Wiki-правительство: Как технологии могут сделать власть лучше, демократию – сильнее, а граждан

Wiki-правительство: Как технологии могут сделать власть лучше, демократию – сильнее, а граждан – влиятельнее

на обложку

Новек Бет

Шрифт:

2. James O. Freedman, “Crisis and Legitimacy in the Administrative Process,” Stanford Law Review 27 (April 1975): 1056.

3. Gerald Frug, “The Ideology of Bureaucracy in American Law,” Harvard Law Review 97 (April 1984): 1333.

4. Administrative Procedure Act, ch. 324, 60 Stat. 237 (1946) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 5 U. S. C.).

5. Beth Simone Noveck, “The Electronic Revolution in Rulemaking,” Emory Law Journal 53 (2004): 455, n. 98.

6. Cornelius M. Kerwin, Rulemaking: How Government Agencies Write Law and Make Policy (Washington: CQ Press, 1994), p. 116.

7. Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. sec. 553 (c).

8. Thomas Jefferson, letter to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816, in Classics of American Political and Constitutional Thought, edited by Scott J. Hammond, Kevin R. Hardwick, and Howard L. Lubert (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2007), p. 745.

9. Cary Coglianese, “The Internet and Citizen Participation in Rulemaking,” Working Paper RWP 04–044 (Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government, 2004), p. 7.

10. Marissa Martino Golden, “Interest Groups in the Rule-Making Process: Who Participates? Whose Voices Get Heard?” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 8 (1998): 250–264.

11. Peter L. Strauss, “ABA Ad Law Section’s E-Rulemaking Survey,” Administrative and Regulatory Law News 29, no. 3 (Spring 2004): 8.

12. Environmental Protection Agency, “Controlling Power Plant Emissions: Public Comments” (www.epa.gov/mercury/control_emissions/comment.htm [October 2008]).

13. Cameron Scott, “9 Seconds,” SFGate.com, October 23, 2008 (www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=49&entry_id=31846).

14. Federal Advisory Committee Act, P. L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770 (1972) (codified at 5 U. S. C. App. 2).

15. Negotiated Rulemaking Act, P. L. 101–648, 104 Stat. 4976 (1990) (codified at 5 U. S. C. secs. 561–570);

см. также: Phillip J. Harter, “Assessing the Assessors: The Actual Performance of Negotiated Rulemaking,” New York University Environmental Law Journal 9 (2000): 32–56.

16. «[Затем] агентство принимает решение о формировании комитета по соглашению норм, агентство публикует в Federal Register и при необходимости в торговых или других специализированных изданиях замечания, включающие… список лиц, отстаивающих эти интересы, и лицо (или лиц), представляющее агентство». 5 U. S. C. sec. 564 (a) (4) (1990).

17. National Research Council, “Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making” (Washington: 2008), pp. 3–9.

18. Cary Coglianese, “Assessing the Advocacy of Negotiated Rulemaking: A Response to Philip Harter,” New York University Environmental Law Journal 9 (2001): 386–447.

19. Christopher Mooney, The Republican War on Science (New York: Basic Books, 2006).

20. Thomas McGarity and Wendy Wagner, Bending Science: How Special Interests Corrupt Public Health Research (Harvard University Press, 2008).

21. J. B. Ruhl and James Salzman, “In Defense of Regulatory Peer Review,” Washington University Law Review 84 (2006): 1–61.

22. Ibid., p. 25.

23. Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident (Rogers Commission), Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident (Washington: GPO, 1986), appendix F.

24. Sheila Jasanoff, The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policy Makers (Harvard University Press, 1990), p. 61; см. также: Joshua B. Bolten, “Issuance of OMB’s ‘Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review,’” Memorandum M-05–03, Office of Management and Budget, December 16, 2004.

25. Government Accountability Office, “Federal Research: Peer Review Practices at Service Agencies Vary,” GAO/RCED-99–99 (1999).

26. См.,

например, следующие публикации: “Peer Review: EPA Needs Implementation Procedures and Additional Controls,” GAO/IRCED-94–98 (1994); “Peer Review: Reforms Needed to Ensure Fairness in Federal Agency Grant Selection,” GAO/PEMD-94–1 (1994); “Peer Review: Compliance with the Privacy Act and Federal Advisory Committee Act,” GAO/GGD-94–48 (1991); “Federal Advisory Committees: GSA’s Management Oversight and GAO Comments on Proposed Legislative Amendments,” GAO/T-GGD-89–1 (1998); “Federal Advisory Committee Act: General Services Administration’s Management of Advisory Committee Activities,” GAO/GGD 89–10 (1988); “University Funding: Information on the Role of Peer Review at NSF and NIH,” GAO/WED-87-87FS (1987). См. также: Lars Noah, “Scientific ‘Republicanism’: Expert Peer Review and the Quest for Regulatory Deliberation,” Emory Law Journal 49 (2000): 1034–1083.

27. Mohammed Kashef, “Scientific Peer Review in the Public Sector,” 2005 (dotank.nyls.edu/communitypatent/peerreview_dec05.pdf [October 2008]).

28. Bolten, “Issuance of OMB’s ‘Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review.’”

29. American Association for the Advancement of Science, “Another Decline for EPA R&D in 2009: AAAS R&D Funding Update on R&D in the FY 2009 EPA Budget” (www.aaas.org/spp/rd/epa09p.pdf [October 2008]).

30. Information Quality Act, P. L. 106–555 app. C, 114 Stat. 2763A-154 (2000); “Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies,” republication, 67 Federal Register 8452 (February 22, 2002).

31. Ibid.

32. Stephen M. Johnson, “Junking the ‘Junk Science’ Law: Reforming the Information Quality Act,” Administrative Law Review 58 (2006): 37–80.

33. Mooney, The Republican War on Science, p. 103.

34. Jasanoff, The Fifth Branch, pp. 69–76; Wendy E. Wagner, “The ‘Bad Science’ Fiction: Reclaiming the Debate over the Role of Science in Public Health and Environmental Regulation,” Law and Contemporary Problems 66 (2003): 67–71; Sidney A. Shapiro, “Politicizing Peer Review: The Legal Perspective,” in Rescuing Science from Politics: Regulation and the Distortion of Scientific Research, edited by Wendy Wagner and Rena Steinzor (Cambridge University Press, 2006).

35. Bolten, “Issuance of OMB’s ‘Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review,’” p. 6.

36. Alan Charles Raul and Julie Zampa Dwyer, “‘Regulatory Daubert’: A Proposal to Enhance Judicial Review of Agency Science by Incorporating Daubert Principles into Administrative Law,” Law and Contemporary Problems 66 (2003): 7 (утверждая, что принципы Дауберта должны применяться к административным органам, они считают, что «оставлять этот вопрос на рассмотрение судей будет менее уважительным, но зато более важным с позиции науки»)см. также Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U. S. 579 (1993).