Science & Democracy Midterm II Study Guide PDF

Science & Democracy Midterm II Study Guide Fundamentals of Science Policy Readings include… Homer A. Neal, Jennifer B. McCormick, & Tobin L. Smith, Beyond Sputnik (Chapter Two) Homer A. Neal, Jennifer B. McCormick, & Tobin L. Smith, Beyond Sputnik (Chapte...

Science & Democracy Midterm II Study Guide Fundamentals of Science Policy Readings include… Homer A. Neal, Jennifer B. McCormick, & Tobin L. Smith, Beyond Sputnik (Chapter Two) Homer A. Neal, Jennifer B. McCormick, & Tobin L. Smith, Beyond Sputnik (Chapter Three) Daniel Sarewitz, Saving Science William J. Broad, What Happened to All of Science’s Big Breakthroughs? Shobita Parthasarathy, Innovation as a Force for Equity Karen Bogenschneider & Thomas J. Corbett, Evidence-Based Policymaking (Chapter One) Lectures include… Tuesday, September 24th, 2024, Fundamentals of US Science Policy Thursday, September 26th, 2024, Fundamentals of US Science Policy Thursday, October 3rd, 2024, Critiques of US Science Policy Tuesday, October 8th, 2024, Critiques of US Science Policy Thursday, October 10th, 2024, Fundamentals of the Policy-Making Process Tuesday, October 15th, 2024, Civic Science Approaches Tuesday, October 22nd, 2024, Science of Collaboration Thursday, October 24th, 2024, Science of Collaboration Tuesday, October 29th, 2024, Fundamentals of Persuasion 1  Science & Democracy Midterm II Study Guide Some Basic Definitions Policy: principles that guide a course of actions (can be new policy, or can be changes to the status quo); may be passage of public policy/organizational policy, implementation of that policy Politics: conflicts and struggles over the leadership, structure, and policies of any organization to which people belong Science: production of knowledge about how the natural and social worlds work using systematic, rule-based methods (including research on policies – what happened in the past?, what might happen if we pursue policy X in the future?) “Policy for Science”: decision-making about how to fund or structure the systematic pursuit of knowledge (when people talk about “science policy” this is what they mean) o Can think of this as all courses of action that relate to the systematic pursuit of knowledge o Affects what kind of information is available to decision-makers “Science for Policy”: Use of knowledge to improve decision-making Some Introductory Considerations/Attributes There is a constant debate between where policy influences what science gets done, but also what science has been done influences what policy for science occurs in the future (policy for science vs. science for policy) Core debate at the heart of “policy for science” questions in the US: o How much should the government control the research agenda? o What is the government’s appropriate role in regulating scientific research, and how is that regulation conducted? o Matters because science costs money, with many advances in the field (along with technology) being crucial to national security and American well-being There is no single “Department of Science” (decentralized), instead, there are multiple federal agencies in the Executive Branch that support intramural and extramural research o Intramural: research conducted within the federal agencies or national labs o Extramural: research conducted via grants and contracts with organization outside the federal government This means that there are many congressional committees and sub-committees with jurisdiction/oversight/appropriations authority Investment in university-based research pays for research as well as educating the next generation of scientists Research projects are supported based on merit (as opposed to geography, critique) Government pays for both direct cost of research (salaries, equipment, supplies) and indirect cost of research (facilities and admin expenses) Timeline of US Governments Role in Research Overall mission of federal science policy has shifted over time o This is due to the winning of World War II, security during the Cold War, improve nation’s economic competitiveness & health, reduce threat of terrorism Prior to WWII: Un-coordinated effort by federal government to fund scientific research; funding to university researchers largely came from private donors During WWII: Science celebrated due to help with war victory (atomic bomb, radar, penicillin) o There was an increasing recognition that we need federal support for scientific research during peacetime as well Two major players on this during the 1940s: 2  Science & Democracy Midterm II Study Guide o Vannevar Bush, head of the wartime Office of Scientific Research and Development, which coordinated scientific research for military purposes (e.g., ran Manhattan Project); agenda largely determined by military need and application o Senator Harley M. Kilgore, who introduced series of bills in 1942, 1943, and1945 to institutionalize role for science and technology research at the federal level, but often faced opposition because he wanted strong federal government controls over the research agenda and the intellectual property of any government-funded research 1944: President Roosevelt asked Bush for a blueprint for how institutions of science could serve the national interest in peacetime 1945: Bush submits “Science: The Endless Frontier” to Truman outlining post-war consensus on the centrality of science for achieving health, wealth, safety o Key point: US federal government needs to invest in basic scientific research conducted at US universities; they can’t afford it on their own and existing sources of funding (private individuals, university endowments, private foundations) can’t afford what is needed o This basic research is essential for fighting disease, strengthening national defense, reaching full employment o Advocated for a new government agency that would coordinate federal science policy Support basic research conducted at universities Support science education Bush Agenda/Clashes with Kilgore Bush set forth influential post-war model of “policy for science” in 1945 submission o Quote: “Free play of free intellects, working on subjects of their own choice, in the manner dictated by their curiosity for exploration of the unknown” o One part argues for the central role of basic research: Basic research provides a reservoir of knowledge that can be tapped for the nation’s applied needs Linear in orientation: Basic à Applied à Societal Benefit Scientists need to just focus on getting the basic research right, and the result will be improved societal decision-making o Also argues for researcher autonomy (”free play of free intellects”) as scientists themselves need to decide what basic research to do, not government officials Scientists are primarily held accountable to those in their discipline Key philosophical difference between Bush and Kilgore was about administrative control of the National Science Foundation o Bush wanted scientists controlling it, whereas Kilgore wanted a presidentially appointed director 1950: creation of the National Science Foundation (NSF). o Only federal agency with responsibility for basic research and education across all areas of science and technology o Director and deputy director are presidential appointees and serve a six-year term o Policy set by a National Science Board (25 members of academia and industry who are presidential appointees) o Many staff are members of the research community who work at NSF for 2-3 years as “rotators” Bush’s emphasis on basic research, and also bedrock principle of researcher autonomy, greatly influenced structure of NSF (and funding of scientific research more generally) 3  Science & Democracy Midterm II Study Guide Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Directorate: added social science funding Why National Science Policy Matters Because scientific discoveries have led to technological innovations that have affected our quality of life (and often initially supported by government funding): o Fighting polio, smallpox, tetanus, cholera o X-ray and MRI technologies o Recombinant DNA o Radio, television, GPS systems, cell phones, microprocessors, Internet, jet engines o Fiber optics, lasers But also: o Nuclear weapons, biological agents, pollution And lots of debates: o Cloning, use of embryonic stem cells Executive Branch in Federal Science Policy Constitution does not explicitly assign responsibility for science policy to the President o However, its importance in securing the nation’s health/prosperity/security means that they take an active role (changing over time) o Vannevar Bush was first presidential science advisor (to FDR during WWII), but the position was not formalized in an office, let alone legislation; existence/role of science advisor varied until mid-1970s Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) 1976: Legislation created the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in the White House, and director of OSTP became the presidential science advisor o OSTP helps formulate and develop presidential priorities/budgets related to science and technology policy o Director and two associate directors are presidential appointees with Senate confirmation Presidential Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) 1990: Presidential executive order created the Presidential Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) o Highest level science advisory group to President that is not composed of federal government officials (instead: academia/industry) National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) 1993: Executive order created the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) o Coordinates science policies across federal agencies; composed of high-level government officials from all agencies with major science and technology responsibilities Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Responsibility for preparing presidential budget requests to Congress (including agency requests for research/science programs) National Institutes of Health Funds university and college biomedical research, and an intramural research program 4  Science & Democracy Midterm II Study Guide o Part of Department of Health and Human Services 1887: started as the Hygienic Laboratory in 1887 1930: became the federally funded National Institute of Health o First topic-focused institute was National Cancer Institute in 1937 o 2nd largest spender on federal R&D, with ~85% going to extramural funding o Head of NIH is a political appointee who is confirmed by the Senate with no rotator system like at the NSF Department of Defense (DoD) Largest funder of federal R&D, especially the development of new weapons systems, but also basic and applied research o Large extramural funding program with substantial support for engineering research and colleges and universities o DOD research led to Internet, GPS, for example o Also support for medical research o Support investments in science education Other Federal Agencies National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) o Created in 1958 in direct response to Sputnik launch (space flight, but also aeronautics research) Department of Energy o Runs national laboratories (including those that supervise nuclear stockpile) o Funds basic research in physical sciences via Office of Science (headed by political appointee with Senate confirmation) Department of Commerce o National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) § Develops standards of measurement for commerce and industry § Not regulatory, which makes it easier to work with industry o National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) § Understand the natural world through daily weather forecasts, severe storm warnings, and climate change studies Department of Homeland Security o Science and Technology Directorate: R&D related to securing the country Department of Agriculture o Implemented Morrill Acts to create land-grant universities, also provides funding for agricultural extension Sarewitz Critiques Bush: “Policy for Science” Bush: “policy for science”, the federal government should fund large amounts of basic research and scientific fellowships at colleges and universities, and then leave the scientists themselves to decide what to investigate o Expectation is that they will produce a reservoir of basic science findings that applied researchers can draw upon to improve societal health/wealth/safety Sarewitz argues that this model of policy for science is a ”beautiful lie”, for several reasons: 1.) First, many of our recent technological breakthroughs (e.g., microprocessor, GPS, Internet, jet engines) have come from DoD, not ”free play of free intellects” 5  Science & Democracy Midterm II Study Guide a. “It worked because it brought all of the players in the innovation game together, disciplined them by providing strategic, long-term focus for their activities, and shielded them from the market rationality that would have doomed almost every crazy, over-expensive idea that today makes the world go round.” 2.) Many cases technology sets the agenda for basic science a. Example: Development of computers à Demand for new basic research on how to acquire, store, and process digital information (e.g., an NSF grant to navigate the expanding digital information sphere led to basic research that underlies Google) 3.) Individually, scientists are incentivized to argue that they have discovered new/eye- catching/transformational things, which does not necessarily lead to the accumulation of reliable knowledge that improves societal well-being 4.) Many scientific questions are really “trans-scientific” questions, in which the object of study cannot be characterized by a small number of measurable variables, but instead changes over time and is highly sensitive to researchers’ decisions about how to define and study it; the upshot is that science fails to conclusively answer questions or settle debate a. Example: “The economy” - can define it as the sum of goods and services, but many would immediately push back and say it discounts unpaid labor such as child rearing as a result many experts disagree on how well the economy is doing in part because they are using different definitions b. Another example: ice cream article from Module 1 5.) Upshot: Allowing “free play of free intellect” has not produced solutions to problems, guidance for policy decisions, or in some cases even verifiable truth Sarewitz examples of DOD-led projects: o First digital computer, and then funding computer science to inform use of computers in military affairs o Internet (comms network in case of nuclear attack) o Global Positioning System (GPS) o Funding for jet engines and lighter fuselages o Better transistors for improved battlefield communication o Robotics (especially for drones) o Human enhancement (battlefield performance of soldiers; think about the diarrhea example) Science Policy as Viewed by Sarewitz Sarewitz argues that a better “policy for science” centers the imperative of technological advance (i.e., in which science is held accountable to end users other than itself, and is “managed”) Doing so will focus scientific inquiry and create a clear standard for knowing if our fundamental understanding is advancing and valid as this is what will ultimately provide the greatest societal benefit o This accountability to those who depend upon solutions to urgent societal problems is what will ultimately provide the greatest societal benefit o This flies in the face of both Bush’s linear model and his focus on researcher autonomy – this is not the same as giving money to scientists, letting them do as they wish, and expecting societal benefits to flow Parthasarathy Critiques Bush: “Policy for Science” Parthasarathy battles with same question as Sarewitz: Does our policy for science (largely based on “free play of free intellects”) produce societal benefit? 6  Science & Democracy Midterm II Study Guide o Sarewitz uses technological advancement and economic growth as the key markers of societal benefit, and then asks whether “free play of free intellects” produced them Parthasarathy uses a different metric: equity, and whether social groups have equal access to innovations Even if we satisfy Sarewitz and centered mission-driven science, we will still have inequalities in access to innovations due to cost, availability, and so on, as well as in some cases wholly biased technologies o Patent policies that center market viability and private commercialization are one reason why o Upshot: focus is on biomedical research to treat disease and not structural/environmental factors that can prevent it (e.g., asthma) Science Policy as Viewed by Parthasarathy In response, Parthasarathy argues that innovation policy can be a force for equity if we think differently about: 1.) Expertise: bring communities and social scientists into the grant-making process and/or as part of advisory committees (e.g., at the Patent and Trademark Office) 2.) Innovation itself: fund research that takes structural/environmental factors seriously; include equity impact assessments in grant proposals; fund offices for community-based innovation 3.) Systems: focus on non-market-based approaches to translating technology to society (e.g., using research to inform infrastructure that will improve health/social/economic conditions of communities) Critiques Against Bush So Far So far, we have two critiques of Bush’s model of federal science policy o Sarewitz: It doesn’t improve health, wealth, safety o Parthasarathy: It leads to inequitable outcomes NYT article (Broad): It’s increasingly providing incremental, not disruptive, findings o Looking beyond just number of citations! Bogenschneider & Corbett “Science for Policy” “Science for Policy” refers to the use of knowledge to improve and inform decision-making Common refrain: “evidence-based policymaking” Evidence-based policymaking is a great aspiration, but also difficult to achieve in practice, and to know if we’ve achieved it Bogenschneider & Corbett: What Makes Evidence-Based Policymaking Hard? Differences in academic and policy institutional environments, they have different motivations Researchers o Information needs: Focus on questions that advance scientific understanding and that peers will value, and typically focus on statistical significance in answering questions (i.e., is an impact or effect likely due to chance or not?) o Key motivations: discover how the natural and social worlds work, but also career advancement depends upon peer judgments of work and money raised Policymakers o Information needs: What works? How much does it cost? What are the politics? 7  Science & Democracy Midterm II Study Guide o Key motivations: solve problems, earn re-election, earn respect of policymaker colleagues, build coalition of support for favored legislation Do we have smoking-gun evidence? Policymaking is not always a “rational process” in which policymakers survey the data to determine what’s a problem, agree on the problem, agree on what outcomes everyone thinks need to be achieved, then summon research to determine what policies work to achieve those outcomes, and then structure evaluations to make sure that policies are successful Incongruous timing – real world demands solutions faster than academic research can supply them Lack of consensus on values o Example: child tax credit Federalism: Fragmented policy process & authority Researchers use different standards of evidence – they focus on statistical significance whereas policymakers need to know substantive significance (how much would it cost?) o Researchers are often trying to determine causal effects and so they focus on narrower, tractable effects within a given population, but policymakers need to think about all of the interdependencies and also how well findings in one context (one moment in time, one state) would translate to other populations Note that a given policymaker or staff member usually represents a given geographic area, and so their focus is quite localized o Also, many social challenges are very, very complex Example: Parthasarathy’s talking about asthma Example: Sarewitz comparing ending breast cancer vs. diagnosing sickle-cell disease Upshot: need to provide opportunities for collaborative relationships between those with scientific expertise and policymakers Can happen individually! Congress institutionalizes this via congressional support agencies o Congressional Research Service: public policy research arm of Congress (does not make policy recs) o Government Accountability Office: evaluates govt policies and programs; conducts audits; no authority to officially reprimand o Congressional Budget Office: nonpartisan objective info to aid budgeting/economic decisions; also, does not make policy recs) All-In-All: Science in Policy Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972: use of advisory committees, especially for public health regulatory bodies – EPA: development and enforcement of environmental regulations – FDA: control and supervision of food products and drugs Judicial branch of government: interpret laws (is an agency acting within the law?), rules on constitutionality of laws Chevron deference (based on 1984 Supreme Court decision): legal principle stating that US federal courts must defer to a government agency’s interpretation of a law or statute when it’s ambiguous and when the agency’s action is reasonable/permissible – Initial case: What counts as a source of air pollution? EPA changed its definition in 1981 rule, yet definition of “source” was ambiguous in Clean Air Act. 2024: Supreme Court overruled this 8