If “Science of Science Policy” is the answer, then what is the question?

August 14th, 2006

Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.

In June, the Bush Administration issued guidance (PDF) for R&D in the FY 2008 federal budget, observing,

The combination of finite resources, the commitment to the American Competitiveness Initiative, and a multitude of new research opportunities requires careful attention to funding priorities and wise choices by agency managers.

OK, then, what does it mean for people who make decisions about science funding to make “wise choices”? The memo continues, explaining that “wise choices” refers to R&D programs that advance national goals through agency missions and priorities. In other words, R&D investments are a means to other ends:

As has been reiterated previously in these annual memos, agencies must rigorously evaluate existing programs and, wherever possible, consider them for modification, redirection, reduction or termination, in keeping with national needs and priorities. They must justify new programs with rigorous analysis demonstrating their merit, quality, importance and consistency with national priorities. Agencies may propose new, high-priority activities, but these requests should identify potential offsets by elimination or reductions in less effective or lower priority programs or programs where Federal involvement is no longer needed or appropriate.

In general, the Administration favors Federal R&D investments that:

• advance fundamental scientific discovery to improve future quality of life;
• support high-leverage basic research to spur technological innovation, economic competitiveness and new job growth;
• align with the efforts of the Academic Competitiveness Council and the National Math Panel to enable superior performance in science, mathematics and engineering education;
• enable potentially high-payoff activities that require a Federal presence to attain long-term national goals, including national security, energy security, and a next generation air transportation system;
• sustain specifically authorized agency missions and support the missions of other agencies through stewardship of user facilities;
• enhance the health of our Nation’s people to reduce the burden of illness and increase productivity;
• ensure a scientifically literate population and a supply of qualified technical personnel commensurate with national need;
• strengthen our ability to understand and respond to global environmental issues and natural disasters through better observation, data, analysis, models, and basic and social science research;
• maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of the science and technology (S&T) enterprise through expansion of competitive, merit-based peer-review processes and phase-out of programs that are only marginally productive or are not important to an agency’s mission; and
• encourage interdisciplinary research efforts that foster advancement, collaboration and innovation on complex scientific frontiers and strengthen international partnerships that accelerate the progress of science across borders.

That is all fine and good, but how does a decision maker looking at alternative possible research portfolios determine if choosing one possible approach represents a “wiser” approach than another possible approach? The Administration memo answers this question by highlighting the importance of a “new science of science policy”:

Determining the effectiveness of Federal science policy requires an understanding of the complex linkages between R&D investments and economic and other variables that lead to innovation, competitiveness, and societal benefits. An interagency process has been established and is now encouraged to promote and coordinate individual agency and collaborative actions needed to develop “new science of science policy” for better assessing the impact of R&D investments, defining appropriate metrics for measuring this impact, understanding the effect of the globalization of science and technology, and improving the basis for national science policy decisions.

The question to be addressed by a “science of science policy” is thus:

What choices do we have in comprising R&D portfolios (from the national – or even international – aggregate to that of the individual program manager in a particular agency, company, or other organization) and what are the expected societal (and more parochial) outcomes associated with each alternative?

3 Responses to “If “Science of Science Policy” is the answer, then what is the question?”

    1
  1. David Bruggeman Says:

    I’ll put up a bet (amount to be determined with interested parties) that the above question does not make the NSF proposal. If I’m feeling sufficiently frisky I might extend the bet to more specifics mentioned above that won’t make the proposal.

    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.

  2. 2
  3. Roger Pielke, Jr. Says:

    David- Thanks, no takers here ;-) But this question _should_ be in the RFP!

  4. 3
  5. Britt Holbrook Says:

    Hi, Roger:

    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