Many scientists and social scientists continue to express 许多科学家和社会科学家继续表达.docVIP

下载本文档

2
0
约3.1万字
约 19页
2018-02-19 发布于重庆
举报
版权申诉

Many scientists and social scientists continue to express 许多科学家和社会科学家继续表达.doc

1、本文档共19页，可阅读全部内容。
2、原创力文档（book118）网站文档一经付费（服务费），不意味着购买了该文档的版权，仅供个人/单位学习、研究之用，不得用于商业用途，未经授权，严禁复制、发行、汇编、翻译或者网络传播等，侵权必究。
3、本站所有内容均由合作方或网友上传，本站不对文档的完整性、权威性及其观点立场正确性做任何保证或承诺！文档内容仅供研究参考，付费前请自行鉴别。如您付费，意味着您自己接受本站规则且自行承担风险，本站不退款、不进行额外附加服务；查看《如何避免下载的几个坑》。如果您已付费下载过本站文档，您可以点击这里二次下载。
4、如文档侵犯商业秘密、侵犯著作权、侵犯人身权等，请点击“版权申诉”（推荐），也可以打举报电话：400-050-0827(电话支持时间：9:00-18:30)。
5、该文档为VIP文档，如果想要下载，成为VIP会员后，下载免费。
6、成为VIP后，下载本文档将扣除1次下载权益。下载后，不支持退款、换文档。如有疑问请联系我们。
7、成为VIP后，您将拥有八大权益，权益包括：VIP文档下载权益、阅读免打扰、文档格式转换、高级专利检索、专属身份标志、高级客服、多端互通、版权登记。
8、VIP文档为合作方或网友上传，每下载1次，网站将根据用户上传文档的质量评分、类型等，对文档贡献者给予高额补贴、流量扶持。如果你也想贡献VIP文档。上传文档

Many scientists and social scientists continue to express 许多科学家和社会科学家继续表达

Ethical Frames for Drug Policy and the Salience of Competing Bodies of Knowledge The idea that policy discourse is invariably framed by particular groups of assumptions is well established in the policy literature (Stone, 2002; Rochefort Cobb, 1994; Majone, 1989; Schon Rein, 1994), but the framing assumptions typically remain hidden from the discussants themselves. Revealing the frames that shape policy discourse is crucial to empowering participants (Stone, 2002; Schon Rein, 1994; Rein, 1983). Once the framing assumptions are revealed, they can be actively chosen, critiqued, or reconstructed. As long as they remain hidden, participants in policy discourse will be trapped by the limiting assumptions of their particular frames. In drug policy discourse, widespread ignorance of the critical role of ethical frames leads to common claims that one side or another is pursuing an ideological or political agenda at the expense of good science. For example, Ethan Nadelmann (2001), Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance, asserts the belief that “all marijuana use is defined as abuse” is “intellectually and scientifically indefensible, but those in government regard it as politically and legally obligatory” (p.62). Similarly, Bob Barr (2001), a leading congressional drug warrior, accuses drug policy reformers of putting politics before science: The medicinal use argument is simply a contrived means to an end [. . .] Not only is there no real proof that marijuana has any significant medicinal value, there is voluminous evidence that it is demonstrably harmful; if not deadly. (p.71) Such claims miss the fact that the relevance of different bodies of scientific knowledge, and other types of knowledge, to drug policy necessarily depends upon one’s ethical perspective. Furthermore, scientific research cannot resolve such ethical differences. The frustration of scientists about the unresponsiveness of drug policy (Babor, 2002; Atwood Colditz, 1997; Edwards, Anderson,