The Science Policy Script,Revised

Minerva - The paper considers the notion of Science Policy from a postcolonial perspective. It examines the theoretical implications of the recent trend to include emerging and developing countries...     

The Grand Challenges Discourse: Transforming Identity Work in Science and Science Policy

This article analyzes the concept of “grand challenges” as part of a shift in how scientists and policymakers frame and communicate their respective agendas. The history of the grand challenges discourse helps to understand how identity work in science and science policy has been transformed in recent decades. Furthermore, the question is raised whether this discourse is only an indicator, or also a factor in this transformation. Building on conceptual history and historical semantics, the two parts of the article reconstruct two discursive shifts. First, the observation that in scientific communication references to “problems” are increasingly substituted by references to “challenges” indicates a broader cultural trend of how attitudes towards what is problematic have shifted in the last decades. Second, as the grand challenges discourse is rooted in the sphere of sports and competition, it introduces a specific new set of societal values and practices into the spheres of science and technology. The article concludes that this process can be characterized as the sportification of science, which contributes to self-mobilization and, ultimately, to self-optimization of the participating scientists, engineers, and policymakers.     

Science Policy in Action: Policy and the Researcher

Government policies for science, usually incorporatingeconomic and social aims, are increasingly influencing the contentand management of university research. This essay discusses theinfluence of selected science policies on individual researchersand group leaders. Within the limitations of a case study, itargues that policies that steer the content of research have agreater influence on research behaviour, than do policies relatedto overall research management. Increasing pressures for compliancewith mission-objectives point to the need for closer discussionbetween those who make policy decisions, and the wider researchcommunity.     

Science Advising and Science Policy in Post-War West Germany: The example of the Deutscher Forschungsrat

The Deutscher Forschungsrat (GermanResearch Council) attempted to anchor scienceadvising and science policy in West Germanyafter the Second World War. Promoted by acircle of élite scientists, the councilaimed to establish institutions and mechanismscomparable to those in Great Britain, theUnited States, and other scientific powers.After a two-and-a-half year existence, iteventually failed. The reasons for its failure,some local, some global, display thedifficulties facing research policy in theearly years of the Federal Republic.     

Public Value Mapping and Science Policy Evaluation

Here we present the framework of a new approach to assessing the capacity of research programs to achieve social goals. Research evaluation has made great strides in addressing questions of scientific and economic impacts. It has largely avoided, however, a more important challenge: assessing (prospectively or retrospectively) the impacts of a given research endeavor on the non-scientific, non-economic goals—what we here term “public values”—that often are the core public rationale for the endeavor. Research programs are typically justified in terms of their capacity to achieve public values, and that articulation of public values is pervasive in science policy-making. We outline the elements of a case-based approach to “public value mapping” of science policy, with a particular focus on developing useful criteria and methods for assessing “public value failure,” with an intent to provide an alternative to “market failure” thinking that has been so powerful in science policy-making. So long as research evaluation avoids the problem of public values, science policy decision makers will have little help from social science in making choices among competing paths to desired social outcomes.     

Experiments in Science Policy: An Autobiographical Note

In this paper, I offer a personal account of a journey through a world of science governance that is in flux. I reflect on three levels of experimentation: first, the intermingling of social scientists with scientists and policymakers; second, the creation of new forms of public dialogue; and third, the blurring of technical and social experiment with geoengineering as a case in point. My conclusion is that social scientists can both gain and contribute a great deal through engaging with, questioning and trying to open up such experiments.     

Professionalism And Technocracy: Esteve Terradas And Science Policy In The Early Years Of The Franco Regime

At the peak of his career, Esteve Terradas (1883–1950) played a major role in the science and technology policy of the Franco regime. Supervising the creation of a new aeronautical centre and a state electrical company, he developed a liberal programme under an authoritarian regime. This paper explores the development and intersection of his private and public lives.     

Beginning Science Policy Research in Europe: The Studiengruppe für Systemforschung, 1957–1973

Translator’s note*: I am pleased to offer this translation of a lecture by Helmut Krauch, both because he is an old friend, whom I have known for more than forty years, and because it fills a gap in the history of science policy research. As this lecture makes clear, the Studiengruppe, led by Krauch, was the first in Europe to measure the share of nuclear and military research in total R&D expenditure and to make systematic technology assessments to guide government policy. Moreover, its Project ORAKEL opened the way to wider public debate on major policy issues in science and technology. Krauch’s book on Computer Democracy remains an outstanding contribution to the reform of Western democracy. I commend this essay warmly to all concerned with the history of science and technology policy. This is an edited translation of a lecture delivered at the Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis at the Research Centre for Technical Change and the Environment in Karlsruhe, 10 April 2000. We are grateful to the Institute for permission to publish the essay, to Professor Christopher Freeman, for generously preparing a translation, and to Dr. Reinhard Coenen for helping to prepare the final version.     

De-Facto Science Policy in the Making: How Scientists Shape Science Policy and Why it Matters (or, Why STS and STP Scholars Should Socialize)

Science and technology (S&T) policy studies has explored the relationship between the structure of scientific research and the attainment of desired outcomes. Due to the difficulty of measuring them directly, S&T policy scholars have traditionally equated “outcomes” with several proxies for evaluation, including economic impact, and academic output such as papers published and citations received. More recently, scholars have evaluated science policies through the lens of Public Value Mapping, which assesses scientific programs against societal values. Missing from these approaches is an examination of the social activities within the scientific enterprise that affect research outputs and outcomes. We contend that activities that significantly affect research trajectories take place at the levels of individual researchers and their communities, and that S&T policy scholars must take heed of this activity in their work in order to better inform policy. Based on primary research of two scientific communities—ecologists and sustainability scientists—we demonstrate that research agendas are actively shaped by parochial epistemic and normative concerns of the scientists and their disciplines. S&T policy scholarship that explores how scientists balance these concerns, alongside more formal science policies and incentive structures, will enhance understanding of why certain science policies fail or succeed and how to more effectively link science to beneficial social outcomes.     

The Role of Expectations of Science in Shaping Research Policy: A Discursive Analysis of the Creation of Genome Canada

This paper examines the promise of science and its role in shaping research policy. The promise of science is characterized by expectations of science, which are embedded in promissory discourses that envision futures made possible through advances in promising science. Through a single case study of the origins of Genome Canada, the research was guided by the question: How did expectations of genomics shape the creation of Genome Canada? A conceptualization of discursive power and expectations of genomics storylines provide the theoretical and analytical basis for an in-depth examination of the ideational effects and material impacts on research policy decisions over three years (1997–2000) that culminated in the creation of Genome Canada. Expectations of genomics storylines functioned in a complex interplay of discursive practices and dynamics among diverse policy actors within a genomics discourse-coalition to produce a range of ideational and material impacts. The expectations of genomics storylines produced powerful genomics subject-positions from which policy actors perceived their interests, identities and preferences and gained agency, which led to various material impacts, such as mobilizing support and funding, coordinating activities and transforming Canada’s research policy framework. With the increasing importance of research policy to a range of broader policy priorities underpinned by expectations that science will resolve societal challenges and contribute to socio-economic benefits, this paper sheds light on how complex research policy decisions are made; it further contributes to understanding the role of promissory discourses in shaping those decisions.

     

Participation as Post-Fordist Politics: Demos,New Labour,and Science Policy

In recent years, British science policy has seen a significant shift ‘from deficit to dialogue’ in conceptualizing the relationship between science and the public. Academics in the interdisciplinary field of Science and Technology Studies (STS) have been influential as advocates of the new public engagement agenda. However, this participatory agenda has deeper roots in the political ideology of the Third Way. A framing of participation as a politics suited to post-Fordist conditions was put forward in the magazine Marxism Today in the late 1980s, developed in the Demos thinktank in the 1990s, and influenced policy of the New Labour government. The encouragement of public participation and deliberation in relation to science and technology has been part of a broader implementation of participatory mechanisms under New Labour. This participatory program has been explicitly oriented toward producing forms of social consciousness and activity seen as essential to a viable knowledge economy and consumer society. STS arguments for public engagement in science have gained influence insofar as they have intersected with the Third Way politics of post-Fordism.     

The Rise and Demise of the International Council for Science Policy Studies (ICSPS) as a Cold War Bridging Organization

When the journal Minerva was founded in 1962, science and higher educational issues were high on the agenda, lending impetus to the interdisciplinary field of “Science Studies” qua “Science Policy Studies.” As government expenditures for promoting various branches of science increased dramatically on both sides of the East-West Cold War divide, some common issues regarding research management also emerged and with it an interest in closer academic interaction in the areas of history and policy of science. Through a close reading of many early issues of Minerva but also of its later competitor journal Science Studies (now called Social Studies of Science) the paper traces the initial optimism of an academically based Science Studies dialogue across the Cold War divide and the creation in 1971 of the International Commission for Science Policy Studies as a bridging forum, one that Minerva strangely chose to ignore. In this light, attention is drawn to aspects of the often forgotten history of Science Studies in the former Soviet Union and the Eastern European block. Reviewed also are several early discussions that are still relevant today: e.g., regarding differing concepts of Big Science, science and democracy, autonomy in higher education and what conditions are necessary to sustain academic freedom and scientific integrity (some of Edward Shils’ primary concerns). Finally, it is noted how the question of quantitative methods to measure scientific productivity lay at the heart of a “Science of Science” movement of the 1960s has re-emerged in a new form integral to the notion of a “Science of Science Policy.”