Comments on: New Article and Podcast http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3801 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=3801&cpage=1#comment-4144 David Bruggeman Mon, 01 May 2006 16:57:59 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3801#comment-4144 A good step towards including other science policy perspectives may be to have similar programs located outside of the NSF. Perhaps the interagency task force mentioned in the Science piece will address this need. A traditional research center (or centers) seems insufficient to the task. Trying to evaluate the effectiveness of science (and science policy) solely through scientific research suggests the kind of recursion problems found in mathematics. This in turn suggests that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem would be applicable here. A good step towards including other science policy perspectives may be to have similar programs located outside of the NSF. Perhaps the interagency task force mentioned in the Science piece will address this need. A traditional research center (or centers) seems insufficient to the task. Trying to evaluate the effectiveness of science (and science policy) solely through scientific research suggests the kind of recursion problems found in mathematics. This in turn suggests that Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem would be applicable here.

]]> By: Latrell http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3801&cpage=1#comment-4143 Latrell Fri, 28 Apr 2006 20:55:11 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3801#comment-4143 Conner Ray Keyshawn Tanner Gavyn Javion Conner Ray Keyshawn Tanner Gavyn Javion

]]> By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3801&cpage=1#comment-4142 Roger Pielke, Jr. Sat, 22 Apr 2006 03:08:27 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3801#comment-4142 David- Thanks for your thougtful comment. A few replies: 1. The focus has shifted in my view from a realtively narrow perspective on technology policy to a much broader focus on education, sceince policy, and technology policy. As I argued in my review of RAGS, it all seems somehwat incoherent as a policy argument. 2. After hearing their professional reader, I may never appear on a podcast ;-) That guy is good! 3. Amen. Amen. Amen. The focus seems to be, initially at least, very much on the notion of "metrics" following the input-output thinking of the linear model. I do hope that there will be room for the policy perspectives that you decribe. Thanks! David- Thanks for your thougtful comment. A few replies:

1. The focus has shifted in my view from a realtively narrow perspective on technology policy to a much broader focus on education, sceince policy, and technology policy. As I argued in my review of RAGS, it all seems somehwat incoherent as a policy argument.

2. After hearing their professional reader, I may never appear on a podcast ;-) That guy is good!

3. Amen. Amen. Amen. The focus seems to be, initially at least, very much on the notion of “metrics” following the input-output thinking of the linear model. I do hope that there will be room for the policy perspectives that you decribe.

Thanks!

]]> By: David Bruggeman http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3801&cpage=1#comment-4141 David Bruggeman Sat, 22 Apr 2006 03:02:06 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3801#comment-4141 First, Roger, it seems from your column that the current discussions of competitiveness are shifting from the focus on technology found in previous competitiveness discussions. Is that an accurate characterization? The podcast sound quality is quite good. Those expecting to hear Roger's voice, however, will be disappointed. While the NSF announcement is encouraging, I hope the government approaches this general area from more than one perspective (in this case the scientific perspective). The research agenda outlined in the Science article is just one part of the problem of properly measuring and evaluating the investment in research and development. Part of any examination of the returns we receive on the investment in R&D is a list of the desired returns. That is not a scientific question, but a policy question. Perhaps a policy sciences/policy analysis component to this program would be useful. Additionally, the system that supports the innovation process needs to be analyzed as much as the process itself. First, Roger, it seems from your column that the current discussions of competitiveness are shifting from the focus on technology found in previous competitiveness discussions. Is that an accurate characterization?

The podcast sound quality is quite good. Those expecting to hear Roger’s voice, however, will be disappointed.

While the NSF announcement is encouraging, I hope the government approaches this general area from more than one perspective (in this case the scientific perspective). The research agenda outlined in the Science article is just one part of the problem of properly measuring and evaluating the investment in research and development. Part of any examination of the returns we receive on the investment in R&D is a list of the desired returns. That is not a scientific question, but a policy question. Perhaps a policy sciences/policy analysis component to this program would be useful. Additionally, the system that supports the innovation process needs to be analyzed as much as the process itself.

]]> By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3801&cpage=1#comment-4140 Roger Pielke, Jr. Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:02:29 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3801#comment-4140 NSF sure works fast: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/312/5772/347b?eaf ;-) NSF sure works fast:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/312/5772/347b?eaf
;-)

]]>