From jcom-eo at jcom.sissa.it Fri Dec 18 12:49:51 2009 From: jcom-eo at jcom.sissa.it (jcom-eo at jcom.sissa.it) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:49:51 +0100 (CET) Subject: [SASCON] JCOM 4(3) - new issue - December 2009 Message-ID: <20091218104951.BA503654F@garamond.sissa.it> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Fri Dec 11 17:04:55 2009 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:04:55 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: http://jcom.sissa.it/archive/08/04/Jcom0804%282009%29C01/Jcom0804%282009%29C02 ********** The role of evaluation in socialising S&T in the ERA Evanthia Kalpazidou Schmidt Key challenges and opportunities are outlined in the ERA perspective and the role of evaluation as an instrument in the socialisation of science and technology is explored. Only an integrated and highly socialised science and technology, deeply embedded in society and involving all the relevant stakeholders, can address the complex problems Europe faces today and thus improve its research position and competitiveness worldwide. http://jcom.sissa.it/archive/08/04/Jcom0804%282009%29C01/Jcom0804%282009%29C03 ********** Reflection on the collectivization of science through research groups Brigida Blasi, Sandra Romagnosi Twenty five years after the introduction of the concept of "collectivization of science" by Ziman, the importance of the research team continues to suffer of a narrow space, both in scientific literature and in the definition of academic policy. The debate ranges from a macro level, represented by changes in scientific and technological research to micro-analyses on the figure of the individual researcher. Nevertheless the scientific processes are affected by the increasingly multidisciplinary nature and the plurality of actors involved, as well as the social and cultural dynamics, often overlooked if not ignored. Our contribution aims to emphasize the importance of the research groups as the elementary unit of analysis in the definition of policies and for a better governance of universities. http://jcom.sissa.it/archive/08/04/Jcom0804%282009%29C01/Jcom0804%282009%29C04 ********** Scientific mediation: on social processes, contexts and networks in which scientists are embedded Miguel Mart?nez L?pez Science and Technology Studies have discussed extensively over the social factors that hinder and facilitate scientific-technological activities. Some authors even have attempted to grasp the cultural and power conflicts involved in the definition of concepts, paradigms and research programmes. I will present here a reflection on the concept of 'scientific mediation' which provides a complementary approach about the social networks that constrain, help and constitute scientific research activities. A definition of this concept and some empirical examples will be provided. Nonetheless, I want to emphasise the social processes and contexts that allow us to understand mediations as something else than mere communication and conflict resolution. Secondly, I will defend such an approach in order to support scientific research, but I think that the analysis of scientific mediation needs to be clearly separated from the ideal conceptions of knowledge-society and democratic-ethos. Socialisation of science, finally, is stressed in its meaning of collectively sharing useful knowledge for the improvement of social justice. http://jcom.sissa.it/archive/08/04/Jcom0804%282009%29C01/Jcom0804%282009%29C05 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ REVIEW Too much power to the networks Alessandro Delfanti Manuel Castells, Communication power, Oxford University Press (2009) http://jcom.sissa.it/archive/08/04/Jcom0804%282009%29R01/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ LETTER The brain seduction: the public perception of neuroscience Donato Ramani The increasing number of magazine covers dedicated to brain studies and the success of magazines and scientific journals entirely dedicated to brain and mind indicate a strong interest on these themes. This interest is clearly surpassing the boundaries of scientific and medical researches and applications and underlines an engagement of the general public, too. This phenomenon appears to be enhanced by the increasing number of basic researches focusing on non-health-related fMRI studies, investigating aspects of personality as emotions, will, personal values and beliefs, self-identity and behaviour. The broad coverage by the media raises some central questions related to the complexity of researches, the intrinsic limits of these technologies, the results' interpretative boundaries, factors which are crucial to properly understand the studies' value. In case of an incomplete communication, if those fundamental interpretative elements are not well understood, we could register a misinterpretation in the public perception of the studies that opens new compelling questions. As already observed in the past debates on science and technologies applications, in this case, too, we assist to a communicative problem that set against scientific community on one side and media, on the other. Focusing our attention, in particular, on the debate on fMRI, taken as a good model, in the present letter we will investigate the most interesting aspects of the current discussion on neuroscience and neuroscience public perception. This analysis was performed as one of the bid - brains in dialogue - activities (www.neuromedia.eu). bid is a three year project supported by the European Commission under the 7th Framework Program and coordinated by Sissa, the International School for Advanced Studies of Trieste, aimed at fostering dialogue between science and society on the new challenges coming from neuroscience. http://jcom.sissa.it/archive/08/04/Jcom0804%282009%29L01/