• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Science Advisors and “Good Evidence”: A Case Study科学顾问与“充分证据”:一个案例研究
2
New trends in science communication fostering evidence-informed policymaking.促进基于证据的决策制定的科学传播新趋势。
Open Res Eur. 2023 Oct 24;2:78. doi: 10.12688/openreseurope.14769.2. eCollection 2022.
3
Culture of Care: Organizational Responsibilities关怀文化:组织职责
4
Collaborative Policymaking: a qualitative systematic review of advice for policymakers.合作决策:对政策制定者建议的定性系统评价
Open Res Eur. 2024 Sep 18;4:204. doi: 10.12688/openreseurope.18440.1. eCollection 2024.
5
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
6
[The role of science in policy making--EuSANH-ISA project, framework for science advice for health].[科学在政策制定中的作用——欧洲科学与健康网络-国际应用系统分析研究所项目,健康科学建议框架]
Przegl Epidemiol. 2012;66(3):521-9.
7
Critical Care Network in the State of Qatar.卡塔尔国重症监护网络。
Qatar Med J. 2019 Nov 7;2019(2):2. doi: 10.5339/qmj.2019.qccc.2. eCollection 2019.
8
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.在流行地区,服用抗叶酸抗疟药物的人群中,叶酸补充剂与疟疾易感性和严重程度的关系。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217.
9
American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement: oversight of clinical research.美国临床肿瘤学会政策声明:临床研究监督
J Clin Oncol. 2003 Jun 15;21(12):2377-86. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.04.026. Epub 2003 Apr 29.
10
Scientific advice and public policy: expert advisers' and policymakers' discourses on boundary work.科学建议与公共政策:专家顾问和政策制定者关于界限划分的论述
Poiesis Prax. 2009 Aug;6(3-4):235-263. doi: 10.1007/s10202-008-0053-3. Epub 2008 Oct 31.

科学顾问与“充分证据”:一个案例研究

Science Advisors and “Good Evidence”: A Case Study

作者信息

Lombardo Gabi

机构信息

European Alliance for Social Sciences and Humanities (EASSH), Paris, France

DOI:10.1007/978-3-031-15746-2_6
PMID:36810058
Abstract

This chapter addresses the place of research ethics in evidence-informed policy and the role of those who are elevated to special roles to advise governments. Science advisors are one type of institutional link between scientific research and policymakers. The aim of this chapter is to discuss the role for science advisors to provide the main guarantee that the research, which provides the evidence for policymaking, is based on methodologically robust and ethically grounded scientific work. This relies on the academic training and culture of the science advisers. There is currently no forum where policymakers and academic/higher education institution (HEI) researchers can easily come together to work jointly to develop the process of continuous expert policy advice and evaluation in response to key national strategic issues. In progressing this agenda, it is critical to design effective structures to identify research demand from government and ethically sound research supply from HEIs and other sources over the long term, at least at national levels. Even more importantly, there are no declared standards in scientific policy advice, except the assumption that those who have received an academic training are assumed to be bounded by robust academic values and carry these with them into their new roles in providing scientific advice for policymaking. To explore this issue, this chapter examines the case of the International Network for Government Science Advice (INGSA). This is a gateway to the community of professional science advisers working inside governments, and to those engaged in other aspects of the production, brokerage and analysis of scientific advice, not just in the European Union (EU) but globally.

摘要

本章探讨研究伦理在循证政策中的地位,以及那些被赋予特殊角色为政府提供建议的人员所发挥的作用。科学顾问是科研与政策制定者之间的一种机构联系纽带。本章旨在讨论科学顾问的作用,以确保为政策制定提供依据的研究基于方法稳健且符合伦理的科学工作。这依赖于科学顾问的学术训练和文化。目前,政策制定者与学术/高等教育机构(HEI)的研究人员之间还没有一个能让他们轻松汇聚一堂、共同合作的平台,以便针对关键的国家战略问题开展持续的专家政策建议和评估工作。在推进这一议程时,至关重要的是设计有效的架构,从长期来看,至少在国家层面,确定政府的研究需求以及HEIs和其他来源符合伦理规范的研究供给。更重要的是,除了假定接受过学术训练的人员受严格学术价值观的约束,并将这些价值观带入他们为政策制定提供科学建议的新角色中之外,科学政策建议方面没有明确的标准。为探讨这一问题,本章考察了国际政府科学咨询网络(INGSA)的案例。该网络是通向在政府内部工作的专业科学顾问群体,以及参与科学建议的产生、传播和分析等其他方面工作的人员的一个通道,不仅涉及欧盟,而是全球范围。