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

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,