Comments on: 2008 Edition of Science and Engineering Indicators Out Now http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4319 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: David Bruggeman http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4319&cpage=1#comment-9366 David Bruggeman Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:39:17 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4319#comment-9366 An NSF employee emailed me with the following: "I just wanted to make a clarification. S&E indicators is produced by the NSF's Division of Science Resource Statistics (SRS). SRS briefs the The National Science Board on the findings, but the NSB is not intimately involved in producing the report. SRS is not allowed to make policy recommendations, and my impression is that they work hard to keep Indicators neutral. The NSB has no such limitation. The NSB used some Indicators data in addition to some additional data to support their policy piece, which is not endorsed by SRS or NSF." I appreciate the information, and defer to an NSF employee on how Indicators is developed. The NSB managed to present the document without making the above distinction - and the NSF Deputy Director was present. One of the NSB members present did characterize Indicators as policy neutral. My point in the post was to note that any statistic, chart, or graph - independent of bias or professed objectivity - is at best incomplete. Such incompleteness may hide - intentionally or not - information or questions that can be relevant to the issue at hand. An NSF employee emailed me with the following:

“I just wanted to make a clarification. S&E indicators is produced by the NSF’s Division of Science Resource Statistics (SRS). SRS briefs the The National Science Board on the findings, but the NSB is not intimately involved in producing the report. SRS is not allowed to make policy recommendations, and my impression is that they work hard to keep Indicators neutral. The NSB has no such limitation. The NSB used some Indicators data in addition to some additional data to support their policy piece, which is not endorsed by SRS or NSF.”

I appreciate the information, and defer to an NSF employee on how Indicators is developed. The NSB managed to present the document without making the above distinction – and the NSF Deputy Director was present. One of the NSB members present did characterize Indicators as policy neutral. My point in the post was to note that any statistic, chart, or graph – independent of bias or professed objectivity – is at best incomplete. Such incompleteness may hide – intentionally or not – information or questions that can be relevant to the issue at hand.

]]> By: SteffenH http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4319&cpage=1#comment-9365 SteffenH Fri, 18 Jan 2008 02:06:10 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4319#comment-9365 Very interesting post. Same discussion as in Germany. Economists disagree wether R&D subsidies are a net gain for the economy. It isn't at all clear wether positive externalities from R&D aren't internalised trough market forces. See for instance Levine/Boldrin: Against Intellectual Monopoly http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm or Terence Kealey "The Economic Laws of Economic Research" (or this interview) http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0005277B-64C2-1E5E-A98A809EC5880105 Apart from this redistribution battle there is no such thing as international competitiveness. What counts is not to do all science in one country but to produce something what other countries wants to exchange for it. Our welfare comes from trade, trough division of labor and spezialisation. We achieve scale economies, get more productive and are able to consume more. Thatswhy science and technology is all about productivity and useful products but not about competition between countries. This concept works between firms, but is completly meaningless on a country level. See for instance Steven Landsburgs small collumn The Iowa Car Crop http://faculty.tamu-commerce.edu/dfunderburk/428/readings/The%20Iowa%20Car%20Crop.htm or every good economics textbook about trade and comparative cost advantage. But I guess it is no news for you... Very interesting post. Same discussion as in Germany. Economists disagree wether R&D subsidies are a net gain for the economy. It isn’t at all clear wether positive externalities from R&D aren’t internalised trough market forces.

See for instance Levine/Boldrin: Against Intellectual Monopoly

http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm

or Terence Kealey “The Economic Laws of Economic Research” (or this interview)

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0005277B-64C2-1E5E-A98A809EC5880105

Apart from this redistribution battle there is no such thing as international competitiveness. What counts is not to do all science in one country but to produce something what other countries wants to exchange for it. Our welfare comes from trade, trough division of labor and spezialisation. We achieve scale economies, get more productive and are able to consume more. Thatswhy science and technology is all about productivity and useful products but not about competition between countries. This concept works between firms, but is completly meaningless on a country level. See for instance Steven Landsburgs small collumn The Iowa Car Crop

http://faculty.tamu-commerce.edu/dfunderburk/428/readings/The%20Iowa%20Car%20Crop.htm

or every good economics textbook about trade and comparative cost advantage. But I guess it is no news for you…

]]>