1 / 74

Science, Society, and Public Policy

Science, Society, and Public Policy. Michael M. Crow Columbia University. - THE IMPORTANCE OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCE - THE SOCIAL SHAPING OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE BASE - S&T POLICY: THE 1950’S MODEL - TRADING IN THE 1950’S MODEL. SCIENCE AS AN INSTRUMENT OF POLICY:

lavonn
Télécharger la présentation

Science, Society, and Public Policy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Science, Society, and Public Policy Michael M. Crow Columbia University

  2. - THE IMPORTANCE OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCE- THE SOCIAL SHAPING OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE BASE- S&T POLICY: THE 1950’S MODEL- TRADING IN THE 1950’S MODEL

  3. SCIENCE AS AN INSTRUMENT OF POLICY: Science is an instrument that can be used for a variety of social objectives, including: - Meeting Basic Human Needs - Making War - Improving the Quality of Life - Economic Growth and Development

  4. SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND ECONOMIC GROWTH: • Between 1870 and 1973, the U.S. economy had grown at an average rate of 3.4% annually. • Between 1973 and 1993, the average rate of growth flattened to 2.3%.

  5. 2.3% slow growth 3.4% long term rate GDP losses 1973 1993

  6. Economic Growth: Importance • Over the 20 years since 1973, the accumulated losses in goods and services due to slow growth have come to nearly $12 trillion, or $40,000 per person.

  7. Economic Growth: Importance • $12 trillion is more than enough to: • Have bought each of America’s landowners a new house; or, • Paid off all of our government, mortgage, and credit card debt; or, • Replaced all of our nation’s factories, including capital equipment, with new ones.

  8. Economic Growth: Importance • As the triangle grows over time, so does the cumulative damage. By the year 2013, assuming the post-1973 trend of growing just one-percent less than our historical average holds, the losses would be $35 trillion of lost production since 1973. • This is a loss of over $100,000 per person.

  9. Economic Growth: Importance • Compounded over generations, a 1 or 2 percent reduction in the overall growth rate could be the difference between the standard of living merely doubling or increasing five-fold over a 100 year period.

  10. Most economists agree that scientific and technical change accounts for as much as 50% of long-run economic growth. A large number of economists argue that, when we measure scientific and technical change properly, the figure is as high as 75%.

  11. “ NATIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS” AND SCIENTIFIC/TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCE National Innovation Systems: The Complex Network of Agents, Policies, and Institutions Supporting the Process of Scientific and Technical Advance in an Economy

  12. The “Narrow” NIS • Organizations and Institutions Directly Involved in Searching and Exploring Activities, e.g. Universities and Research Laboratories

  13. Mission Agencies Public S&T Labs Universities Hybrid S&T Labs Private Firms Intellectual Property Regimes Technology Licensing Regimes Scientific and Technological Societies Technology Sharing Regimes The “Narrow” NIS

  14. The “Broad” NIS • Includes, In Addition To The Components Of The Narrow NIS, All Economic, Political, And Other Social Institutions Affecting Learning, Searching, And Exploring Activities, e.g. A Nation’s Financial System, Its Monetary Policies, And Internal Organization Of Private Firms

  15. User-Producer Relationships Monetary Policies Mission Agencies Universities Public S&T Labs Hybrid S&T Labs Private Firms Intellectual Property Regimes Organization of Financial System Technology Licensing Regimes Scientific and Technological Societies Technology Sharing Regimes Natural Resources Internal Organization of Firms Industrial Organization The “Broad” NIS

  16. 7% 4% 5% 100% 2% 3% 90% 14% 10% 13% 80% 70% 60% 49% 50% 71% 67% 40% 30% 24% 20% 10% 12% 10% 9% 0% National R&D ($171.0 billion) Basic Research ($29.6 billion) Applied Research ($39.8 billion) National R&D Expenditures, By Performer: 1995 Federal Government Industry Academia U&C FFRDCs Other

  17. 100% Other 90% Academic Institutions 80% State/Local Govt. Industry 70% 60% 50% 40% Federal Govt. 30% 20% 10% 0% 1960 1960 1963 1963 1966 1966 1969 1969 1972 1972 1975 1975 1978 1978 1981 1981 1984 1984 1987 1987 1990 1990 1993 1993 Year Sources of Academic R&D Funding, By Sector

  18. The Complexity of the NIS Author Sector of the U.S. Papers Cited in Industry Patents % of Papers

  19. Impact of University Research Distribution of citations across U.S. performer sectors, by field: 1990-93 Field Academia Industry Federal FFRDC Nonprofit Other All fields 70.5 7.9 9.7 1.9 8.8 1.2 Clinical medicine 68.3 5.1 11.3 0.2 12.9 2.2 Biomedical research 72.7 6.9 9.4 0.7 9.7 0.7 Biology 79.2 2.8 13.4 0.2 3.2 1.3 Chemistry 78.5 12.8 4.3 2.7 1.3 0.2 Physics 63.1 20.9 5.1 9.3 1.5 0.1 Earth & space sciences 66.1 4.8 14.4 7.8 6.1 0.8 Mathematics 88.8 4.9 2.5 1.8 1.8 0.3 Engineering and 66.3 19.8 7.8 4.6 1.4 0.3 Technology

  20. Impact of University Research Patterns of cross-sector citations, by citing sector Citing sector Academia Industry Federal FFRDC Nonprofit Other 1985-1988 articles United States, total 70.5 6.3 10.6 2.2 9.0 1.4 Academic institutions 77.1 4.3 8.0 1.6 7.7 1.2 Industry 46.9 36.1 8.1 2.7 5.2 1.0 1990-1993 articles United States, total 70.5 7.9 9.7 1.9 8.8 1.2 Academic institutions 76.5 5.9 7.5 1.5 7.6 1.0 Industry 47.8 35.7 7.8 1.8 5.9 0.9

  21. Support for Academic R&D, 1935, and 1960-1990 (Millions of Current Dollars) $16,000 16000 80% 73% 71% 68% 14000 70% 67% 63% 63% 12000 60% 58% $9,686 10000 50% Millions of Dollars % Federally Supported 8000 40% $6,077 6000 30% 24% $3,409 4000 20% $2,335 $1,474 2000 $646 10% $50 0 0% 1935 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 Total Academic R&D % Federally Supported

  22. The Complexity of the NIS Institutional Origin of Papers Cited in IBM Patents

  23. The Components of the NIS Have Different Effects and Operate Differently Across Industries; For Example: • University Science More Relevant to Some Industries than Others • Different Extraindustry Sources of Technological Knowledge Across Different Industries • Effectiveness of Patents Varies Across Industries

  24. THE RELEVANCE OF UNIVERSITY SCIENCE TO INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY Source: Rosenberg and Nelson (1994)

  25. INDUSTRIES RATING UNIVERSITY RESEARCH AS “IMPORTANT” OR “VERY IMPORTANT” Fluid milk Dairy products except milk Canned specialties Logging and sawmills Semiconductors and related devices Pulp, paper, and paperboard mills Farm machinery and equipment Grain mill products Pesticides and agricultural chemicals Processed fruits and vegetables Engineering and scientific instruments Millwork, veneer, and plywood Synthetic rubber Drugs Animal Feed Source: Rosenberg and Nelson (1994)

  26. THE RELEVANCE OF SCIENCE TO INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY Source: Rosenberg and Nelson (1994)

  27. EXTRAINDUSTRY SOURCES OF TECHNOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE Source: Levin et al. (1987)

  28. EFFECTIVENESS OF PATENT PROTECTION ACROSS INDUSTRIES WITH TEN OR MORE RESPONSES(MEAN SCORE ON SCALE OF 1-7) Source: Levin et al. (1987)

  29. The Evolution of the American National Innovation System

  30. The Evolution of the American National Innovation System: Four Periods • Laissez-Faire (1790-1940) • The War and Post-War Period (1940-1950) • The Federalization Period (1950-1975) • The Revisionist Period (1975-1990) Source: Crow (1994)

  31. The Evolution of the American National Innovation System Laissez-Faire Period:1790-1940 • A Pre-Policy Period: Government Has No Distinct Science and Technology Policy or Mission • The Key Institutions in the National Innovation System: Independent Corporate R&D Labs • Government Does Establish Some R&D Labs to Support Weak Industries (i.e. Mining) • Beginning of the Late 1800’s: Universities Emerge as the Home of Basic Science and Advanced Training

  32. The Evolution of the American National Innovation System The War and Post-War Period1940-1950 • To Support the War Effort, the Government Establishes Many New R&D Institutions and a New, Expanded Role for Academic Science • During the War, Large Scale Federal Investment, Federally Mandated R&D Objectives, Targeted Funding, and Industrial and Governmental Cooperation are the Norm • By the end of the War, Hundreds of New R&D Labs had been established, and the potential of Large Scale R&D for meeting national objectives is demonstrated

  33. The Evolution of the American National Innovation System The War and Post-War Period1940-1950 Following the Dramatic Change in Science and Technology Policy During the War, Policy Makers Sensed the Potential of Science and Technology to Serve the National Interest

  34. The Evolution of the American National Innovation System The War and Post-War Period1940-1950 In 1944, President Roosevelt asked Vannevar Bush, the Director of the Wartime OSRD, to Look Ahead to the Role of Science in Peacetime. Bush’s Design, Presented in Science the Endless Frontier, Became the Foundation for U.S. Science Policy

  35. Directed Basic Research Intermediate Range Applied Research Applied Research Tech. Develop- ment Tech. Commer- cialization LINEAR TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT MODEL Pure Basic Research MARKET DRIVEN TECH. DEVELOP- MENT FOCUSED RESEARCH AND PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH AND DISCOVERY FOCUSED DEVELOP-MENT Increasing Role of Universities Increasing Role of Industry Increasing Role of Government

  36. The Evolution of the American National Innovation System The Bush Design Was Built Around the Following Characteristics: • Political Autonomy: • Self Regulation by Scientists: • Focus on science for science’s sake as well as problem solving • Strong academic model of individual achievement • General Accountability(linked to broad objectives of national well being) • Single Major Basic Research Agency • Limited resources for only the best scientists

  37. The Evolution of the American National Innovation System:The Bush DesignPolitical Autonomy • Separation from Political Control • Separate Governance

  38. The Evolution of the American National Innovation System:The Bush DesignSelf-Regulation by Scientists • Peer-Review

  39. The Evolution of the American National Innovation System:The Bush DesignFocus on Science for Science’s Sake As Well as Problem Solving • Basic Science/Fundamental Discovery • Applied Science

  40. The Evolution of the American National Innovation System:The Bush DesignStrong Academic Model of Individual Achievement • Scientists as Individual Thinkers

  41. The Evolution of the American National Innovation System:The Bush DesignGeneral Accountability(Linked to Broad Objectives of National Well-Bring) • Success Measured by Overall National Achievement

  42. The Evolution of the American National Innovation System:The Bush DesignSingle Major Basic Research Agency • NSF in original design

  43. The Evolution of the American National Innovation System:The Bush DesignLimited Resources for Only the Best Scientists • Small Budgets

  44. The Evolution of the American National Innovation System Federalization Period:1950-1975 By the end of the period, five types of institutions were important in the NIS: • Hundreds of Large Industrial Labs • Dozens of Large Federal Labs • Thousands of Small Technology Oriented Labs and Companies • Hundreds of Unconnected and Unplanned Federal Labs • Researchers at Universities

  45. The Evolution of the American National Innovation System The Revisionist Period1975-1990 • Economic and Technological Position of the United States began to slip • The Bush model prevailed: Research dollars concentrated on defense and on basic science • However, pushed by local political demands, Congress did make some attempts to make to U.S. more competitive and to improve upon the Bush model

  46. The Evolution of the American National Innovation System The Revisionist Period1975-1990Major Efforts to Change Science Policy • Stevenson-Wydler Technology Act (1980) • Bayh-Dole Act (1982) • National Productivity and Innovation Act (1983) • Federal Technology Transfer Act (1986)

  47. The American NIS Today Today, the design parameters for basic science and the cultural design for basic science and technology remain essentially those suggested by Bush.

  48. The American NIS Today The Bush design is in serious need of updating and improvement, and has been for some time. The rationale for updating is simply that Bush failed to build into the system the feedback and response mechanisms needed for a post-industrial democracy.

  49. The American NIS Today In updating the Bush design, we must keep in mind that the NIS today is a complex web of institutions, actors structures, and relationships. We cannot completely overhaul it while it is in motion. We must be aware of the size and the complexity in the system before prescribing change

More Related