I wonder whether anyone has thought to link your question (what choices do we have in comprising R&D portfolios. and what might be their expected societal outcomes?) to NSF’s second “Broader Impacts” criterion? If scientists and engineers took Criterion 2 seriously, then they would provide the beginnings of a “bottom – up” approach to answering your question. Essentially, each proposal would be saying: here is one of your choices, and here are its broader impacts. Utilized correctly, NSF’s merit review criteria could be the first step in something we might call “science for science policy” — not to mention a complement to the idea of developing a “science of science policy.”

Best,
Britt

This is, as best as I can tell, Pasteur’s Quadrant research – general research conducted with connection to (and awareness of) national needs. NSF doesn’t fund that kind of research (though I don’t think it would kill them to try).

To extend my criticism, unless researchers (and funding agencies) are more conscious to the national needs they are trying to answer, and the administration is serious about its intent to kill programs not addressing those needs, programs like the “science of science policy” will fail. Such failure will further damage the scientific enterprise because it will have demonstrated their unwillingness or inability to be responsive to those needs.