This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Springer Nature via the DOI in this record

Brigitte Nerlich

Jasanoff S.

Sarah Hartley

Warren Pearce

Pearce, Warren

Hartley, Sarah

Nerlich, Brigitte

Nottingham ePrints

End User Licence (Terms & Conditions of Use)   Access to and use of the material held within the University of Nottingham’s Institutional Repository (the Repository) is based on your acceptance of the following terms and conditions:   1. Copyright subsists (and other intellectual property rights may subsist) in the material held in the Repository and in any metadata attached and all authors assert their moral right to be acknowledged as the authors.   2. Content in the Repository is made freely available solely for non-commercial private study or research.   3. You may not further reproduce, distribute, or publish any of the material in the Repository (or any part thereof) held in print or electronic format, except where you have obtained permission from the rights owner/s or where the licence for that particular item specifically allows for this (ie. where the material is licensed under a Creative Commons or similar licence, noted on the item or in its metadata).   4. Content within the Repository is provided on an "as is" basis and no warranties are given as to the accuracy, currency or comprehensiveness of any part of the material in the Repository.   5. You agree not to misuse any data obtained from the Repository, or use or attempt to use any data therefrom to compromise or otherwise infringe the confidentiality of individuals, households or organisations.   6. You agree to acknowledge in any publication, whether printed, electronic or broadcast, based wholly or in part on any material in the Repository, the relevant original author / creator, and publisher where applicable.   7. [for Theses only] The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and/or other copyright holder(s) and no quotation from it or information derived from it (beyond that allowed by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988) may be published without the prior consent of the copyright holder.   Please note that the University of Nottingham reserves the right to change or otherwise modify these terms and conditions at any time so as to apply to material you may access from the Repository in the future. It is your responsibility to ensure that, in respect of each item from the Repository that you access in the future, you review and comply with the terms and conditions of use that apply at that time.   

Transparency: issues are not that simple

Pearce, W

Hartley, S

Nerlich, B

Open Research Exeter

Nature

Pearce, Warren and Hartley, Sarah and Nerlich, Brigitte (2016) Transparency: issues are not that simple. Nature, 531 (7592). p. 35. ISSN 1476-4687 Access from the University of Nottingham repository: http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/35762/1/Transparency%20much%20more%20complex%20-%20revised%20SH_WP.pdfCopyright and reuse: The Nottingham ePrints service makes this work by researchers of the University of Nottingham available open access under the following conditions.This article is made available under the University of Nottingham End User licence and may be reused according to the conditions of the licence.  For more details see: http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/end_user_agreement.pdfA note on versions: The version presented here may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher’s version. Please see the repository url above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription.For more information, please contact eprints@nottingham.ac.ukTransparency much more complexWe find the framing of science governance by Stephan Lewandowsky and Dorothy Bishop tobe simplistic and lacking a firm evidence base (‘Don’t let transparency damage science’Nature 529, 459-461; 2016).One of us (W. P.) attended the Royal Society meeting last year from which scientists’testimonials emerged. In using such testimonials from a narrow range of invited experts, theauthors’ analysis becomes biased because it disregards complex issues involved in opennessand transparency (S. Jasanoff Law Contemp. Probl.69, 21–45; 2006).They present topics they rightly identify as important, such as expertise, disciplinaryboundaries and communication, as simple dichotomies. However, these dichotomiesoverlook extensive nuanced evidence from the social science literature about who counts asan expert, and under what conditions (see, for example, J. Stilgoe et al. The ReceivedWisdom: Opening up Expert Advice Demos; 2006).The authors call for the research community to discuss how to govern issues aroundopenness and transparency. In our view, it is crucial that such a debate should include abroader range of publics.

Crossref

Name not available

Nottingham eTheses

https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/781616/1/Transparency much more complex - revised SH_WP.pdf

Transparency: issues are not that simple

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Nottingham ePrints

Open Research Exeter

Nottingham ePrints

Crossref

Name not available

Nottingham eTheses

Nottingham eTheses

Name not available

Name not available

Name not available