IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v34y2007i2p139-150.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Science policies for reducing societal inequities

Author

Listed:
  • Edward Woodhouse
  • Daniel Sarewitz

Abstract

In an effort to move social justice issues higher on R&D policy-making agendas, we ask whether new technoscientific capacities introduced into a non-egalitarian society tend disproportionately to benefit the affluent and powerful. To demonstrate plausibility of the hypothesis, we first review examples of grossly non-egalitarian outcomes from military, medical, and other R&D arenas. We then attempt to debunk the science-inequity link by looking for substantial categories where R&D is conducive to reducing unjustified inequalities. For example, R&D sometimes enables less affluent persons to purchase more or better goods and services. Although the case for price-based equity proves weaker than normally believed, R&D targeted towards public goods turns out to offer a reasonable chance of equity enhancement, as do several other potentially viable approaches to science policy. However, major changes in science-policy institutions and participants probably would be required for R&D to serve humanity equitably. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Edward Woodhouse & Daniel Sarewitz, 2007. "Science policies for reducing societal inequities," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(2), pages 139-150, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:34:y:2007:i:2:p:139-150
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/030234207X195158
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dan Breznitz & Amos Zehavi, 2013. "What Does Politics Have to Do with Innovation? Economic Distribution and Innovation Policy in OECD Countries," Carlo Alberto Notebooks 303, Collegio Carlo Alberto.
    2. Woodson, Thomas S. & Hoffmann, Elina & Boutilier, Sophia, 2021. "Evaluating the NSF broader impacts with the Inclusion-Immediacy Criterion: A retrospective analysis of nanotechnology grants," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    3. Confraria, Hugo & Ciarli, Tommaso & Noyons, Ed, 2024. "Countries' research priorities in relation to the Sustainable Development Goals," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(3).
    4. Jane A. Flegal & Aarti Gupta, 2018. "Evoking equity as a rationale for solar geoengineering research? Scrutinizing emerging expert visions of equity," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 45-61, February.
    5. Zehavi, Amos & Breznitz, Dan, 2017. "Distribution sensitive innovation policies: Conceptualization and empirical examples," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 327-336.
    6. Irwin Feller, 2022. "Assessing the societal impact of publicly funded research," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 632-650, June.
    7. Theo Papaioannou, 2011. "Technological innovation, global justice and politics of development," Progress in Development Studies, , vol. 11(4), pages 321-338, July.
    8. Barry Bozeman & Catherine Slade & Paul Hirsch, 2011. "Inequity in the distribution of science and technology outcomes: a conceptual model," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 44(3), pages 231-248, September.
    9. Mark W Neff, 2018. "Publication incentives undermine the utility of science: Ecological research in Mexico," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(2), pages 191-201.
    10. Ribeiro, Barbara & Shapira, Philip, 2020. "Private and public values of innovation: A patent analysis of synthetic biology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
    11. Woodson, Thomas S., 2016. "Public private partnerships and emerging technologies: A look at nanomedicine for diseases of poverty," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1410-1418.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:34:y:2007:i:2:p:139-150. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.