Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Peer Review in the Regulatory Process

Bibliographic Data

ID11638117
AuthorsSheila Jasanoff (0000-0002-0488-8698, corresponding author)
Year1985
Volume10
Issue3
Pages20-32
Publication date1985-07-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueScience Technology & Human Values (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0162-2439 • E-ISSN: 1552-8251
PublisherSAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1177/016224398501000303
OpenAlexW2037930858
LanguageEN
Citations received10
References cited3

For close to four decades, administrative decisionmaking in the United States has been carried out under a presumption of openness. The rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the Government in the Sunshine Act, and the procedural requirements of numerous environmental and health and safety statutes all reflect an impressive consensus on one basic principle: That the legitimacy of government depends on exposing the rationale for official decisions to the fullest possible public scrutiny. The presumption of openness has survived fundamental changes in the character of regulatory decisionmaking. Administrative policies, particularly those aimed at controlling technological risks, rest on an increasingly elaborate foundation of scientific and technical information. Regulatory programs generate endless debates about experimental data, theories, and methodologies that are accessible only to highly specialized experts. Yet, even in the most complex and technical areas of risk regulation, the U.S. Congress has shown little inclination to retreat from the paradigm of open public access to the basis for agency decisions. By comparison with decisionmaking in other technologically advanced nations, the U.S. ad

Biology · Computational biology · Peer review · Process (computing · Computer Science · Regulation and Compliance Studies · Biochemistry

  • The Influence of Disciplinary Origins on Peer Review Normativities in a New Discipline

    Kacey Beddoes, Yu Xia et al.•Social Epistemology•2023

  • Contrasting norms on the use of evidence in risk assessment

    Emanuela Bozzini•Health Risk & Society•2020

  • Wissenschaftssoziologie

    Mario Kaiser, Sabine Maasen•Handbuch Spezielle Soziologien•2010

  • Ethisierung und die Marginalisierung der Ethik

    Alexander Bogner•Soziale Welt•2009

  • Making Expert Bodies

    Open Access•Evelyn Moser, Julia Schubert•Minerva•2025

  • From scandal to reform

    Open Access•F Hesselmann, Martin Reinhart•Journal of Responsible Innovation•2024

  • Scientific Autonomy, Public Accountability, and the Rise of “Peer Review” in the Cold War United States

    Melinda Baldwin•Isis•2018

  • Is there a Nordic model of final disposal of spent nuclear fuel? Governance insights from Finland and Sweden

    Open Access•Tapio Litmanen, Mika Kari et al.•Energy Research & Social Science•2016

  • Building Policy-Related Technical Communities

    Open Access•Duncan Macrae•Knowledge•1987

  • Whose Shoe Fits Best? Dubious Physics and Power Politics in the TMD Footprint Controversy

    Open Access•Gordon R Mitchell, Grant A Mitchell•Science Technology & Human Values•2000

  • The new politics of science

    David Dickson•The new politics of science•1984

  • Peer Review at the NSF

    Open Access•Ian I Mitroff, D E Chubin•Social Studies of Science•1979

  • Advisory Committees in Osha and EPA

    Open Access•Nicholas A Ash́ford•Science Technology & Human Values•1984

Unique citing works10
Citations per year0,26
Citation span1987 - 2025 (39)
Citation velocityrecent
Highly citedNo
Citation typesNeutral: 10

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae