Sustainability challenges blur the boundaries between academic disciplines, between research, policy and practice, and between states, markets and society. What do exemplary scientists and organisations do to bridge the gaps between these groups and help their research to make the greatest impact? How do they do it? And how can their best practices be adapted for a diverse range of specific sustainability challenges? Enhancing Science Impact: Bridging Research, Policy and Practice for Sustainability addresses these questions in an accessible and engaging way. It provides principles explaining how research programs can work more effectively across the boundaries between science, society and decision-making by building social andinstitutional networks. The book suggests ways of defining and thinking about problems and then offers five frameworks for embedding science within specific governance contexts. It will be an indispensable guide for researcher leaders, science program managers and science policy advisers interested in ensuring applied research can meaningfully contribute to sustainability outcomes. Features A highly readable and easily applicable guide for scientists, research managers and science policy advisers on howto create outcomes from environmental research Provides a conceptual model for improving the design and implementation of outcome-based science programs Break out boxes provide supplementary information, examples and simple method outlines.

For the past fifty years, science and technology-supported with billions of dollars from the U.S. government-have advanced at a rate that would once have seemed miraculous, while society's problems have grown more intractable, complex, and diverse. Yet scientists and politicians alike continue to prescribe more science and more technology to cure such afflictions as global climate change, natural resource depletion, overpopulation, inadequate health care, weapons proliferation, and economic inequality. Daniel Sarewitz scrutinizes the fundamental myths that have guided the formulation of science policy for half a century-myths that serve the professional and political interests of the scientific community, but often fail to advance the interests of society as a whole. His analysis ultimately demonstrates that stronger linkages between progress in science and progress in society will require research agendas that emerge not from the intellectual momentum of science, but from the needs and goals of society.

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama criticized the George W. Bush administration for its unrestrained actions in matters of national security. Yet President Obama has not fulfilled candidate Obama's promise to restore the rule of law and make a clean break with his predecessor. In Power without Constraint Chris Edelson offers a thorough, extensive comparison of the Bush and Obama administrations' national security policies, arguing that both have asserted more executive authority than previous presidents. He examines once-secret Justice Department memos in which President Bush's officials claimed for the executive branch plenary unilateral authority to use military force in response to threats of terrorism, as well as the power to set aside laws made by Congress, even criminal laws prohibiting torture and warrantless surveillance. He acknowledges that President Obama and his officials have not claimed the authority to set aside criminal laws, relying on softer rhetoric and toned-down legal arguments to advance their policies. But, in key areas--military action, surveillance, and state secrets--they have simply found new ways to assert power without meaningful constitutional or statutory constraints. Edelson contends that this legacy of the two immediately post-9/11 presidencies raises crucial questions for future presidents, Congress, the courts, and American citizens. Where is the political will to restore a balance of powers among branches of government and adherence to the rule of law? What are the limits of authority regarding presidential national security power? Have national security concerns created a permanent shift to unconstrained presidential power?