英语翻译With these caveats in mind,let us look atthe disciplinary perspectives represented onthe Royal Commission.The most strikingfeature of the membership is the dominanceof the natural sciences,engineering and med-icine.Taking these three cate

英语翻译With these caveats in mind,let us look atthe disciplinary perspectives represented onthe Royal Commission.The most strikingfeature of the membership is the dominanceof the natural sciences,engineering and med-icine.Taking these three cate
英语翻译
With these caveats in mind,let us look at
the disciplinary perspectives represented on
the Royal Commission.The most striking
feature of the membership is the dominance
of the natural sciences,engineering and med-
icine.Taking these three categories together
accounts for well over 40 per cent of the total
membership in this period.This is not sur-
prising.Environmental problems clearly
raise issues of biology,chemistry and engi-
neering,as well as broader issues about the
health effects of environmental pollutants,so
that the simplest model of functional compe-
tence would be sufficient to account for a
large presence of natural and related scien-
tists.
However,there is likely to be an additional
factor.The British government in its environ-
ment policy has consistently argued that
public decisions should be “science-based”,
and the interpretation of this injunction has
typically referred to the natural sciences and
those close relatives.Hence,we should expect
the composition of an important body like the
Royal Commission to reflect this policy orien-
tation.The conceptualization of the problems
at issue influences the way in which a body
like the Royal Commission is constructed.
The social sciences are represented by
economics,geography and related sciences
and law (classifying this rather difficult-to-
pigeon-hole case with the social sciences for
these purposes).None of these are surprising
in terms of their inclusion.Economists prob-
ably have less to say about how to make
money than the general public believes,but
there is a flourishing subdiscipline of envi-
ronmental economics.Pollution is standardly
taken as an issue of special importance in
that part of economics – welfare economics –
which is close to its theoretical core,and
economists have developed subtle techniques
of cost-benefit analysis which often provide a
convenient framework within which policies
can be discussed.Geography and related
sciences (for example,urban planning) have
an obvious relevance to environmental ques-
tions,and the framing of policies in terms of
their legal consequences creates a strong
argument for a legal presence
So far we have accounted for the discipli-
nary composition of the membership in
terms of the functional requirements of the
work of the Royal Commission and the predis
work of the Royal Commission and the predis-
position of British governments to turn ques-
tions of environmental policy into technical
questions of scientific investigation.Yet,
although these factors may account for the
disciplines that have been represented on the
Royal Commission,do they account for the
fact that only those disciplines have been
represented?What do we say about the disci-
plinary dogs who did not bark?还是没有完 看来前面不是3分之一了

英语翻译With these caveats in mind,let us look atthe disciplinary perspectives represented onthe Royal Commission.The most strikingfeature of the membership is the dominanceof the natural sciences,engineering and med-icine.Taking these three cate
这些说明当中,让我们看看皇家委员会的自律方面.成员的主要特性是致力于自然科学,工程和医学.有超过40%的成员在将这三者结合起来.这并不让人惊讶.环境问题产生的问题有生物,化学和工程的,环境污染会扩展到健康问题,以至于有一个简单的功能竞争的模式包括大部分的自然和相关的科学家.
然而,有一个额外的因素.英国政府在环境政策上争论公共决策应该“以科学为依据”,并指向自然科学和相关的.我们应该期待皇家委员会对政策指向的反应.这些问题影响了皇家委员会构建.
社会科学家在经济,地理和相关的科学以及法律都有所体现.没有人怀疑这些条款.经济学家可能很少说到怎么去赚钱而不是一般公众相信的,但是有一个增长的环境经济学.污染成为经济中的一部分,福利经济学--和理论相关,经济学家们已经开发出微妙的技术为成本-收益的分析提供了构建其政治学家所探讨的.地理和相关的科学很明显的被列为环境问题.
目前,我们计算出所有皇家委员会成员的训练组成,英国政府先前的皇家委员会成员将问题转变由环境问题转为科学调查的技术问题.虽然这些因素可能影响皇家委员会的呈现方式.他们是否有考虑纪律的呈现问题?他们对不会吠的狗说了什么?