Editor's Note

tor of the American Civil Liberties Union, issued a report docum enting how recent changes in federal policy have imposed “excessive, unnec­ essary, and ineffective restrictions on scientists.” Unfortunately, things have only continued to get worse. It is, I hope, our not-too-delusional wish that this issue of Social Research, w hich contains th e papers from the “Politics and Science” conference, will help to change the relationship betw een scientists and policymakers so that the policies enacted will be based on the best scientific research available and will protect our well-being and that of future generations here and around the world. I am deeply grateful to our funders, the Hewlett Foundation and the Packard Foundation, for their generous support of the conference, and to the m any people who did their best to educate me on this subject and to those who worked w ith me to m ake the conference happen. Anew.Mack EDITOR'S NOTE: Due to the author's oversight, some passages in “The Political ‘Participation’ of Entrepreneurs: Challenge or O pportunity for the Chinese Com m unist Party?” by Gilles Guiheux, published in Social Research 73:1 (Spring 2006), were not acknowledged as quoted material. The passages in question occurred on page 223, lines 17-22 (“the mere existence... vaiying degrees.”)and page 231, lines 22-31 (“The ex ten t... their m em bers”). Both passages were quoted from a paper by Kellee S. Tsai, entitled “A Divided Class: The Politics o f Private Enterprise and Self-Employment in China,” delivered at the 2000 Annual Meeting of the Association for Asian Studies. The first passage also appeared in a revised version of the paper, published as “Capitalists w ithout a Class: Political Diversity Among Private Entrepreneurs in China, ” w hich appeared in Comparative Political Studies 38:9 (Nov 2005): 1130-1158. We apologize to our readers and to Professor Tsai for this oversight. Arien Mack and Jean-Philippe Beja vi social research ...