« Science Policy: General »

Implementing Science of Science Policy: Different Approaches

Sparked in part by remarks from the president's science adviser (noted in Prometheus), the National Science Foundation has made some efforts to develop a program addressing the "science of science policy." While not the top priority of the Foundation, and like much of its work, delayed by federal budgetary issues, it doesn't appear to be much more than a research program focused on innovation studies (you can read a program prospectus online. While useful, such studies are arguably only part of what might constitute a "science of science policy"

Something more on point to the initial request (based in a concern for finding out how well the research investment has paid off) has emerged from the Department of Commerce. In early December the Secretary of Commerce formed an advisory panel on measuring innovation (the initial press release, Supplementary Information File, and Charter are available online.

From the Recent Activities webpage of the Economics and Statistics Administration (the panel's home within the Department - even separate from the Technology Administration)

"The Measuring Innovation in the 21st Century Economy Advisory Committee will help develop ways to measure innovation so that the public and policy makers can understand better its impact on economic growth and productivity. The committee will study metrics on effectiveness of innovation in various businesses and sectors, and work to identify which data can be used to develop a broader measure of innovation's impact on the economy."

So the commercial/financial considerations that underly research investments will apparently have a hearing in this panel. Not to say that they couldn't in whatever NSF proposal eventually emerges, but the relevant research community seems a bit allergic to such things. It also brings to the discussion a group many Prometheus readers may not recognize at all (Dale Jorgensen and Donald Siegel are the academics I recognized, and Steve Ballmer and Sam Palmisano were the CEOs I knew).

While advisory panels have their own trials and tribulations (which I observed many times when I worked at the National Academies), I'm encouraged to see other parts of the government enter the discussion.

The Advisory Committee is schedule to hold its first hearing on February 22nd. I'm cautiously optimistic.