Testimony by Warren E. Miller Before the N.S.F. Biological and Behavioral Science Task Force on Reorganization, November 29, 1990

A healthy lifestyle is fundamental for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease and other noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). Investment in primary prevention, including modification of health risk behaviors, could result in a 4-fold improvement in health outcomes compared with secondary prevention based on pharmacological treatment. The American Heart Association (AHA) emphasized the importance of lifestyle in its 2020 goals for cardiovascular health promotion and disease reduction. In addition to defining “cardiovascular health” based on criteria for blood pressure and biochemical markers (lipids and glycemia), the AHA Strategic Planning Committee further identified lifestyle characteristics of central importance: nutrition, physical activity, smoking, and maintenance of a healthy body weight.1 The World Health Organization estimated that ≈80% of NCDs could be prevented if 4 key lifestyle practices were followed: a healthy diet, being physically active, avoidance of tobacco, and alcohol intake in moderation.2 To support healthy lifestyle initiatives, major changes are necessary at the societal level to improve population health. Numerous strategies might help to create a culture that promotes and facilitates healthy behaviors, including creating laws and regulations, mounting large-scale public awareness and education campaigns, implementing local community programs, and providing individual counseling.3 Physicians are uniquely positioned to encourage individuals to adopt healthy lifestyle behaviors: Approximately 80% of Americans visit their primary care physician at least once a year. Physicians directly communicate with their patients during clinical encounters across numerous settings, and research indicates that patients highly value recommendations provided by their physicians.4,5 However, data further indicate that lifestyle counseling does not routinely occur in physicians’ offices, thereby representing a lost opportunity. Physicians report that they perform lifestyle counseling during ≈34% of clinic visits.4 Patients, in turn, report an even lower frequency of physician lifestyle counseling. For example, obese patients reported receiving physical activity and …

Social Science and Its Frontiers Myron P. Gutmann (bio) Mark Solovey,Social Science for What? Battles over Public Funding for the “Other Sciences” at the National Science Foundation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2020. X+ 398pp. Figures, notes, index. $50.00. Americans often date the emergence of a strong commitment to government support of science to the launch of the Soviet Union’s Sputnik 1 satellite in October 1957. That event certainly spurred policy decisions that increased federal investments in education and science, and thus is an appropriate starting point for the popular narrative about science. At the same time, policy developments of the Sputnik era built on earlier events, widely recognized by historians of science. That perspective starts the story with the presentation in July 1946 of Vannever Bush’s report, Science, The Endless Frontier, to President Truman, advocating for a large, organized federal investment in scientific research, based on the role of science and technology in the Second World War. Early efforts to enact legislation based on the Bush report failed (Truman vetoed the first bill that passed because it lacked presidential control over the appointment of the Foundation’s leadership), but in 1950 Truman signed the National Science Foundation Act, establishing an enduring basis for publicly—especially federally—funded scientific research in the United States. The debates about the creation of the National Science Foundation pitted progressives against conservatives and advocates of public and congressional control of science against advocates of exclusive control by scientists.1 One of the topics of debate—although hardly the loudest—was whether the social sciences would be included in the Foundation’s charge.2 Vannever Bush was opposed to their inclusion, sometimes arguing that they should be supported by a separate organization; on the other side, Democratic West Virginia Senator Harley M. Kilgore, a leading sponsor of a more progressive approach, supported their inclusion in the Foundation’s mission. In the end, the compromise legislation that Truman signed in 1950 did not include support for the social sciences, but at the same time did not prohibit such support. The Foundation did not totally exclude the social sciences for long; it hired sociologist Harry Alpert in 1953, and in 1954 introduced a first, extremely modest, program to support the linkage between the social and natural sciences. [End Page 396] The first Social Sciences Division was not established until 1960 (in an era in which the Foundation was divided into four scientific divisions reflecting major disciplinary categories). Later, when the Foundation was reorganized into seven directorates (three of them disciplinary, one for education, and three for administrative activities) in 1975, the Divisions of Social Sciences and Behavioral and Neural Sciences were part of an expanded Directorate for Biological, Behavioral and Social Sciences (p. 179). Only in 1991–92 did the Foundation establish a separate Directorate for the Social, Behavioral and Economic (SBE) Sciences, an organizational status that still exists today. The road from the origin of the Foundation to the creation of the SBE Directorate was not linear, with ups and downs in support for the social and behavioral sciences mostly reflecting political and institutional challenges. This history spanning the period from the first discussions of the National Science Foundation through the end of the 1980s (with an added discussion of recent events and recommendations for the future) is the topic of Mark Solovey’s Social Science for What? Battles over Public Funding for the “Other Sciences” at the National Science Foundation. In this book he builds on his earlier book, Shaky Foundations: The Politics-Patronage-Social Science Nexus in Cold War America (2013), on extensive archival research, and on interviews with surviving participants. Social Science for What? is an impressive accomplishment, capturing the connections between partisan politics, scientific inquiry, tensions among scientific disciplines, and the institutional development of the Foundation. It is instructive for all readers, including for me, who served for four years (2009–13) as one of the Foundation’s Assistant Directors and head of the Directorate for Social Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE). Social Science for What? articulates consistent themes that define social science at NSF, along with a lively narrative arc. To define that arc, Solovey divides the main...

The majority of respondents who took part in a survey were of the opinion that there should be a greater focus placed on behavioural and social sciences within the curriculum of medical schools. This is done to ensure that graduates of medical schools will be able to practise medicine in a manner that is both safe and effective. Despite the fact that behavioural and social sciences make significant contributions to the effectiveness of health care delivery, traditional medical school curricula have not traditionally placed a significant amount of focus on the study of these subjects. This article's objective is to provide the reader with a more in-depth comprehension of the value of social and behavioural sciences in medical education as well as the breadth of their application in a variety of different settings. Additionally, it discusses the areas of social and behavioural sciences that are significant to medicine, as well as the efficacy of incorporating them into the curricula of medical schools in order to educate and train future medical professionals to practise medicine in a manner that is fully informed. Place of Study: Foundation University Islamabad Study Duration: February 2022 to July 2022 Study Design: Empirical research Conclusion: This study examines the importance of teaching future doctors about medicine's social and behavioural aspects. It gives medical school educators the latest information on how to best teach medical students to succeed in the medical industry. Medical educators, administrators, policymakers, and other stakeholders must work together to integrate social and behavioural sciences into medical curricula. Keywords: Medical curriculum's courses, the social and behavioral sciences, and the foundations of medical education.

Proposed Revisions to the Common Rule for the Protection of Human Subjects in the Behavioral and Social Sciences examines how to update human subjects protections regulations so that they effectively respond to current research contexts and methods. With a specific focus on social and behavioral sciences, this consensus report aims to address the dramatic alterations in the research landscapes that institutional review boards (IRBs) have come to inhabit during the past 40 years. The report aims to balance respect for the individual persons whose consent to participate makes research possible and respect for the social benefits that productive research communities make possible.The ethics of human subjects research has captured scientific and regulatory attention for half a century. To keep abreast of the universe of changes that factor into the ethical conduct of research today, the Department of Health and Human Services published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in July 2011. Recognizing that widespread technological and societal transformations have occurred in the contexts for and conduct of human research since the passage of the National Research Act of 1974, the ANPRM revisits the regulations mandated by the Act in a correspondingly comprehensive manner. Its proposals aim to modernize the Common Rule and to improve the efficiency of the work conducted under its auspices. Proposed Revisions to the Common Rule for the Protection of Human Subjects in the Behavioral and Social Sciences identifies issues raised in the ANPRM that are critical and feasible for the federal government to address for the protection of participants and for the advancement of the social and behavioral sciences. For each identified issue, this report provides guidance for IRBs on techniques to address it, with specific examples and best practice models to illustrate how the techniques would be applied to different behavioral and social sciences research procedures.

Although Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been a part of the computer science field for many decades, it has only recently been applied to different areas of behavioral and social sciences. This article provides an examination of the applications of AI methodologies to behavioral and social sciences exploring the areas where they are now utilized, the different tools used and their effectiveness. The study is a systematic research examination of peer-reviewed articles (2010–2019) that used AI methodologies in social and behavioral sciences with a focus on children and families. The results indicate that artificial intelligence methodologies have been successfully applied to three main areas of behavioral and social sciences, namely (1) to increase the effectiveness of diagnosis and prediction of different conditions, (2) to increase understanding of human development and functioning, and (3) to increase the effectiveness of data management in different social and human services. Random forests, neural networks, and elastic net are among the most frequent AI methods used for prediction, supplementing traditional approaches, while natural language processing and robotics continue to increase their role in understanding human functioning and improve social services. Applications of AI methodologies to behavioral and social sciences provide opportunities and challenges that need to be considered. Recommendations for future research are also included.

Objectives Although Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been a part of the computer science field for many decades, it has only recently been applied to different areas of behavioral and social sciences. This article provides an examination of the applications of AI methodologies to behavioral and social sciences exploring the areas where they are now utilized, the different tools used and their effectiveness. Methods The study is a systematic research examination of peer-reviewed articles (2010–2019) that used AI methodologies in social and behavioral sciences with a focus on children and families. Results The results indicate that artificial intelligence methodologies have been successfully applied to three main areas of behavioral and social sciences, namely (1) to increase the effectiveness of diagnosis and prediction of different conditions, (2) to increase understanding of human development and functioning, and (3) to increase the effectiveness of data management in different social and human services. Random forests, neural networks, and elastic net are among the most frequent AI methods used for prediction, supplementing traditional approaches, while natural language processing and robotics continue to increase their role in understanding human functioning and improve social services. Conclusions Applications of AI methodologies to behavioral and social sciences provide opportunities and challenges that need to be considered. Recommendations for future research are also included.KeywordsArtificial intelligenceBehavioral and social sciencesMachine learningFamiliesChildren

Health and human behavior: areas of interest common to the social and medical sciences.

Research results in the social and behavioral sciences are often conceded to be less replicable than research results in the physical sciences. However, direct empirical comparisons of the cumulativeness of research in the social and physical sciences have not been made to date. This article notes the parallels between methods used in the quantitative synthesis of research in the social and in the physical sciences. Essentially identical methods are used to test the consistency of research results in physics and in psychology. These methods can be used to compare the consistency of replicated research results in physics and in the social sciences. The methodology is illustrated with 13 exemplary reviews from each domain. The exemplary comparison suggests that the results of physical experiments may not be strikingly more consistent than those of social or behavioral experiments. The data suggest that even the results of physical experiments may not be cumulative in the absolute sense by statistical criteria. It is argued that the study of the actual cumulativeness found in physical data could inform social scientists about what to expect from replicated experiments under good conditions. Psychologists and other social scientists have often compared their fields to the natural (the hard) sciences with a tinge of dismay. Those of us in the social and behavioral sciences know intuitively that there is something softer and less cumulative about our research results than about those of the physical sciences. It is easy to chronicle the differences between soft and hard sciences that might lead to less cumulative research results in the soft sciences. One such chronicle is provided by Meehl (1978), who listed 20 such differences and went on to argue that reliance on tests of statistical significance also contributes to the poorer cumulativeness of research results in the social sciences. Other distinguished researchers have cited the pervasive presence of interactions (Cronbach, 1975) or historical influences (Gergen, 1973, 1982) as reasons not to expect a cumulative social science. Still others (Kruskal, 1978, 1981) have cited the low quality of data in the social sciences as a barrier to truly cumulative social inquiry. These pessimistic views have been accompanied by a tendency to reconceptualize the philosophy of inquiry into a format that implies less ambitious aspirations for social knowledge (e.g., Cronbach, 1975; Gergen, 1982). Cumulativeness in the scientific enterprise can mean at least two things. In the broadest sense scientific results are cumulative if empirical laws and theoretical structures build on one another so that later developments extend and unify earlier work. This idea might be called conceptual or theoretical cumulativeness. The assessment of theoretical cumulativeness must be rather subjective. A narrower and less subjective indicator of cumulativeness is the degree of agreement among replicated experiments or the degree to which related experimental results fit into a simple pattern that makes conceptual sense. This idea might be called empirical cumulativeness. The purpose of this article is to suggest that it may be possible to compare at least the empirical cumulativeness of psychological research with that of research in the physical sciences. An exemplary comparison suggests that the differences may be less striking than previously imagined. The mechanism for this comparison is derived from recent developments in methods for the quantitative synthesis of research in the social sciences. Some of the methods used in meta-analysis are analogous to methods used in the quantitative synthesis of research in the physical sciences. In particular, physicists and psychologists use analogous methods for assessing the consistency of research results, a fact that makes possible comparisons among quantitative reviews in physics and in psychology. One such comparison is reported in this article. This comparison was not chosen in a way that guarantees it to be representative of either social science research or physical science research. However, some effort was exerted to prevent the comparison from obviously favoring one domain or the other, and additional examples are provided to suggest that the case for the empirical cumulativeness of physical science could have been made to look far worse. More data would obviously be needed to support strong conclusions. It seems, however, that the obvious conclusion that the results of physical science experiments are more cumulative than those of social science experiments does not have much empirical sup-

Hume observed that our minds are mirrors to one another: they reflect one another's passions, sentiments, and opinions.' This "sympathy," or "propensity we have to sympathize with others, to ... receive by communication [the] inclinations and sentiments [of others], however different from, or even contrary to, our own," he held to be the chief source of moral distinctions.2 Hume presented an account of how this mirroring of minds works. After a brief presentation of the account, I will show how it needs to be updated and corrected in the light of recent empirical research. Then I will give some reasons to think that the mirroring of minds is more pervasive than even Hume had thought: that mirroring is an essential part of the way in which we think about other minds. Finally, I will make some remarks about the relevance of mirroring to ethics.

Abstract. In this study, the evaluation of the 9th European Conference on Social and Behavioral Sciences held on 3-6 February 2016 in Paris will be mentioned. Keywords. Social sciences, Political sciences, Business administration, Financial economics, Finance, European Conference, Paris. JEL. G10, M10, M20.

scarcely visible and it is quite peripheral to their interests and needs. As a consequence, Foundation support for the biosciences has virtually no relevance for the vast bulk of social science. Given that lack of substantive relevance, it is totally unreasonable to expect a professional staff of bioscientists to be effective spokespersons for social science units whose several budgets combined are less than one-sixth of the total budget for their directorate. Whether or not there is an immediate change in the Foundation's support for the social sciences, there must be a significant reorganization of the Foundation's internal structure. I speak on behalf of scores of social scientists, political scientists in particular, who believe these changes are needed and are important. Political science in its many manifestations is vitally interested in the functioning of our political processes and our governmental structures. But support for research that increases our understanding of these things does not fare well in the private sector. There is little immediate commercial value in our research results to attract business or commercial enterprises, nor their leaders who dominate the boards of private foundations. By the very nature of our basic research, it does not promise the immediate amelioration of societal ills that often attracts private philanthropy. Political science and political scientists have had an impact on the organization of politics and government, and they have contributed much to various debates on public policy. But the output of the research of political science is entirely a public good; political science is almost totally dependent on public support for its basic research; and NSF is the prime source of such support. Over the past ten years the Foundation has been responsive and creative on our behalf. As examples, the sustained support for the National Election Studies and the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research has made possible research of a quality and scope scarcely imagined twenty years ago. On behalf of the American Political Science Association and the Western Political Science Association, I commend plans to create a new Directorate for the Social and Behavioral Sciences to enable the Foundation to serve our future needs even better.

Social and behavioral sciences, a cross-disciplinary field that examines the interaction among behavioral, biological, environmental, and social factors, has contributed immensely to some public health achievements over the last century. Through collaboration with community organizations and partners, social and behavioral scientists have conducted numerous program interventions involving community engagement and advocacy efforts at the local, state, federal, and international levels. This article traces select historical underpinnings of the applications of social and behavioral sciences theories and evidence to public health and highlights 4 areas in which health education specialists have distinctly contributed to public health achievements by building on theory and evidence. Applied social and behavioral sciences have formed the basis of various health education interventions. These 4 areas include the following: (1) Theory, Model Development, and the Professionalization of Health Education; (2) Participation and Community Engagement; (3) Health Communication; and (4) Advocacy and Policy. We present contemporary challenges and recommendations for strengthening the theory, research, and practice of health education within the context of social and behavioral sciences in addressing emerging public health issues.

Communication Climate as Predictor of Perceived Corporate Governance and Organizational Success

In November 2005, a small group of behavioral and social sciences investigators from the University of Pennsylvania and Emory University began planning for the establishment of a network between scientists involved in HIV prevention and treatment research. The purpose of this network was 3-fold. First, it was intended to foster multisite collaborations between behavioral and social scientists. Second, it was intended to share strategies on how behavioral and social scientists could be better partners with more basic and clinical scientists and how the basic and clinical sciences could be better used to inform behavioral and social science research. Finally, the Social and Behavioral Science Research Network (SBSRN) was explicitly intended to provide a forum for the exchange of the most recent information in the behavioral sciences regarding HIV/AIDS and to mentor the next generation of scientists engaged in social and behavioral science surrounding HIV prevention and treatment. By combining the intellectual capital and synergies among the community of scientists engaged in this work, it is hoped to invigorate state-of-the-art science in this area. In the National Institutes of Health (NIH) roadmap, the ‘‘research teams of the future’’ are described as problem-oriented multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary teams. We believe the SBSRN provides the foundation on which these teams can be built and directed toward HIV research.

In this paper I have tried to argue that the two widely used paradigmsof Individualism in Western social science, and Collectivism in Soviet socialscience, are not appropriate for Islamic social science on account of thesecularism (disregard of revelation) of the former and the "scientific atheism"of the latter. I have funher tried to argue that the hypothetico-deductive andempirical methodology (often called logical positivism) of natural and physicalscience is not appropriate for social and behavioral science in general, andIslamic social behavioral science in particular. It would be more fitting toregard the various disciplines of social and behavioral science as moral sciencesin order to incorporate the values, morals, and purposes of society in theorybuildingand hypothesis-formation. Accordingly, I am arguing in favor ofa moral explanation of human behavior and social processes. A moralexplanation is one which seeks to discover the causes (immediate antecedents)as well as reasons (including motives and intentions) behind human behaviorwith the greater responsibility for the explanation resting with the latter.A paradigm, conceptual framework, or what is called grand theory isessential for the formulation of theories in various fields of social and behavioralsciences, on the one hand, and for guiding empirical research. on the other.Western social science and Soviet social science have their respectiveparadigms. The immediate need of Islamic social science is to construct adistinguishable paradigm of its own. I have tried to formulate a list of theunderlying concepts of such a possible paradigm, conceptual framework,or grand theory, but not such a theory per se.Finally, I have made the suggestion that, inasmuch as the understandingof human behavior is our goal, the social and behavioral scientist could enhancethe understanding of human and social phenomena by trying to understandhis/her own motives, behavior, and actions ...