Refine
H-BRS Bibliography
- yes (29) (remove)
Departments, institutes and facilities
- Fachbereich Wirtschaftswissenschaften (8)
- Fachbereich Ingenieurwissenschaften und Kommunikation (7)
- Fachbereich Angewandte Naturwissenschaften (6)
- Institut für funktionale Gen-Analytik (IFGA) (5)
- Institut für Verbraucherinformatik (IVI) (4)
- Fachbereich Informatik (3)
- Fachbereich Sozialpolitik und Soziale Sicherung (3)
- Institut für Medienentwicklung und -analyse (IMEA) (3)
- Institut für Technik, Ressourcenschonung und Energieeffizienz (TREE) (3)
- Zentrum für Ethik und Verantwortung (ZEV) (3)
Document Type
- Part of a Book (29) (remove)
Year of publication
- 2021 (29) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- no (29) (remove)
Orešković and Porsdam Mann draw a distinction between ‘fast’ and ‘slow’ science. Whereas the latter involves rigorous and laborious adherence to the scientific method, the former represents the reality that much scientific work faces time pressures which at times force shortcuts. The distinction can be seen to operate in contemporary research into the coronavirus pandemic: whereas the development of vaccines and treatments usually requires years of meticulous laboratory work and several more years of clinical testing, the many millions suffering from the disease need a treatment now. However, by taking too many safeguards off the treatment discovery and testing pipelines, or by refusing to act in accordance with scientific advice, governments risk sacrificing the public’s trust not only in the government’s scientific bona fides but in the scientific process itself. This is a heavy price to pay, argue Orešković and Porsdam Mann, and point to evidence indicating that the success of Germany and Japan in combating COVID-19 can be traced to public trust in science and government, as well as scientifically-informed and respectful national leadership.
Digitale Medienkompetenz
(2021)
Managing the Work-Nonwork Interface: Personal Social Media Use as a Tool to Craft Boundaries?
(2021)
What is Design Theory?
(2021)
What does the right to social security mean if the majority of the world’s population still lives in overwhelming insecurity? What is the significance and role of international social security standards, developed by the International Labour Organization (ILO2) over decades? What are the economic, labour market and political factors determining differences between countries with respect to population coverage by social security schemes and systems? How can past and recent experiences of countries in the Global North and in the Global South be used to expand social security coverage, and what role can be played by the new standard in this area – the ILO Social Protection Floors Recommendation 202, adopted in 2012?