Event Title

Futures of Science and Technology Policy

Location

Dining Room, Carnegie Institution for Science

Event Website

http://ipsonet.org/web/page/512/sectionid/375/pagelevel/2/interior.asp

Start Date

4-12-2023 3:00 PM

End Date

4-12-2023 4:00 PM

Description

Chair: Christopher Gore, Ryerson University

Alan J. Tomkins
Public Engagement for Informing Science and Technology Policy: What do We Know? And What do We Need to Know?
Abstract: This manuscript examines the social science literature relevant to public engagements and identifies the challenges that confront the Obama Administration concerning effective and meaningful public input into science and technology policy, with a focus on nanotechnology. Specifically, when considering “which forms, features, and conditions of public engagement are optimal for what purposes, and why?” we find that, to date, social science has offered relatively little to clarify matters. We call for systematic research to be conducted that defines and empirically connects variations in features and types of public engagement activities to specifically defined variations in effective processes and outcomes. This research will result in new models of public participation that can guide policy-makers, practitioners, and the public in determining what kinds of engagement techniques are optimal for what kinds of purposes. Over time, these models will ensure meaningful public participation that meets the promise of contributing thoughtful societal values and perspectives into the science and technology research enterprise and the federal policies related to science and technology.

Liz Johnson
Science and Technology Innovation as a Complex Adaptative System: Adapting Policy Typologies and Mechanisms.
Abstract: The challenges facing science and technology policy design and implementation can be analyzed in various contextual frameworks but need to account for innovation as a complex adaptive system. The central purpose of this paper is to explicate innovation as a complex adaptive system and explore which policy typology and mechanisms can best meet demands for effective science and technology policy in a global economy. Policy typologies have traditionally fallen into incremental and nonincremental categories but need to be re-conceptualized and adapted to the nature of innovation as a complex adaptive system. Past and current trends of incremental policy design have served to satisfy small slices of innovation system’s demands. The intriguing challenges of transformative and convergent technology like nanoscience for example, require an innovative, big-picture approach like nonincrementalism. Indivisibility as a core construct of nonincrementalism, allows for coherent, integrated, and coordinated policy formation to match the demands of national goals of global leadership and a resource-efficient approach to scientific development, advancing society. It is critical to consider the form and function of complex adaptive systems in relation to the form and function of technology and invention as interrelating and motivating elements. Whereby resource scarcity does not always allow for full investment in comprehensive nonincrementalism, incremental policy formation can adapt and incorporate mechanisms and structures from nonincrementalism. A better understanding of innovation as a complex adaptive system and incorporation of policy typology and mechanisms that strengthen and reinforce the natural processes of complexity, will facilitate more effective science and technology policy.

Michael Simpson
From Clouds to Weeds: Science and Technology Policy With a Different Vision.
Abstract: The new Administration, in words and in actions, has described a vision for science and technology (S&T) different from that of the previous Administration. The differences can be heard and seen across many venues, not just in those directly related to S&T. This proposed paper will describe the differences in terms of goals, and current efforts and future challenges to meet those goals. The general differences in vision between the two Administrations have been manifested in a set of characteristic goals, seeking: a) development and announcement of a more explicit strategy for future specific tactical actions; b) greater engagement with and participation by other countries; c) augmented, trusted collaboration of efforts; d) enhanced efficiency and effectiveness with increased use of more objective metrics concomitant with decreased use of subjective metrics; and e) improved monitoring and oversight with more rapid refinement (“course corrections”) and increased accountability. A number of current efforts in the S&T venue are underway to try to meet the goals, including: a) decisions and choices more deliberately tied to strategy, including having the right workforce and shared understanding of the mission; b) greater international partnerships in the face of greater competition; c) the on-going struggle to augment collaboration among governmental entities; d) development and consistent use of more objective and meaningful metrics; and e) improved reporting and monitoring of status of efforts to increase accountability, as well as pace and degree of success. To be most effective and efficient, all of these efforts toward improvement should be clearly tied from the strategic vision “in the clouds” to the tactical completion “in the weeds”, and should be made enduring. The efforts to date are just beginning.

Import Event to Google Calendar

 
Dec 4th, 3:00 PM Dec 4th, 4:00 PM

Futures of Science and Technology Policy

Dining Room, Carnegie Institution for Science

Chair: Christopher Gore, Ryerson University

Alan J. Tomkins
Public Engagement for Informing Science and Technology Policy: What do We Know? And What do We Need to Know?
Abstract: This manuscript examines the social science literature relevant to public engagements and identifies the challenges that confront the Obama Administration concerning effective and meaningful public input into science and technology policy, with a focus on nanotechnology. Specifically, when considering “which forms, features, and conditions of public engagement are optimal for what purposes, and why?” we find that, to date, social science has offered relatively little to clarify matters. We call for systematic research to be conducted that defines and empirically connects variations in features and types of public engagement activities to specifically defined variations in effective processes and outcomes. This research will result in new models of public participation that can guide policy-makers, practitioners, and the public in determining what kinds of engagement techniques are optimal for what kinds of purposes. Over time, these models will ensure meaningful public participation that meets the promise of contributing thoughtful societal values and perspectives into the science and technology research enterprise and the federal policies related to science and technology.

Liz Johnson
Science and Technology Innovation as a Complex Adaptative System: Adapting Policy Typologies and Mechanisms.
Abstract: The challenges facing science and technology policy design and implementation can be analyzed in various contextual frameworks but need to account for innovation as a complex adaptive system. The central purpose of this paper is to explicate innovation as a complex adaptive system and explore which policy typology and mechanisms can best meet demands for effective science and technology policy in a global economy. Policy typologies have traditionally fallen into incremental and nonincremental categories but need to be re-conceptualized and adapted to the nature of innovation as a complex adaptive system. Past and current trends of incremental policy design have served to satisfy small slices of innovation system’s demands. The intriguing challenges of transformative and convergent technology like nanoscience for example, require an innovative, big-picture approach like nonincrementalism. Indivisibility as a core construct of nonincrementalism, allows for coherent, integrated, and coordinated policy formation to match the demands of national goals of global leadership and a resource-efficient approach to scientific development, advancing society. It is critical to consider the form and function of complex adaptive systems in relation to the form and function of technology and invention as interrelating and motivating elements. Whereby resource scarcity does not always allow for full investment in comprehensive nonincrementalism, incremental policy formation can adapt and incorporate mechanisms and structures from nonincrementalism. A better understanding of innovation as a complex adaptive system and incorporation of policy typology and mechanisms that strengthen and reinforce the natural processes of complexity, will facilitate more effective science and technology policy.

Michael Simpson
From Clouds to Weeds: Science and Technology Policy With a Different Vision.
Abstract: The new Administration, in words and in actions, has described a vision for science and technology (S&T) different from that of the previous Administration. The differences can be heard and seen across many venues, not just in those directly related to S&T. This proposed paper will describe the differences in terms of goals, and current efforts and future challenges to meet those goals. The general differences in vision between the two Administrations have been manifested in a set of characteristic goals, seeking: a) development and announcement of a more explicit strategy for future specific tactical actions; b) greater engagement with and participation by other countries; c) augmented, trusted collaboration of efforts; d) enhanced efficiency and effectiveness with increased use of more objective metrics concomitant with decreased use of subjective metrics; and e) improved monitoring and oversight with more rapid refinement (“course corrections”) and increased accountability. A number of current efforts in the S&T venue are underway to try to meet the goals, including: a) decisions and choices more deliberately tied to strategy, including having the right workforce and shared understanding of the mission; b) greater international partnerships in the face of greater competition; c) the on-going struggle to augment collaboration among governmental entities; d) development and consistent use of more objective and meaningful metrics; and e) improved reporting and monitoring of status of efforts to increase accountability, as well as pace and degree of success. To be most effective and efficient, all of these efforts toward improvement should be clearly tied from the strategic vision “in the clouds” to the tactical completion “in the weeds”, and should be made enduring. The efforts to date are just beginning.

http://www.psocommons.org/dupont_summit/2009/schedule/16