The New Science Policy: Linking Research to Societal Outcomes

1. The New Science Policy: Linking Research to Societal Outcomes Michael Crow Chair, Center for Science, Policy, and Outcomes, and Professor, School of International and Public Affairs, and Executive Vice Provost, Columbia University May 1, 2001

2. Foundations of Science Policy Current Enhanced Republic of Science Democratic Science Market Failure Model Sociotechnical Outcomes Model Unpredictability Prediction with Uncertainty

3. Current (Linear) Approach to Science Policy Outcomes Inputs Processes Products Input-driven process assumes: • All societal outcomes will be positive • Linear model of innovation and societal benefit

4. Linking Scientific Research and Science Policy to Societal Outcomes Genetically-Modified Organisms (GMOs)

5. Science is a Principal Driver of Change Social change Internet Health and Medical change Biotechnology Science- based economy National security change Weapons of mass destruction Environmental change Climate

6. A New Science Policy Framework: Outcome-Driven • Integrated • Informed • Self-correcting • Recognizes and responds to the inextricable links between science and technology and societal evolution

7. Perspectives • Daniel Sarewitz: How does the science that we do affect the social choices we make? • Barry Bozeman: How do the S&T programs we implement affect the distribution and equity of outcomes?

8. Global Climate Change and Societal Outcomes Daniel Sarewitz Senior Research Scholar Center for Science, Policy, and Outcomes Columbia University May 1, 2001

9. How does the science that we do affect the social choices we make?

10. Biological Systems Research Social Systems Research Technological Systems Research Components of Environmental Science Geophysical Systems Research

11. “Our special report explores the hard scientific evidence of the greenhouse effect and the White House stand against a treaty intended to keep things cool.” Time Magazine April 9, 2001

12. Standard (Linear) Model of Science for Decision Making Fundamental Research Predictive Models Policy Decisions Societal Benefits

13. (Warming) Climate change scenarios: We cannot dictate global socioeconomic paths Source: S. Smith, PNL/Battelle

14. Local land use affects climate at every scale Source: C. Ziegler, NOAA

16. > 100 killed > 1% of population affected >1% nat’l GDP 60 Major Disasters 40 20 0 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 Source: OFDA/CRED International Disaster Data Base

17. Source: R. Pielke Jr.

18. Hurricane Mitch, October 22 - November 5, 1998 Human Impacts Deaths >10,000 People affected 1.7 million Source: NOAA/OGP Economic Impacts CountryLosses% of GDP Nicaragua US$2 billion 50% Honduras US$4 billion 100% Source: The Economist 11/14/98; slide courtesy of R. Pielke Jr.

19. 1998 Estimated Deaths from Historical Central American and Caribbean Hurricanes Source: Pielke, Rubiera, Landsea, and Klein 2000

20. > 100 killed > 1% of population affected >1% nat’l GDP 60 Major Disasters 40 20 0 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 Source: OFDA/CRED International Disaster Data Base

21. Source: Pielke Jr., Kline, and Sarewitz, 2000.

22. Life and Death in the Promised Land, July 2000 (Manila, Philippines)

23. Not Control But Navigation Because the pathway to sustainability cannot be charted in advance, it will have to be navigated through trial and error and conscious experimentation. National Research Council, 2000 Our Common Journey

24. How does the science that we do affect the social choices we make?

25. Science and Technology Policy in the States: Economic Development for Whom? Barry Bozeman Regents Professor, School of Public Policy, Georgia Tech and Distinguished Scholar, Center for Science, Policy, and Outcomes, Columbia University May 1, 2001

26. How do the S&T programs we implement affect the distribution and equity of outcomes?

27. New “Laboratories of Democracy” • University-Industry “Centers of Excellence” • Research Parks • Business Incubators • Technology Development Centers • Manufacturing Assistance Programs

28. The Linear Theory of Innovation: State Government Version Stimulate science and technology Create wealth in the state Build new businesses Societal Benefits Income transfer from middle income taxpayer to the wealthy

29. Why are problems of employment and distribution of income S&T Issues? • S&T and social issues critically interdependent • Technology strategy drives government spending and its social outcomes • Linear thinking in technology policy is linear thinking in social outcomes

30. A Case Study: Georgia • Top five in spending for S&T Programs • FY2000: $51 million • Universities highly effective technology transfer sites • Strong Hi-Tech base in Metro Atlanta • But…Booming and Busting at the Same Time

31. The Georgia Economy is Hot • Unemployment rate below 5% since 1995 • State revenues doubled between 1990 and 1999 • New corporations per month doubled between 1985 and 1999 • 15,000 jobs unfilled right now

32. But…Booming AND Busting • Median income for: • Whites in Metro Atlanta: $51,000 • African-Americans: $18,000 • Rural Georgia families: $27,000 • Atlanta among leaders in creating new millionaires and in percentages of children below poverty level • Average SAT’s: • Georgia Tech: 1319 • Georgia high schools: 874

33. Georgia has the worst high school graduation rate in the nation

34. TABLE ONE. Budget: R&D Based Economic Development Programs of State of Georgia.

35. Georgia Research Alliance • Mission: “to foster economic development within Georgia by developing and leveraging the research capabilities of research universities within the state and to assist and develop scientific and technology-based industry.”

36. Georgia Research Alliance: Research Centers • Georgia Center for Advanced Telecommunications Technology (GCATT) • Georgia Biotechnology Center (GBC) • Georgia Environmental Technology Consortium (GETC) • Alliance Technology Ventures

37. Georgia Research Alliance: Impact • GRA Sponsored Research Programs: $700 M in 1996. • Intellectual Property: licenses increased from 22 in 1990 to almost 50 in 1996. • Industry-University Collaboration • Start-Ups Research Partnerships

38. Is Georgia S&T Policy a “Success”? • Yes: Creates jobs, creates wealth, does a lot with a little • No: Exacerbates wage gaps, promotes uneven development, contributes to suburban rim sprawl

39. Is the Georgia Economic Case Representative? • Poorest 20% of U.S. population had declining real income 1977-1999 • Number of full-time workers with poverty level incomes increased by 459,000 in 1998

40. Running in Place, Running Ahead: The median wage earner has advanced only 8% in income growth during past two decades

41. The Dual Agenda: Science and Social Equity • The Challenge: to develop science and technology policy that reaches the significant proportion of each state’s working poor who have been bypassed by the economic boom...

42. Why a Dual Agenda? • Public program • Fairness • Raw self interest

43. Outcomes Challenge • Quality of Life • Cooperative Technology Education • Re-focused Centers of Excellence Programs

44. How do the S&T programs we implement affect the distribution and equity of outcomes?

45. Science Policy Research Needs • New science policy indicators • New tools of evaluation • New vision for what science can bring to our future • Education of scientists and politicians • Replace Cold War paradigm as outmoded

46. Linking Scientific Research to Societal Outcomes: New Models Education New skills Societal Outcomes Economic Outcomes New social structures POLICY New industries New institutions S&T Outcomes Conduct of Science Tech transfer Partnerships Knowledge transfer

47. Morality and Science What is the collective good that we want inquiry to promote? Philip Kitcher, Professor of Philosophy in Science, Truth and Democracy, to be published, 2001