Occasional papers of the California Academy of Sciences.

no. 78 (1969)

Occasional papers of the California Academy of Sciences.

no. 143 (1985)

Occasional papers of the California Academy of Sciences.

no. 60 (1966)

Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences.

ser. 1 v. 7 (1876)

Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences, 4th series.

4th ser. v. 22 (1936-1941)

Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences.

ser. 1 v. 4 (1868-1872)

Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences, 4th series.

4th. ser. v. 25 (1943-1949)

Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences, 4th series.

4th ser. v. 24 (1942-1950)

Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences, 4th series.

4th ser. v. 20 (1931-1933)

Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences, 4th series.

4th ser. v. 23 (1935-1947)

Transactions of the Maryland Academy of Sciences.

1

Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences.

1

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

v.18 (1908)

Comparison of scientists of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences and of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA on the basis of the h-index

A new scientometric indicator, the h-index, has been recently proposed (Hirsch JE. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2005; 102: 16569-16572). The index avoids some shortcomings of the calculation of the total number of citations as a parameter to evaluate scientific performance. Although it has become known only recently, it has had widespread acceptance. A comparison of the average h-index of members of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences (BAS) and of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA (NAS-USA) was carried out for 10 different areas of science. Although, as expected, the comparison was unfavorable to the members of the BAS, the imbalance was distinct in different areas. Since these two academies represent, to a significant extent, the science of top quality produced in each country, the comparison allows the identification of the areas in Brazil that are closer to the international stakeholders of scientific excellence. The areas of Physics and Mathematics stand out in this context. The heterogeneity of the h-index in the different areas, estimated by the median dispersion of the index, is significantly higher in the BAS than in the NAS-USA. No elements have been collected in the present study to provide an explanation for this fact.

EPA's Council for Regulatory Environmental Modeling : a case study of science policy implementation

As environmental problems became more complex, policy and regulatory decisions become far more difficult to make. The use of science has become an important practice in the decision making process of many federal agencies. Many different types of scientific information are used to make decisions within the EPA, with computer models becoming especially important. Environmental models are used throughout the EPA in a variety of contexts and their predictive capacity has become highly valued in decision making. The main focus of this research is to examine the EPA’s Council for Regulatory Modeling (CREM) as a case study in addressing science issues, particularly models, in government agencies. Specifically, the goal was to answer the following questions: What is the history of the CREM and how can this information shed light on the process of science policy implementation? What were the goals of implementing the CREM? Were these goals reached and how have they changed? What have been the impediments that the CREM has faced and why did these impediments occur? The three main sources of information for this research came from observations during summer employment with the CREM, document review and supplemental interviews with CREM participants and other members of the modeling community. Examining a history of modeling at the EPA, as well as a history of the CREM, provides insight into the many challenges that are faced when implementing science policy and science policy programs. After examining the many impediments that the CREM has faced in implementing modeling policies, it was clear that the impediments fall into two separate categories, classic and paradoxical. The classic impediments include the more standard impediments to science policy implementation that might be found in any regulatory environment, such as lack of resources and changes in administration. Paradoxical impediments are cyclical in nature, with no clear solution, such as balancing top-down versus bottom-up initiatives and coping with differing perceptions. These impediments, when not properly addressed, severely hinder the ability for organizations to successfully implement science policy.