 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
Tentative Schedule and Readings
Week 1 – January 13 – Introduction, Overview
Welcome to the STP Program
Introductions
Syllabus
SPGrads
Prometheus Weblog
Schedule
Photos
First Introduction to the Course Themes
What you should be reading on a regular basis
Week 2 – January 20 –U.S. Science Policy in Historical Perspective
Brooks, H. 1995. The Evolution of U.S. Science Policy, in B. Smith and C. Barfield (eds.), Technology, R&D, and the Economy, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, p. 15-47.
Guston, D. H. and Keniston, K. 1994. Introduction: The social contract for science. In: The Fragile Contract: University Science and the Federal Government. Guston, D.H. and Keniston, K., Eds. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 1-41
Nelson, Richard. 1959. “The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research”
Journal of Political Economy 67: 297-306.
Text:
Stokes, Pasteur’s Quadrant, Chapters 1 & 2
Optional:
Brown, G.E. Minority Leader, US House Science Committee (Response to Ehlers)
Bush, Vannevar. Science the Endless Frontier, A Report to the President, July 1945
Ehlers, Vern, Unlocking Our Future: Toward a New National Science Policy, 1998
Kevles, D. 1987. Chapter 21, The Bomb and Postwar Research Policy, and Chapter 22, Victory for Elitism, pp. 325-366 in The Physicists (Cambridge: Harvard University Press).
Week 3 – January 27 –Critiques and Interpretations of Science Policy
Calvert, J. 2006. What’s Special about Basic Research? Science, Technology & Human Values 31: 199-220.
Fuller, S. 1996. A new deal for national science policy. Nature 381:274
Gibbons, M. 1999. Science’s new social contract with society, Nature, Vol.402, Supp. 2 Dec. 1999.
Pielke, Jr., R.A. 2005. Science Policy, in C. Mitcham (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Science, Technology and Ethics.
Pielke, Jr., R.A., and R. Byerly, Jr., 1998: Beyond basic and applied. Physics Today, 51(2), 42-46.
Polanyi, M., 1967. The Republic of Science, Minerva, 1: 54-73
Sarewitz, D., G. Foladori, N. Invernizzi, and M. Garfinkel 2004. Science Policy in its Social Context, Philosophy Today, v. 48(5): 67-83.
Texts:
Sarewitz, Frontiers of Illusion, chapters 2-4
Stokes, Pasteur’s Quadrant, chapter 3
Optional:
Guston, David H., Retiring the Social Contract for Science, Issues in Science and Technology, Summer 2000
Week 4 – February 3 – Advocates and Decision-makers—Introducing the actors in S&T policy Guest: Melanie Roberts, Former AAAS Fellow
Note that there are quite a few different readings here so you can get a flavor of the various actors in the process. Make sure you read some from each category and more is always available.
AAAS Diagram of the Federal Budget Process
Executive Branch:
Bush, G.W. 2007. President Bush on Signing America COMPETES Act.
Marburger, J. 2007. General issues in science policy today. AAAS-CSPO S&T Policy Review: Highlights of the 2007 Forum on S&T Policy.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 2004. National Science Foundation PART (Program Assessment Rating Tool) Assessments.
Legislative Branch:
Committee on Science, House of Representatives. 2002. New directions for climate research and technology initiatives. Hearing Report, Serial No. 107-56. US. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Pp. 105-127
Sherwood L. Boehlert, 2007. The Role of Scientists in Policymaking. AAAS-CSPO S&T Policy Review: Highlights of the 2007 Forum on S&T Policy.
Goldston, D. 2007. Climate of Opportunity. Nature 445:248
Goldston, D. 2007. Spending Stalemate. Nature 449:962
Goldston, D. 2007. Technical Advice. Nature 448:119
http://science.house.gov/default.aspx
http://gop.science.house.gov/welcome.htm
Bob Palmer (Former Democratic Staff Director, HR Committee on Science)Speech
Scientific Community:
Jackson, S.A. 2005. The nexus: Where science meets society. Science 310:1634-1639
Lubchenco, J. 1998. Entering the century of the Environment: A new social contract for science. Science 279:491-497
Marincola, E. 2003. Research Advocacy: Why every scientist should participate. Public Library of Science Biology. 1(3) 331-333.
Porter, J.E. 2005. Federal funding and supportive policies for research. Journal of the American Medical Association. 294(11)1385-1389.
For many different views of S&T priorities for the new administration, see links here
Week 5 – February 10 – Federal Budget Overview and Process
AAAS. 2008. Guide to R&D Funding Data: Online tutorial on the federal budget.
AAAS. 2008. Federal research funding flat in 2009 as research budget stalls. Website: http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/upd908.htm
AAAS. 2008. President’s proposed budget for FY2009.
AAAS. 2008. Guide to R&D funding data-historical data.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget, official site of President’s proposed budget
We will look for the new President’s budget for FY 2010—right not it is unclear when the proposed budget might be released. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/)
AAAS Budget Exercise to be done in class
Week 6 – February 17 – Beyond Budgets to Management and Priority Setting
Bozeman, B. and Sarewitz, D. 2005. Public values and public failure in U.S. Science Policy. Science and Public Policy, 32(2) 119-136
Marburger, J. 2005. Wanted: Better Benchmarks. Science 308:1027.
Marburger, J. 2007. U.S. Science Advisor tells researchers to look elsewhere. Science 316:817-818
PCAST, 2002. Assessing the U.S. R&D Investment, Office of the President, or click here.
Pielke, Jr., R.A., 2004. The End of Research? A Perspective for the Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes, http://www.cspo.org, Arizona State University, October.
Sarewitz, D. 2003. Does science policy exist, and if so, does it matter?: Some observations on the U.S. R&D budget. Discussion paper for Earth Institute Science, Technology and Global Development Seminar.
Week 7 – February 24 – Government Laboratories, Science and Politics
Lewis M. Branscomb. “National Laboratories: The Search for New Missions and New Structures.” pp. 103-134 in Lewis M. Branscomb, ed. Empowering Technology (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1993).
Bozeman, B. and Crow. M. 1990. The environments of U.S. R&D laboratories: political and market influences. Policy Sciences 23: 25-56
Bozeman, B. and Rogers, J. 2001. Strategic management of government-sponsored R&D Portfolios. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 19:413-442
Cohen, L.R. and Noll R.G. 1996. The future of the national laboratories. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 93: 12678–12685
Crow, M. and Bozeman, B. 1998. Limited by Design: R&D Laboratories in the U.S. National Innovation System. Columbia University Press, NY.
Chap. 3, “A snapshot of U.S. R&D Laboratories in the National Innovation System” pp. 73-100
Eilperin, J. 2006. Censorship is alleged at NOAA. Washington Post Saturday, February 11, 2006; Page A07
Union of Concerned Scientists. 2004. Scientific Integrity in Policy Making.
Marburger, J. 2004. Statement of the Honorable John H. Marburger, III On Scientific Integrity in the Bush Administration.
Union of Concerned Scientists. 2004. Analysis of White House Claims.
Optional:
Crow, M. and Bozeman, B. 1998. Limited by Design: R&D Laboratories in the U.S. National Innovation System. Columbia University Press, NY.
Chap. 7, “Redesigning Federal Laboratories” pp. 215-224
Chap. 8, “Strategic Analysis & Design Recommendations” pp. 227-245
Jaffe, A. and Lerner, J.B. 2001. Reinventing Public R&D: Patent Policy and the Commercialization of National Laboratory Technologies. The RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 32, No. 1:167-198.
Week 8 – March 3 – The Role of Universities
Michael M. Crow and Christopher Tucker. “The American Research University as America’s de facto Technology Policy.” Science and Public Policy 28(1):1-9.
Coleman, M.S. 2007. Partner or Perish—Universities as Agents of Change. AAAS-CSPO S&T Policy Review: Highlights of the 2007 Forum on S&T Policy.
Florida, R. 1999. The role of the university: Leveraging talent, not technology. Issues in Science and Technology.
Press, E. and Washburn, J. 2000. The Kept University. Atlantic Monthly, March 2000.39-54
Rosenberg, N. and Nelson, R.R. 1994. American universities and technical advance in industry. Research Policy 23:323-348
Rafferty, M. 2008. The Bayh-Dole Act and university research and development. Research Policy 37:29-40
Eugene B. Skolnikoff. “Research in U.S. Universities in a Technologically Competitive World.” Pp. 194-223 in David H. Guston and Kenneth Keniston, eds. The Fragile Contract: University Science and the Federal Government (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1994).
Bhattacharjee, Y. 2007. New analysis questions push for more degrees. Science 318:1052
Week 9 – March 10 – Public and Private Roles in Research and Technology and Innovation Policy
Alic, J. 2001. Postindustrial technology policy. Research policy 30:873-889
American Meteorological Society Executive Committeee. 1999. The public-private partnership in the provision of weather and climate services. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 80(10):2099-2101
Bozeman, B. 2000. Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory. Research Policy 29: 627-655
Morss, R. and Hooke, W. 2005. The outlook for U.S. meteorological research in a commercializing world. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 86(7)921-936.
Pisano, G.P. 2006. Can science be a business? Lessons from biotech. Harvard Business Review October 2006:1-13
Todtling F. and Trippl M. 2005. One size fits all? Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach. Research Policy 34:1203-1219.
Wulf, W.E. 2007. Refreshing the innovation ecology. AAAS-CSPO S&T Policy Review: Highlights of the 2007 Forum on S&T Policy.
Texts:
Sarewitz, Chapter 7
Optional:
Schacht, W.H. 2005. The Bayh-Dole Act: Selected issues in Patent policy and the commercialization of technology. Congressional Research Service Report for Congress.
Toole, A. 2007. Does Public Scientific Research Complement Private Investment in Research and Development in the Pharmaceutical Industry? Journal of Law and Economics 50:81-104
Week 10 – March 17 –International Science and Technology Policy
[Some of these reports are long, and I don’t expect you to read them in their entirety: simply be judicious, peruse what is interesting to you within them.]
AAAS. Guide to R and D Funding Data: International Comparisons.
Cleary, D. 2007. U.K. Science advisor offers some parting shots. Science 318:1862-1863
Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century: An Agenda for American Science and Technology, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine. 2005. Rising Above The Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. National Academies Press. 504 pp.
UN Millennium Project 2005. Innovation: Applying Knowledge in Development. Task Force on Science, Technology, and Innovation. United Nations Development Programme.194pp.
David King, 2004. Scientific Impact of Nations
Leshner, A. and Turekian, V. 2007. Chinese science on the move. Science 318:1523
Regets MC. 2007. Research Issues in the International Migration of Highly Skilled Workers: A Perspective with Data from the United States. Working Paper SRS 07-203. Arlington, VA: Division of Science Resources Statistics, National Science Foundation.
South Korea on the rise in S&T
Week 11 – March 24 – SPRING BREAK
ENJOY!!
Week 12 – March 31 – Science for Society or “Usable Science”
Brunner, R.D. and Ascher, W. 1992. Science and social responsibility. Policy Sciences 25:295-331.
Cash, D., Borck, JC, Patt, AG. 2006. Countering the loading-dock approach to linking science and decision making. Science, Technology and Human Values. 31(4): p. 465-494
Clark W. C. and G. Majone, 1985. The Critical Appraisal of Scientific Inquiries with Political Implications, Science, Technology, and Human Values, 10:3:6-19.
M. Crow. 2001. Linking Scientific Research to Societal Outcomes, Chapter 10 pp. 129-131 in A. Teich et al. (eds.) AAAS Science and Technology Policy Yearbook (American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC).
Kammen, D.M. and Dove, M.R. 1997. The virtues of mundane science. Environment 39(6):10-41
Sarewitz, D., 2000. Human Well-being and Federal Science-What's the Connection, in D.L. Kleinman, ed., Science, Technology, and Democracy (Albany: SUNY Press), pp. 87-102.
Weinberg, A.M. 1970. The axiology of science. American Scientist 58:612-617
Texts:
Sarewitz, D. chapter 8
Stokes, D. chapter 4
Week 13 – April 7 – ‘Science for Policy’ Case Studies
Early in the semester we will select as a group one or at most two case studies to examine for this week. Please suggest areas of interest, some examples include: climate change, biotech, nanotech, energy, stem cell research, acid rain, cloning, homeland security, ozone and the Montreal protocol, etc. etc. Readings will be assigned following case selection.
Week 14 – April 14 – Guest Speaker: Roger Pielke, Jr. Author of “The Honest Broker”
Pielke, Jr. R. A. 2007. The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK).
Week 15 – April 21 – Scientific Advisory Mechanisms. Guest Speaker, Jack Burns, Chair of NASA SAB
Chubin, D., 2000. Filling the policy vacuum created by OTA’s demise, Issues in Science and Technology Policy, Winter.
Dawson, J. 2001. Past science advisors counsel Bush nominee. Physics Today August 2001.22-23
Haas, P.M. 2004. When does power listen to truth? A constructivist approach to the policy process. Journal of European Public Policy 11(4):569-592.
Jasanoff, Sheila 1998, “Technocracy and Democracy” in The 5th Branch: Science Advisors as Policymakers, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 229-250
M. G. Morgan, A. Houghton and J. H. Gibbons, 2001. Improving Science and Technology Advice for the U.S. Congress, Science, pp. 1999-2000, September 14.
Mooney, C. 2005. Requiem for an office. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. September/October 2005 61(5): 40-49
Sarewitz, D. 2006. Liberating science from politics. American Scientist 94(2):104
Yankelovich, D. 2003. Winning greater influence for science. Issues in Science and Technology. Summer 2003.
Longer Reports on Scientific Advice:
Federation of American Scientists, 2004. Flying Blind: The Rise, Fall, and Possible Resurrection of Science Policy Advice in the US
National Research Council, 2008. Science and Technology for America’s Progress: Ensuring the Best Presidential Appointments in the new Administration.
U.S. GAO, 2004. FEDERAL ADVISORYCOMMITTEES: Additional Guidance Could Help Agencies Better Ensure Independence and Balance
Week 16 -- April 28 – The future outlook for science and technology policy?
Backstrand, K. 2003. Civic science for sustainability: Reframing the role of experts, policy-makers and citizens in environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics 3(4):24-41
Jager, J. 1998. Current thinking on using scientific findings in environmental policy making. Environmental Modeling and Assessment 3:143-153
Jasanoff, S. 2003. Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41:223-244
Marburger, J.M. 2006. Science and government. Physics Today, June:38-42
Nowotny, H. 2005. High- and low-cost realities for science and society. Science 308:1117-1118.
D. Sarewitz, 2005. Where responsibility lies, CSPO Perspective, December 2005.
Stilgoe, J., J. Wilsdon, and B. Wynne, 2005. The Public Value of Science, Or how to ensure that science really matters, DEMOS, London, UK.
White, Jr. L. 1974. Technology assessment from the stance of a medieval historian. The American Historical Review, Vol. 79, No. 1:1-13.
Texts:
Stokes: Chapter 5
Sarewitz Chapter 9
Week 17 – May 4 – Workshop and Final Project Presentations during FINAL EXAM TIME; Monday May 4th, 1:30-4:30pm