science & democracy midterm 2 content

midterm 2 is cumulative, so this flashcard set is for ONLY content past midterm 1

post-war science-society compact

1. partnership between fed govt & academia

   1. research funded by govt, carried out by academics

2. distinguish between basic/applied research

   1. linear model

3. creation of “free play of free intellect” agenda

4. funding science like this should promise results leading to health, wealth, security

“free play of free intellect”

1. agenda for basic research is set by scientists who are guided by their own curiosity

2. also peer review system for deciding what to find

U.S. science policy attributes

govt pays for both direct AND indirect cost of research

• private foundations usually only pay 15% indirect

overall mission of science policy shifts over time

direct vs. indirect cost of research

direct: salaries, equipment, supplies

indirect: facilities, admin expenses

indirects can be >50% of total cost

shift in science policy over time

winning WWII

security during cold war

improve nation’s economic competitiveness / health

reduce threat of terrorism

impact of bush in federal spending on basic research

• increasing

basic vs. applied vs. development in FY25 US fed budget pt 1

basic vs. applied vs. development in FY25 US fed budget pt 2

interesting data on federal science funding

• increase after atom bomb

• spike during space race

• increase after reagen defense initiatives

• end of cold war plateau

• NIH R&D increase after

• decrease in 2016

• increase in 2020 due to COVID

consequences of federal science policy

• NIH budget for biomedical grants towers over other foundation’s investments in grants

executive branch role in federal science policy (PRESIDENT)

• constitution does not explicitly assign responsibility for science policy to pres

  • but importance of science policy for nation means president must take active role

  • role has changed over time

• vannevar BUSH is first science advisor to FDR

  • not formalized/in legislation until mid 1970s

history of executive branch in federal science policy

1. 1976: legislation created OSTP (in white house), director of OSTP = presidential science advisor

2. 1990: presidential executive order creates PCAST

3. 1993: executive order creates NSTC

OSTP: office of science and technology policy

• formulate/develop presidential priority/budget related to sci/tech policy

• director + 2 associate directors are presidential appointees w/ senate confirmation

PCAST: presidential council of advisors on science and technology

• highest level science advisory group to president not composed of federal government officials

• instead composed of academia/industry

NSTC: national science and technology council

• coordinates science policy across federal agencies

• composed of high-level government officials from all agencies with major sci/tech responsibilities

OMB: office of management and budget

responsibility for preparing presidential budget requests to Congress

• i.e. agency requests for research/science programs

two biggest federal science funders

1. DOD

2. NIH

DOD funding of science

• largest funder

  • especially for new weapon system development

  • also basic/applied research (USU)

  • large extramural funding program with substantial support for engineering research

    • internet, GPS,

    • medical research

    • investments in science education

• military research COULD have been part of NSF, but DELAY in post ww2 years led to creation of → office of naval research (ONR) and joint research and development board in mid 1940s

• DARPA: defense advanced research projects and agency (1958, sputnik)

  • mostly extramural research grants to industry/academia

  • research on emerging tech relevant to military use, led to

    • weather satellites

    • GPS

    • internet

    • personal computers

NIH funding of science

• funds university biomed research AND intramural research program

• part of dept of health/human services

• 27 institutes + centers

• 85% funding going to extramural

• head of NIH = political appointee w/ senate confirmation

• no rotator system (like NSF)

NIH history

1. 1887: hygenic library

2. 1930: national institute of health

3. 1937: national cancer institute, first topic-focused institute

4. 1946: national institute of mental health

5. 1948: national heart + dental research institute

6. 1948: national instituteS (plural) of health

other fed agencies in science policy

1. NASA (1958, sputnik)

   1. space flight, aeronautics research

2. dept. of energy

3. dept of commerce

4. dept of homeland security

   1. science/technology directorate, r&d related to securing country

5. dept of agriculture

   1. morril acts create land-grant universities

   2. provide funding for agricultural expansion

dept of energy

1. runs national laboratories (nuclear stockpile)

2. funds basic research in physical science

   1. via office of science

   2. headed by political appointee w/ senate confirmation

3. post ww2: creation of ATOMIC energy commission to conduct research on atomic energy

   1. disband and rejoin in 1974

dept of commerce

NIST: national institute of standards and technology

• develop standards of measurement for commerce/industry

• not regulatory, easier to work with industry

NOAA: national oceanic and atmospheric administration

• understand natural world through daily weather forecasts, severe storm warnings, climate change studies

how is budget split between basic, applied, developmental research between these agencies?

dept of defense:

• little basic/applied, mostly developmental

health & human services (inc NIH):

• ½ basic; ½ applied; little development

NSF:

• mostly basic; little applied; no development

NASA:

• mix of 3, basic largest

dept of energy:

• mix of 3

industry & science policy

• 1945: majority of small/large businesses support govt support for basic research AND new agency to administer it

• small > large:

  • favor govt support for applied research

• small & large:

  • did not support nonexclusive licensing of discoveries from govt supported grants

• large firms strongly support BUSH over kilgore

  • AND organized business (NAM)

industry & science policy history

• edison, late 1800s: bridge science + commerce

• 1920s: university research inadequate for large companies (gen elec, dupont, AT&T)

  • big industrial labs BRIDGE science/commerce

• post-ww2: university basic research growing, cold war demand for advanced lasers, communications, materials, space-related tech

  • continued support for big industrial labs during cold war

• nowadays: some corporate labs

  • mostly universities + start-ups

bush vs. sarewitz

BUSH:

• fed govt should fund large amts of basic research and scientific fellowships at unis

• leave scientists themselves to decide what to investigate + who to support

SAREWITZ:

• is this correct?

SAREWITZ: evaluating impact of science policy

• model of science policy is “beautiful lie”

  • cold war

  • breast cancer example

1. many recent technological breakthroughs come from DOD investment, NOT free play of free intellects

   1. microprocessor, GPS, internet, jet engines

2. many cases technology sets agenda for basic science

   1. computer development → demand for basic research on how to acquire, store, process digi info

      1. NSF grant to navigate expanding digi info sphere → Google

3. scientists incentivized to argue they have discovered new, interesting things

   1. does not lead to accumulation of reliable knowledge that actually improves societal wellbeing

4. many scientific questions are “trans-scientific” questions

sarewitz cold war

• post ww2: need to win cold war

• DOD mission: ensure american military is strongest (>USSR)

• first digital computer: 1940

  • to calculate trajectory of artillery shells + design hydrogen bomb

  • DARPA funds compsci research in 1950s as role of computers in military success grows

• jet engines: 1940s

  • need reliable jet engines for jet fighters

  • civilian spillovers into boeing 707 passenger jet

• semiconductors/transistors:

  • reliable battlefield communication for army

breast cancer example

• fran visco approaches director of national cancer institute with money from congress

• army’s R&D director approaches director

  • patient centered breast cancer research program

sarewitz ANTI free play of free intellects arg

“worked because it brought all of the players in the innovation game together, disciplined them by providing strategic, long-term focus for activities, shielded them from market rationality that would’ve doomed almost every crazy, over-expensive idea that today makes the world go round”

trans-scientific questions

• object of study cannot be characterized by small number of measurable variables

• must be characterized by changes over time

• highly sensitive to researcher’s decisions about how to define/study it

science fails to conclusively answer questions or settle debate

• economy = total of goods + services?

  • what about unpaid labor (child rearing)

  • experts disagree on state of economy

free play of free intellect has NOT

• produced solutions for problems

• guidance for policy decisions

• verifiable truth, sometimes

SAREWITZ: so what should science policy do?

• prioritize imperative of technological advance MORE than currently

• science must be held ACCOUNTABLE for end users other than ITSELF and should be MANAGED

• → focus scientific inquiry + clear standard for knowing if fundamental understanding is advancing/valid

• accountability to those who need solutions to urgent societal problems = provides greatest societal benefit

• AGAINST linear model AND researcher autonomy

SAREWITZ: what about trans-scientific problems?

• policymakers, business leaders, public still wanna know how well economy is doing

• what to do:

  • be clear/transparent about definitions and values underlying them

• what about incentive structure for scientists?

other methods to evaluate impact of science policy