Brent S. Steel – författare

This intriguing book investigates the technical information quandary created by post-industrial changes, which have produced demands for citizen involvement in public policy processes while complex scientific and technical issues increasingly make public involvement difficult. Authors Pierce, Steger, Steel, and Lovrich address the degree to which interest groups might serve to bridge the knowledge gap between public policy processes and the citizenry in U.S. and Canadian settings.The focus of the study is on acid rain policy in Michigan and Ontario, an area of considerable scientific and technical complexity as well as political and public interest. The authors examine how the U.S. and Canadian publics acquire, process, and communicate policy-relevant information so that it can influence policymaking. Do interest groups play the information dissemination role in a manner that could address the technical information quandary? Are interest groups playing the same or different roles in the United States and Canada? What different factors cause U.S. and Canadian interest groups to behave as they do in the political arena? Recommended for scholars of Political Science, Communication, Environmental Studies, and Comparative Public Policy.

The use of public lands in the western United States has become the focus of international, national, and regional debate. Public concern for wildlife, fish, wilderness, recreation, and other values associated with these lands has increased substantially since the 1960s. And that concern has clashed with the more user/extraction orientation of traditional interests. The priorities for management of these lands have become the subject of increasing controversy and litigation, particularly with regard to U.S. federal forests and rangelands. At the heart of this debate are differing philosophical and normative views about the natural environment and human relationship to that environment. This volume provides an analysis of public values and philosophical views about the environment from an interdisciplinary perspective and will be of interest to scholars and policymakers in public policy, business-government relations, and environmentalism.

The political culture of Oregon has long had a reputation for innovative policy, maverick politicians, and independent political thought, but instead of using the term "progressive" to describe the state's political leanings, the editors of Oregon Politics and Government believe a more accurate descriptor would be "schizophrenic." Oregon Politics and Government provides not only an overview of the state's politics and government; it also explains how the divide between progressives and conservative populists defines Oregon politics today. Early in the state's history, reformers championed many causes: the initiative and referendum process for setting public policy, the recall of public officials, the direct election of U.S. senators, and women's suffrage. Since then, the state has asserted control over beaches, imposed strict land-use laws, created an innovative regional government, introduced voting through the mail, allowed for physician-assisted suicide, and experimented with universal healthcare. Despite this list of accomplishments, however, Oregon is divided between two competing visions: one that is tied to progressive politics and another that is committed to conservative populism. While the progressive side supports a strong and active government, the conservative populist side seeks a smaller government, lower taxes, fewer restrictions on private property, and protection for traditional social values. The struggle between these two forces drives Oregon politics and policies today.

A “wicked problem” isn’t one with an evil nature, but a problem that is impossible or difficult to solve because of incomplete, contradictory, and changing requirements that are often hard to recognize. Classic examples of wicked problems include economic, environmental, and political issues. We now live in a world full of wicked problems, most of them urgent challenges calling out for creative, democratic, and effective solutions. Ed Weber, Denise Lach, and Brent Steel, of the Oregon State University School of Public Policy, solicited papers from a wide variety of accomplished scholars in the fields of science, politics, and policy to address this challenge. The resultant collection focuses on major contemporary environmental and natural resource policy issues, and proposes an assortment of alternative problem-solving methodologies to tackle such problems.

This book reveals how embedded beliefs more so than a lack of scientific knowledge and understanding are creating a cognitive bias toward information that coincides with personal beliefs rather than scientific consensus—and that this anti-science bias exists among liberals as well as conservatives.In 2010, an outbreak of whooping cough in California infected more than 8,000 people, resulting in the hospitalization of more than 800 people and the death of 10 infants. In 2015, an outbreak of the measles in Disneyland infected more than 125 people. Both the whooping cough and the measles are vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs) that have been largely nonexistent in the United States for decades. As these cases demonstrate, individuals who prioritize ideology or personal beliefs above scientific consensus can impinge on society at large—and they illustrate how rejecting science has unfortunate results for public health and for the environment.When Ideology Trumps Science examines how proponents of scientific findings and the scientists responsible for conducting and communicating the applicable research to decision makers are encountering direct challenges to scientific consensus. Using examples from high-stakes policy debates centered on hot-button controversies such as climate change, GMO foods, immunization, stem cell research, abstinence-only education, and birth control, authors Wolters and Steel document how the contested nature of contemporary perspectives on science leads to the possibility that policymakers will not take science into account when making decisions that affect the general population. In addition, the book identifies ways in which liberals and conservatives have both contested issues of science when consensus diverges from their ideological positions and values. It is a compelling must-read for public policy students and practitioners.

This book reveals how embedded beliefs more so than a lack of scientific knowledge and understanding are creating a cognitive bias toward information that coincides with personal beliefs rather than scientific consensus-and that this anti-science bias exists among liberals as well as conservatives.In 2010, an outbreak of whooping cough in California infected more than 8,000 people, resulting in the hospitalization of more than 800 people and the death of 10 infants. In 2015, an outbreak of the measles in Disneyland infected more than 125 people. Both the whooping cough and the measles are vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs) that have been largely nonexistent in the United States for decades. As these cases demonstrate, individuals who prioritize ideology or personal beliefs above scientific consensus can impinge on society at large-and they illustrate how rejecting science has unfortunate results for public health and for the environment.When Ideology Trumps Science examines how proponents of scientific findings and the scientists responsible for conducting and communicating the applicable research to decision makers are encountering direct challenges to scientific consensus. Using examples from high-stakes policy debates centered on hot-button controversies such as climate change, GMO foods, immunization, stem cell research, abstinence-only education, and birth control, authors Wolters and Steel document how the contested nature of contemporary perspectives on science leads to the possibility that policymakers will not take science into account when making decisions that affect the general population. In addition, the book identifies ways in which liberals and conservatives have both contested issues of science when consensus diverges from their ideological positions and values. It is a compelling must-read for public policy students and practitioners.

Recent partisan squabbles over science in the news are indicative of a larger tendency for scientific research and practice to get entangled in major ideological divisions in the public arena. This politicization of science is deepened by the key role government funding plays in scientific research and development, the market leading position of U.S.-based science and technology firms, and controversial U.S. exports (such as genetically modified foods or hormone-injected livestock). This groundbreaking, one-volume, A-to-Z reference features 120-150 entries that explore the nexus of politics and science, both in the United States and in U.S. interactions with other nations. The essays, each by experts in their fields, examine: Health, environmental, and social/cultural issues relating to science and politicsConcerns relating to government regulation and its impact on the practice of scienceKey historical and contemporary events that have shaped our contemporary view of how science and politics intersect  Science and Politics: An A to Z Guide to Issues and Controversies is a must-have resource for researchers and students who seek to deepen their understanding of the connection between science and politics.

This book poses the question of whether identifiable individual-level attributes (e.g., values, interests, knowledge, demographic characteristics) lead to support for or opposition to the development and implementation of alternative energy technologies.  In recent years, attempts to site alternative energy technologies (e.g., wind, solar, wave) have been met by intense opposition from a variety of sources, including many environmentalists from whom one might expect support for non-carbon based renewable energy initiatives.  This volume argues that there are indeed such discernible attributes, and moreover that the identification and exploration are important for the development of support strategies for the well-informed and achievable siting of such technologies.

This book poses the question of whether identifiable individual-level attributes (e.g., values, interests, knowledge, demographic characteristics) lead to support for or opposition to the development and implementation of alternative energy technologies.  In recent years, attempts to site alternative energy technologies (e.g., wind, solar, wave) have been met by intense opposition from a variety of sources, including many environmentalists from whom one might expect support for non-carbon based renewable energy initiatives.  This volume argues that there are indeed such discernible attributes, and moreover that the identification and exploration are important for the development of support strategies for the well-informed and achievable siting of such technologies.

This book reveals how embedded beliefs more so than a lack of scientific knowledge and understanding are creating a cognitive bias toward information that coincides with personal beliefs rather than scientific consensus-and that this anti-science bias exists among liberals as well as conservatives.In 2010, an outbreak of whooping cough in California infected more than 8,000 people, resulting in the hospitalization of more than 800 people and the death of 10 infants. In 2015, an outbreak of the measles in Disneyland infected more than 125 people. Both the whooping cough and the measles are vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs) that have been largely nonexistent in the United States for decades. As these cases demonstrate, individuals who prioritize ideology or personal beliefs above scientific consensus can impinge on society at large-and they illustrate how rejecting science has unfortunate results for public health and for the environment.When Ideology Trumps Science examines how proponents of scientific findings and the scientists responsible for conducting and communicating the applicable research to decision makers are encountering direct challenges to scientific consensus. Using examples from high-stakes policy debates centered on hot-button controversies such as climate change, GMO foods, immunization, stem cell research, abstinence-only education, and birth control, authors Wolters and Steel document how the contested nature of contemporary perspectives on science leads to the possibility that policymakers will not take science into account when making decisions that affect the general population. In addition, the book identifies ways in which liberals and conservatives have both contested issues of science when consensus diverges from their ideological positions and values. It is a compelling must-read for public policy students and practitioners.