The New Science Policy: Linking Research to Societal Outcomes

Michael CrowChair, Center for Science, Policy, and Outcomes, and Professor, School of International and Public Affairs, and Executive Vice Provost, Columbia University

May 1, 2001

Foundations of Science Policy

Republic of Science

Market Failure Model

Unpredictability

Democratic Science

Sociotechnical Outcomes Model

Prediction with Uncertainty

Current Enhanced

Inputs Processes Products Outcomes

Current (Linear) Approach to Science Policy

Input-driven process assumes: All societal outcomes will be positive Linear model of innovation and societal benefit

Linking Scientific Research and Science Policy to Societal Outcomes

Genetically-Modified Organisms (GMOs)

Science is a Principal Driver of Change

Social change

Internet

Environmental change

Climate

National security change

Weapons of mass

destruction

Health and Medicalchange

BiotechnologyScience-based

economy

A New Science Policy Framework: Outcome-Driven

IntegratedInformedSelf-correctingRecognizes and responds to the

inextricable links between science and technology and societal evolution

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?

Global Climate Change and Societal Outcomes

Daniel SarewitzSenior Research ScholarCenter for Science, Policy, and OutcomesColumbia UniversityMay 1, 2001

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

Geophysical SystemsResearch

Social SystemsResearch

BiologicalSystemsResearch

Technological SystemsResearch

Components of Environmental Science

“Ourspecial report explores the hard scientific evidence of thegreenhouse effect and the White House stand against a treatyintended to keep things cool.”Time MagazineApril 9, 2001

Fundamental Research

Predictive Models

Policy Decisions

Societal Benefits

Standard (Linear) Model of Science for Decision Making

Radiative Forcing

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090

Year

Climate change scenarios:

We cannot dictate global socioeconomic paths

Source: S. Smith, PNL/Battelle

(Warming)

Local land use affects climate at every scale

Source: C. Ziegler, NOAA

Major Disasters

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

60

40

20

0

> 100 killed > 1% of population affected >1% nat’l GDP

Source: OFDA/CRED International Disaster Data Base

Source: R. Pielke Jr.

Hurricane Mitch, October 22 - November 5, 1998

Human Impacts

Deaths >10,000People affected 1.7 million

Source: NOAA/OGP

Economic Impacts

Country Losses % of GDP

Nicaragua US$2 billion 50%Honduras US$4 billion 100%

Source: The Economist 11/14/98; slide courtesy of R. Pielke Jr.

Name Date Country Estimated

deaths in year of hurricane

Projected deaths in 1998

UNNAMED 1-6 Sep 1930 Dom. Rep. 4,700 23,000

UNNAMED 4-8 Jun 1934 El Salvador Honduras

2,250 9,500

FLORA 30 Sep–8 Oct 1963 Haiti Cuba

7,400 11,000

FIFI 14-19 Sep 1974 Honduras 6,200 15,000

MITCH

27-29 Oct 1998

Honduras Nicaragua El Salvador Guatemala

10,000

Notes: Average of losses reported in Rappaport et al. 1995. (Sources: IFRCRCS 1999; Rappaport et al. 1995; NCC 1975, 1979, 1980)

Source: Pielke, Rubiera, Landsea, and Klein 2000

1998 Estimated Deaths from Historical Central American and Caribbean Hurricanes

Major Disasters

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

60

40

20

0

> 100 killed > 1% of population affected >1% nat’l GDP

Source: OFDA/CRED International Disaster Data Base

Sensitivity Analysis of 2XCO2 Worldwide Global Tropical Cyclone Loss Estimates for 2050

0% 100% 200% 300% 400% 500%

Climate Changes,Society Constant

Society Changes,Climate Constant

% Increase in Losses 2000-2050

SRES A1

SRES B1

SRES B2

SRES A2

Tol

Fankhauser

Cline

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

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

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

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

Science and Technology Policy in the States: Economic Development for Whom?

Barry BozemanRegents Professor, School of Public Policy, Georgia Tech and Distinguished Scholar, Center for Science, Policy, and Outcomes, Columbia University

May 1, 2001

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

New “Laboratories of Democracy”

University-Industry “Centers of Excellence”

Research ParksBusiness IncubatorsTechnology Development CentersManufacturing Assistance Programs

Stimulate science and technology

Build new businesses

Create wealth in the state

Societal Benefits

The Linear Theory of Innovation: State Government Version

Income transfer from middle income taxpayer to the wealthy

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

A Case Study: Georgia

Top five in spending for S&T ProgramsFY2000: $51 millionUniversities highly effective

technology transfer sites Strong Hi-Tech base in Metro Atlanta But…Booming and Busting at the

Same Time

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

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

Georgia has the worst high school graduation rate in the nation

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

Traditional Georgia Advanced TechnologyIndustries Research Development Total Initiatives Alliance (GRA) Center (ATDC) ($ in thousands)

1993 . 15,050 1,555 16,6051994 2,200 22,000 1,581 25,7811995 5,172 44,625 1,886 51,6831996 5,915 29,744 1,979 37,6381997 7,615 40,129 2,282 50,0261998 6,160 38,925 2,388 47,4731999 7,150 42,400 2,178 51,728

Source: Budget Report 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996 State of Georgia

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.”

Georgia Research Alliance: Research Centers

Georgia Center for Advanced Telecommunications Technology (GCATT)

Georgia Biotechnology Center (GBC)Georgia Environmental Technology

Consortium (GETC)Alliance Technology Ventures

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

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

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

Running in Place, Running Ahead:

The median wage earner has advanced only 8% in income growth during past two decades

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...

Why a Dual Agenda?

Public programFairness Raw self interest

Outcomes Challenge

Quality of LifeCooperative Technology EducationRe-focused Centers of Excellence

Programs

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

Science Policy Research Needs

New science policy indicatorsNew tools of evaluationNew vision for what science can bring to our

futureEducation of scientists and politiciansReplace Cold War paradigm as outmoded

Conductof Science

EconomicOutcomes

S&TOutcomes

SocietalOutcomes

POLICY New industries

Tech transfer

Knowledge transfer

Partnerships

New social structures

EducationNew skills

New institutions

Linking Scientific Research to Societal Outcomes: New Models

Morality and Science

What is the collective good that we want inquiry to promote?

Philip Kitcher, Professor of Philosophyin Science, Truth and Democracy, to be published, 2001