts and salient policy options. This introductory chapter summarises key findings of the twenty-two book chapters in terms of five propositions. These propositions, each building on relevant findings linked to forward-looking sugges tions for research, policy and practice, reflect the architecture of the book, whose sections proceed from setting the stage to critical issues, followed by a section on methods and tools, to chapters that provide geographic perspectives, and finally to a section that identifies potential policy options. The propositions comprise (1) Risk management can be an effective entry point for aligning perspectives and debates, if framed comprehensively, coupled with climate justice considerations and linked to established risk management and adaptation practice; (2) Attribution science is advancing rapidly and fundamental to informing actions to minimise, avert, and address losses and damages; (3) Climate change research, in addition to identifying physical/hard limits to adaptation, needs to more systematically examine soft limits to adaptation, for which we find some evidence across several geographies globally; (4) Climate risk insurance mechanisms can serve the prevention and cure aspects emphasised in the L&D debate but solidarity and accountability aspects need further attention, for which we find tentative indication in applications around the world; (5) Policy deliberations may need to overcome the perception that L&D constitutes a win-lose negotiation "game" by developing a more inclusive narrative that highlights collective ambition for tackling risks, mutual benefits and the role of Transformation.

abstract: Three dilemmas plague governance of scientific research and technological innovation: the dilemma of orientation, the dilemma of legitimacy, and the dilemma of control. The dilemma of orientation risks innovation heedless of long-term implications. The dilemma of legitimacy grapples with delegation of authority in democracies, often at the expense of broader public interest. The dilemma of control poses that the undesirable implications of new technologies are hard to grasp, yet once grasped, all too difficult to remedy. That humanity has innovated itself into the sustainability crisis is a prime manifestation of these dilemmas. Responsible innovation (RI), with foci on anticipation, inclusion, reflection, coordination, and adaptation, aims to mitigate dilemmas of orientation, legitimacy, and control. The aspiration of RI is to bend the processes of technology development toward more just, sustainable, and societally desirable outcomes. Despite the potential for fruitful interaction across RI’s constitutive domains—sustainability science and social studies of science and technology—most sustainability scientists under-theorize the sociopolitical dimensions of technological systems and most science and technology scholars hesitate to take a normative, solutions-oriented stance. Efforts to advance RI, although notable, entail one-off projects that do not lend themselves to comparative analysis for learning. In this dissertation, I offer an intervention research framework to aid systematic study of intentional programs of change to advance responsible innovation. Two empirical studies demonstrate the framework in application. An evaluation of Science Outside the Lab presents a program to help early-career scientists and engineers understand the complexities of science policy. An evaluation of a Community Engagement Workshop presents a program to help engineers better look beyond technology, listen to and learn from people, and empower communities. Each program is efficacious in helping scientists and engineers more thoughtfully engage with mediators of science and technology governance dilemmas: Science Outside the Lab in revealing the dilemmas of orientation and legitimacy; Community Engagement Workshop in offering reflexive and inclusive approaches to control. As part of a larger intervention research portfolio, these and other projects hold promise for aiding governance of science and technology through responsible innovation. / Dissertation/Thesis / Doctoral Dissertation Sustainability 2016

abstract: Vaccinations are important for preventing influenza infection. Maximizing vaccination uptake rates (80-90%) is crucial in generating herd immunity and preventing infection incidence. Vaccination of healthcare professionals (HCP) against influenza is vital to infection control in healthcare settings, given their consistent exposure to high-risk patients like: those with compromised immune systems, children, and the elderly (Johnson & Talbot, 2011). Though vaccination is vital in disease prevention, influenza vaccination uptake among HCP is low overall (50% on average) (Pearson et al., 2006). Mandatory vaccination policies result in HCP influenza vaccination uptake rates substantially higher than opt-in influenza vaccination campaigns (90% vs. 60%). Therefore, influenza vaccination should be mandatory for HCP in order to best prevent influenza infection in healthcare settings. Many HCP cite individual objections to influenza vaccination rooted in personal doubts and ethical concerns, not best available scientific evidence. Nevertheless, HCP ethical responsibility to their patients and work environments to prevent and lower influenza infection incidence overrules such individual objections. Additionally, mandatory HCP influenza vaccination policies respect HCP autonomy via including medical and religious exemption clauses. While vaccination as a prevention method for influenza is logically sound, individuals’ actions are not always rooted in logic. Therefore, I analyze HCP perceptions and actions toward influenza vaccination in an effort to better explain low HCP uptake rates of the influenza vaccine and individual objections to influenza vaccination. Such analysis can aid in gaining HCP trust when implementing mandatory HCP influenza vaccination policies. In summary, mandatory HCP influenza vaccination policies are ethically justified, effective, scientifically-supported method of maximizing HCP influenza vaccine uptake and minimizing the spread of the influenza virus within healthcare settlings. / Dissertation/Thesis / Masters Thesis Biology 2016

Research into the European Union (EU) increasingly focuses on the policy-making processes which take place within the EU, as distinct from trying to explain or predict the broad phenomenon of European integration. This thesis adopts a similar focus on EU policy-making. Policy-making in the EU is examined using a policy network approach. The main aim of the thesis is to assess how useful the policy network approach is as a means of explaining EU policy processes and policy outputs. The policy network approach is therefore applied not simply as a mechanism for describing patterns of interest intermediation but, rather, as a tool for explaining a new form of network governance in the EU. The thesis therefore aims to test the claims of the policy network literature that it can better account for policy-making in the EU than can more traditional approaches derived either from international relations (IR) or comparative politics (CP). The thesis applies a policy network approach to the study of EU environmental policy-making. Three case studies - on air quality, landfill and drinking water legislation - are examined, in order to assess whether a policy network approach can help explain the development of EU policy in these areas. Overall the thesis finds a useful role for policy network analysis in helping to explain EU policymaking and policy outputs. At the same time, however, the thesis confirms the limitations of the policy network approach at EU-level. Policy network analysis must therefore be combined with both IR and CP approaches in order to gain a fuller understanding of how EU policy is made.

The relationship between the energy-food-water nexus and the climate is non-linear, multi-sectoral and time sensitive, incorporating aspects of complexity and risk in climate related decision-making. This paper seeks to explore how knowledge co-production can help identify opportunities for building more effective, sustainable, inclusive and legitimate decision making processes on climate change. This would enable more resilient responses to climate risks impacting the nexus while increasing transparency, communication and trust among key actors. We do so by proposing the operationalization of an interdisciplinary approach of analysis applying the novel methodology developed in Howarth and Monasterolo (2016). Through a bottom-up, participative approach, we present results of five themed workshops organized in the UK (focusing on: shocks and hazards, infrastructure, local economy, governance and governments, finance and insurance) featuring 78 stakeholders from academia, government and industry. We present participant's perceptions of opportunities that can emerge from climate and weather shocks across the energy-food-water nexus. We explore opportunities offered by the development and deployment of a transdisciplinary approach of analysis within the nexus boundaries and we analyse their implications. Our analysis contributes to the current debate on how to shape global and local responses to climate change by reflecting on lessons learnt and best practice from cross-stakeholder and cross-sectorial engagement. In so doing, it helps inform a new generation of complex systems models to analyse climate change impact on the food-water-energy Nexus.

Several studies have been published postulating the emergence of the post-modern research system, the research system in transition and the new production of knowledge (Cozzens et al. 1990, Rip and van der Meulen 1996, Gibbons et al. 1994). However, these studies have been largely concerned with the gradual transformation of well-established research systems of Western industrialised countries. The radical transformations of the research systems of Central and Eastern European countries (CEE), following the collapse of the communist regime at the beginning of the 1990s, have attracted a smaller number of scholars (Balazs et al. 1995; Schimank 1995; Radosevic 1999; Dyker and Radosevic 1999, 2000). Prior to this, the developments in scientific organisation have been considered to be either an issue of evolution (in advanced or industrialised countries) or, as in the case of developing countries - a development issue. However, the research/innovation systems of CEE in the 1990s were neither underdeveloped, nor following the pattern of evolution of other industrialised countries, but were forced to change as a consequence of changes in the political and economic order. Furthermore, eighteen years after the fall of the communist regime, the research systems of CEE have developed at different rates, along different trajectories, despite similar preconditions for change. Taking into account the aforementioned considerations, the study investigates two research systems in transition, those of Latvia and Estonia, which along with the Czech Republic have initiated the most radical reorganisation of their research systems. The choice of countries is based on the realisation that despite, at first glance, similar pre-conditions for change, as well as similar demographic factors, political and economic systems, and institutional structures of scientific organisation (which makes these countries easily comparable); these systems appear to have evolved along different trajectories. Clear differences are seen in terms of total state funding allocated for research, as well as contributions from the private sector, R&D intensity, research output in terms of publication, citation rates and patents, collaborative projects and publications (Kristapsons, Martinson and Dagyte 2003). Based on these indicators, Estonia precedes Latvia on all counts; possible explanations for this are the diversified funding mechanisms available, and the multitude of assessments of research and development on the basis of which policies were formed (Kristapsons, Martinson and Dagyte 2003).In view of the overall goal of explaining different rates/paths of development of similarly positioned national research systems, the purpose of the study is twofold. Firstly, it attempts to paint a comprehensive picture of the Latvian and Estonian research systems and, secondly, it compares and contrasts them in terms of the reforms initiated and the outputs, outcomes and impacts of these reforms. Methodologically, the study is largely qualitative in nature and it has been deemed appropriate to present the two countries as separate case studies, yet retaining a common analytical frame to gather primary and secondary data. Secondary data has been collected by drawing on the multitude of archival and documentary evidence and statistical databases available; primary data was collected by conducting semi-structured interviews.

No description available.