SCIENCE POLICY: BEYOND BUDGETS AND BREAKTHROUGHS DISCUSSION PAPER ON ENHANCING AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT SCIENCE POLICY

HC Coombs Policy Forum SCIENCE POLICY: BEYOND BUDGETS AND BREAKTHROUGHS DISCUSSION PAPER ON ENHANCING AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT SCIENCE POLICY

Paul Harris1 Ryan Meyer2

HC Coombs Policy Forum 2011

1Deputy Director, HC Coombs Policy Forum, Australian National University and Advisor, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). E [email protected] 2Fulbright Postgraduate Scholar, Australian American Fulbright Commission and Visiting Fellow, University of Melbourne School of Land and Environment. E [email protected] Executive summary

In this paper, we argue that a renewed It is impossible to predict all of the various focus on science policy – as a distinct impacts of scientific research, but this does area of policy with its own challenges not prevent well-reasoned, evidence-based and opportunities – has the potential to decision-making to enhance science policy dramatically improve the conduct of both and science itself. We provide theoretical science and policy-making across a range and practical examples to support this and of Australian Government departments conclude with the following principles and and agencies. There is a clear role for the recommendations that flow from them. government, not least to optimise the 1. Serve public values. Public science effectiveness and efficiency of its multi- serves public values, with outcomes billion dollar annual investment of public and responsibilities that cannot just be funds in science. measured by scientific metrics or narrow A coherent and comprehensive science economic returns. The ethical, legal, policy must go beyond science budgets and social implications of science and and the immediate scientific outputs that technology should play a role science those investments produce. Science policy decision-making. policy must also address issues of 2. Recognise diversity. There is no single appropriateness, of the connections best way to fund, manage, conduct and between public investments in science and evaluate science with public money. the social, economic and environmental 3. Think ahead. Decisions about science outcomes those investments seek to now will lead to both positive and achieve, and also of the appropriate role of negative consequences well into the science in a healthy democracy. future. Discussions of potential outcomes Our aim is to expand the science policy should be part of the process as early as debate and provide science policy decision- possible. makers with principles and tools that will help 4. Engage outside the science them navigate these complex issues, and community. A more equitable, forward- work toward a more democratic, forward- thinking, and productive science policy thinking, and productive scientific enterprise. requires improved public engagement. The Australian Government does not 5. Promote evaluation and currently set out a coordinated science organisational learning. There is policy in a single document. This is not a need for experimentation and new in and of itself a problem, and Australian thinking in science policy, as well as science performs well by any number of improved evaluation and learning from existing international standards. However past experience. we conclude that there are important 6. Remember the rest of the world. opportunities to enhance science policy Australian science is a small part of a within the Australian Government. much larger, globalising system and We discuss definitions of science national science policy must recognise policy and the rationale for government and engage with this. involvement. We then briefly survey the Applying these principles would help to existing policy and institutional landscape move science policy beyond a narrow in the Australian Government before focus on budgets and breakthroughs, and addressing some basic problems and improve our ability to make better decisions misconceptions about science and science about science and its complex relationship policy. Key among these are the notion that with social progress. all new knowledge is inherently useful and beneficial to society, and that the best way to make progress on difficult problems – in public policy and elsewhere – is to fill gaps in this knowledge. Table of contents

1. Introduction 1 2. Science policy: the ‘what’ and ‘why’ 2 2.1 Defining science policy 2 2.2 Why do governments fund science? 3 3. Science policy in the Australian context 5 3.1 Australian science and national priorities 5 3.2 Science policy institutions 6 3.3 Assessing Australian science policy: tracking investments and outcomes 6 4. Science policy myths and mental models 9 4.1 Myths 9 4.2 Mental models 15 5. Frameworks for making better science policy decisions 18 5.1 Reconciling Supply and Demand (RSD 18 5.2 Public values in science policy 20 5.3 Building on success 21 6. Principles and recommendations for science policy 23 7. Conclusion 25 8. References cited 26 9. Further reading 27

List of figures and boxes

Figure 1: Australian Government support for science, research and innovation 2011-12 by portfolio 7 Figure 2: Australian Government support for science, research and innovation 2011-12 by SEO code 7 Box 1: Science communication and the ‘Deficit Model’ 10 Box 2: Impact evaluation 11 Box 3: Science and decision-making: tornado politics and abortion politics 13 Figure 3: Pasteur’s quadrant: re-thinking the spectrum of ‘pure’ to ‘applied’ research 16 1. Introduction

In Australia in the weeks leading up to the range of important issues related to the May 2011 Federal Budget, there were rare appropriate role of science in a healthy scenes of scientists protesting in the streets democracy. Our aim is to provide science at the prospect of possible funding cuts, policy decision-makers with principles and particularly to medical research funding. tools that can help them better navigate these complex issues, and work toward The protesters emphasised the importance a more democratic, forward-thinking, and of this research to the nation’s economic productive scientific enterprise. We argue performance, as well as to national health that a renewed focus on science policy and wellbeing. This prompted some – related to but distinct from, innovation questions about the link between public policy – has the potential to improve investment in science and the economic the conduct of both science and policy- and social outcomes from that investment, making, and to deliver enhanced economic, but the cuts did not materialise in the social and environmental benefits from government’s budget, and the debate the considerable public investment in quickly faded from public view. Within science. We conclude that there is a clear weeks, medical science was back in the opportunity and role for the Australian news, but this time to highlight an ‘exciting’ Government to encourage innovation and and ‘extremely valuable’ breakthrough1 in to expand and improve its approach to the production of stem cells. science policy in order to realise These recent events bring welcome these benefits. attention to the issue of science and its This discussion paper was commissioned value to society. But the content and by the Australian Government Department scope of the underlying science policy of Innovation, Industry, Science and debate – with its focus on budgets and Research following discussions with the breakthroughs – are narrow and limiting. authors in early 2011. Our brief was a Legitimate and important questions broad one – to prepare a discussion paper about science and its role in our society that could assist the Department in framing are masked by a focus on money, and and addressing science policy issues in the about the complicated nature of scientific Australian context. progress by a focus on the latest isolated discovery. Protests in the streets should We begin with the ‘what’ and the ‘why’ encourage a broader national debate about of science policy – examining definitions science policy. But these debates have of science policy and its scope, and the tended to revolve tightly around a narrow rationale for government involvement in set of concerns and then fade from view. science. We then review the current context and institutional landscape for science Science makes important contributions to policy in the Australian Government. economic prosperity through the generation of new knowledge, new technologies, new Our focus then turns to four problematic skills and new approaches to problems. ‘myths’ and two persistent ‘mental models’ This helps to explain why governments of science policy, that have accumulated invest significant public funds in it, and why during its development through the this investment can be more durable than second half of the twentieth century. These others. But the policy consensus about inaccurate formulations continue to exert a science in innovation has masked two strong influence over contemporary thinking important issues: about current and future challenges for science policy. We provide some examples i. that our current understanding of the – theoretical and practical – of alternative links between public support for science approaches that can improve decision- and the outcomes from that science making, and of initiatives underway in remains quite limited; and other countries. ii. that there is a clear and important role for We conclude by setting out six principles government to take into account more for Australian science policy, and some than economics alone when making specific recommendations for the Australian policy decisions about science. Government to consider as it works to This paper is focused on expanding enhance science policy for the benefit of 1See http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/ science policy debate to include a wider the nation as a whole. s3219454.htm

Science policy: beyond budgets and breakthroughs 1 2. Science policy: Both aspects are relevant to activities and decisions across a range of Australian the ‘what’ and ‘why’ Government departments and agencies. The two dimensions are inextricably linked: Before discussing the meaning of science because the government relies at least policy, it is important to note that the term in part on science for many of its core ‘science’ itself is contested. The Australian functions (e.g. health policy, environmental Government Minister for Innovation, policy, managing the economy and natural Industry, Science and Research has resources, national security), it must also be emphasised that, in his view, the traditional smart in its approach to governing science. definition ‘science’ must also include As will be covered in more detail below, the social sciences and humanities, as both of Brooks’s definitions are central to key parts of the “systematic accrual of the rationale for government investment knowledge” (Carr, 2011) and of the delivery and involvement in science. of desired outcomes from this activity. We follow this definition. We believe that our More recently, science policy researchers arguments are equally applicable to the have offered tighter definitions of science social sciences and humanities as to the policy to aid practical improvements. For natural and physical sciences, and that example, “the decision process through the issues raised in the remainder of the which individuals and institutions allocate paper can be most effectively addressed and organize the intellectual and fiscal if artificial boundaries between disciplines resources that enable the conduct of are actively removed. Recent commentary scientific research” (Sarewitz et al., 2004). (see Hulme, 2011) has also highlighted that This provides useful clarity about the while there is in many countries a policy range of actors and processes engaged focus on the STEM disciplines – science, in policy for science. But Sarewitz (2007) technology, engineering and mathematics also highlights that this leads to a narrow – as “the most assured basis for securing understanding of science policy, which future economic vibrancy, social well-being equates to little more than “science and environmental protection”, without the budget policy”, where debate is limited to contribution of other disciplines “they are arguments about who gets what money inadequate for tackling ‘wicked problems’”. within the science budget. Science policy, to be effective, must pay attention to not 2.1 Defining science policy just monetary inputs, but also structures and institutions, as well as outputs The origins of contemporary science and outcomes. It must also link these policy are often traced back to the post- things to allow for effective evaluation of war United States of the mid-century. implementation and outcomes. Vannevar Bush’s (1945) influential report to A broader, more inclusive definition the US President, Science – the Endless of science policy is: “decisions or 2 Frontier , addressed directly the need for processes that affect science”. This the development of the first “national policy re-connects the two aspects outlined by for science.” It also stated unequivocally Brooks, and highlights the role of many that science “is a proper concern for different individuals and organisations government” while maintaining that across society in science policy. A scientist “freedom of inquiry must be maintained,” is effectively making science policy when thus setting up a tension for science policy- he or she makes decisions about what making which continues to this day. questions to pursue and how to pursue Dr Harvey Brooks, another key figure in the them. A manager implements science development of the dominant ideas of US policy by writing requests for proposals science policy, is credited with the classic with particular criteria, or when assembling definition of the two conjoined aspects a panel of experts to conduct assessments of science policy (see Brooks, 1996 and or peer review. Politicians and private Guston, 2006): citizens influence science policy in many different ways, for example by lobbying for >> policy for science, or the role of or against particular science-related issues, government in decision-making that or arguing over the sufficiency of scientific affects the conduct of science evidence behind a decision. A change >> science for policy, or the role of in the tax code, patent law, or ethics science in informing a wider range of regulations will influence the ways in which 2 See full report at http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/ policy decisions. different organisations devote resources to nsf50/vbush1945.htm

Science policy: beyond budgets and breakthroughs 2 research and development. Science policy The economic argument for funding research is therefore broader – both in scope and is very prominent in debates over science in participants – than traditional debates policy, but it is by no means the only, or between researchers and science funding even the most important, reason for funding agencies would suggest. research. Governments also fund research to help with problem-solving. National We now look briefly at the unique and security, public health, and environmental important role of government in science, to quality are just a few examples of public assist in the ongoing clarification of its role values that governments pursue, often in improving science policy. turning to science for help in this task. For example, they might fund research on 2.2 Why do governments toxic chemicals to aid in regulatory policy, fund science? or assessments of coastal vulnerability to aid in disaster planning or climate How has it come to pass that there is a adaptation policy. A significant percentage large and complex bureaucracy dedicated of government-funded research is linked in to supporting and managing science? some ways to specific policy problems within And why is this considered a good the purview of government departments. thing? This question relates to public Science also contributes to problem-solving values—aspirations of, and justification into the future, through the development for, government-funded research. We of a knowledge and capability base – this discuss public values specifically in section “preparedness” function is another important 5.2, but this concept is an important one rationale for public support. throughout this document. It is central to In such cases, pure economic growth may an understanding that the purpose and actually form little or none of the rationale responsibility of public science extends for funding science, and it is very difficult beyond simply the creation of to demonstrate positive outcomes in terms new knowledge. of dollar amounts alone (Macilwain, 2010). As mentioned above, it is common to For example, the mission of the Australian trace the era of government support Government’s Department of Agriculture, for science back to World War 2, when Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) states that massive American investments in research the Department aims to: and development proved a decisive factor develop and implement policies and in Allied victory. War-time investments programs that ensure Australia’s in science fed into a logic for continued agricultural, fisheries, food and government support for innovation that forestry industries remain competitive, would ‘keep the peace’ and improve profitable and sustainable.4 quality of life for citizens3. In Australia in the twentieth century, science has been part of In this case, economic factors are “nation building”, with continued scientific important, but so is sustainability. strength being developed in areas such as Similarly, the Department of Infrastructure agricultural research and geosciences in and Transport: line with national priority areas. contributes to the wellbeing of The argument is partly economic. all Australians by assisting the Advancing knowledge and new technology Government to promote, evaluate, are seen as important drivers of economic plan and invest in infrastructure and growth. But the knowledge generated by fostering an efficient, sustainable, by science often has the properties of a competitive, safe and secure public good, in that anyone can use it (it transport system.5 is non-excludable), and that one person’s Values such as sustainability, well-being, use does not inhibit its use by others (it is health, and equality, are not necessarily non-rival). This means a low incentive for served by economic growth. In fact, corporations to invest in research, because some of these values (such as efficiency it is difficult to protect their investment down and safety) may be in direct conflict with the road. Following this logic, governments 3 one another, requiring careful balancing In truth, governments have been involved in step in to correct market failure by science for as long as they have sought and used and trade-offs. This means that agencies providing incentives—such as patent law information as an important tool of governance. funding science as part of problem-solving and research tax credits—for corporations For examples, see Guston 1994, and Scott 1998. need to think carefully about how they to do research, and by supporting research 4http://www.daff.gov.au/about measure outcomes, and how science fits directly through laboratories, universities, 5 into a broader mission (see section 5). http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/department/ and other organisations. about/about.aspx

Science policy: beyond budgets and breakthroughs 3 Curiosity is another important driver Prior to this, we provide a brief outline of research. In the US, for example, of the current framework of priorities, government agencies such as the National institutions and investments for science Aeronautical and Space Administration policy in the Australian Government, to set (NASA) and the National Science the scene within which any change will Foundation (NSF) offer many different be made. practical reasons for funding research, but they also emphasise the inherent cultural value of pushing the boundaries of human knowledge through science and exploration. In section 4, we will address the common problems stemming from the idea that pursuing curiosity is the same as pursuing solutions to problems. There are two important points to make about the variety of rationales that underpin government investment in science. First, science is not a monolith. Science encompasses an enormous variety of activities. There is no single way to do science, and even for a very specific problem there may be many different viable scientific approaches. Science funding cycles may need to be shorter or longer depending on the type of activity being undertaken – similarly, a disciplinary focus may need to be adjusted to allow for more multidisciplinary approaches. To describe people or attitudes as ‘pro-’ or ‘anti-science’ is somewhat meaningless. Monolithic definitions of science are also used to exclude other valuable perspectives, for example those that may come from the humanities or arts. Similarly, government is not a monolith either, and departments and agencies vary greatly in their relationship with, and approach to, science. Second, just as there are a variety of motivations for doing science, there is no single best way to govern science. Funding science for curiosity’s sake is very different from, say, looking for a viable substitute for a potentially toxic chemical. In thinking about science policy decision- making, it is valuable to bear in mind the different motivations for doing science, and the different kinds of science that might comport with those motivations. The preceding two points foreshadow a more in depth discussion (in section 4) of common myths and assumptions that have shaped science and science policy for decades. To inject new, innovative thinking into science policy institutions, we must first recognise flawed or incomplete logic, which often prevent effective formulation, implementation, and evaluation of existing science policies.

Science policy: beyond budgets and breakthroughs 4 3. Science policy in the 3.1 Australian science and Australian context national priorities

Despite frequent allusions to the The Australian Government has a range ‘universality’ of science, science policies of policies and programs for science and vary across nations with regard to their makes a significant investment in science unique histories, cultures, priorities and every year. A range of key institutions comparative advantages (Sarewitz, 2007). support, perform and govern science, This paper refers extensively to examples and the government plays a central role in from the United States, and we believe that setting priorities, goals and regulations for much can be gained from the sharing of activity across the nation in both the public experiences across a range of countries, and private sectors. Yet Australia does however Australian science policy will not express a coherent and coordinated be shaped by Australia’s past, as well as science policy in any single document. contributing to its future. Despite this, and despite the small size of The last comprehensive review of public the country’s science effort in global terms support and policy for science in Australia and its distance from the established and took place in 2008, just as problems emerging science ‘superpowers’ of the in the banking sector were developing Northern Hemisphere, Australian science into a global financial crisis. It is perhaps is internationally well-regarded. It performs unsurprising, given the times, that this well against a variety of existing measures review (Cutler, 2008) dealt with science and of science quality and productivity (see for science policy in the context of innovation example Adams et al., 2010). and Australia’s “national innovation At the highest level, the current Australian system”, linked ultimately to the policy Government has repeatedly stated that it priorities of ongoing productivity and expects its investment of public funds into economic growth. science to make a direct contribution to Linking publicly funded science to an the creation of a “fairer, richer, healthier and economic return is not new but is now the greener Australia”, and a “future which is dominant policy framework, both in Australia better than the past”. and elsewhere (see for example Demeritt, These aims find expression in the 2010). The OECD’s influential Innovation government’s ten-year innovation policy Strategy (OECD, 2010a) summarises the agenda, Powering Ideas (DIISR, 2009). importance of science as its contribution This document sets out seven National to innovation and in turn to recovery and Innovation Priorities, many of which deal sustainable growth and prosperity. Increased explicitly with the expected outcomes science funding has been a feature of from the government’s investment in various national stimulus responses to the science. Priorities relate to the quality of global financial crisis since 2008. public science, its alignment with national In the last year, the focus has shifted from challenges, increasing collaboration the immediate financial crisis to the deeper (national and international, and between the challenges facing nations. For example, in public and private sectors), knowledge and the United Kingdom in late 2010, and in technology diffusion, and the links between the United States this year, governments science and government policy. These have made tough budget cuts in an National Innovation Priorities complement attempt to address longer-term issues. But the four National Research Priorities public funding for science has not been announced in 2002 and reviewed 6 cut as much as other areas or as much as more recently : feared by the science community (Ghosh, >> An Environmentally Sustainable Australia 2010). In the US, this has been attributed to a “quiet but powerful consensus on >> Promoting and Maintaining Good Health the importance of science to economic >> Frontier Technologies for Building and prosperity” (Mervis, 2011). Transforming Australian Industries 6See http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/ AF4621AA-9F10-4752-A26F-580ED- >> Safeguarding Australia. FC644F2/2846/goals.pdf

Science policy: beyond budgets and breakthroughs 5 These two sets of National Priorities Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and provide high-level signposts for Australian Innovation Council (PMSEIC), which is science policy. While it is of course entirely chaired by the Chief Scientist and is the appropriate for a national government highest-level government committee for to set national priorities, it is important science issues. to note that science policy is concerned As shown in Figure 1 on the following with an activity that is by its very nature page, the Australian Government also international. Science is inherently global supports science through a range of other in that new knowledge is produced and departments and agencies, most notably improved through international processes, in the health portfolio (through the National collaboration and networks of peers. Health and Medical Research Council And these processes and networks are (NHMRC), counterpart to the ARC), in continuing to globalise (see Royal Society, the resources and energy portfolio and 2011). As described in the 2010 UNESCO in defence (through the Defence Science report on the state of world science, total and Technology Organisation (DSTO)). Australian expenditure on research and Following our definition of science policy, development accounted for 1.4 per cent it is important to note that staff in these of the global total according to the latest other portfolios are making science policy available data. Australia’s national science decisions along with their investments in policy will therefore of necessity be quite science, even if they often do not see it as different to that of countries such as the such. While PMSEIC provides a mechanism United States, which have a far larger for whole-of-government dialogue and science effort. coordination, there currently exists no mechanism to bring together officials from 3.2 Science policy institutions across all these government portfolios to discuss science policy issues. The Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (DIISR) has State and Territory governments are of responsibility within the Australian course also involved in these areas, and Government for the National Innovation DIISR maintains an inter-governmental Priorities and National Research Priorities. committee (the Commonwealth, State and The Government’s 2010 Administrative Territory Advisory Council on Innovation, Arrangements Order also lists ‘science which now also includes the New Zealand policy’ as a discrete area of responsibility government) as well as an agreed set of for the department, distinct from other framework principles for innovation policy policy areas relating to innovation, research, initiatives to assist with coordination in a commercialisation and research infrastructure. federal system.

In addition to the Department itself, there 3.3 Assessing Australian are a number of significant agencies within the broader IISR portfolio. The Australian science policy: tracking Research Council (ARC) administers a investments and outcomes large portion of the competitive grants funding provided by the government The lack of a separate, coordinated account for science. It also has a role to provide of science and science policy across the policy advice to government and has Australian Government is not in and of itself developed and implemented the Excellence a bad thing. The more important questions in Research for Australia (ERA) initiative, are how to frame and evaluate science which systematically measured research policy decisions, and the extensive range quality across all Australian universities for of scientific activity funded by government, the first time in 2010. The DIISR portfolio and whether existing sources of data and also includes a number of publicly- information provide an adequate evidence funded research agencies, such as the base for these processes. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Aside from high-level policy statements Research Organisation (CSIRO) and the and national priorities, other available and Australian Nuclear Science and Technology regularly quoted sources of coordinated, Organisation (ANSTO), which also receive whole-of-government information relevant a significant portion of total Australian to science policy include Budget papers, Government support for science. the new Annual Report on the National DIISR also coordinates support to the Innovation System and data from the Chief Scientist of Australia and to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).

Science policy: beyond budgets and breakthroughs 6 With each Federal Budget, the government Figure 1 below shows the spread of publishes Science, Research and government support for science, research Innovation Budget Tables, which aim and innovation programs across a range to “provide an overview of whole-of- of portfolios, including health, defence and government support for science, research energy as well as innovation. and innovation” over ten years7. For the In addition to being split by program/ 2011-12 year, total Australian Government institution under each portfolio, the data in expenditure on science, research and the Budget tables are also disaggregated innovation is estimated to total $9.38 billion. against standardised ‘socio-economic This is an increase from the estimate of objectives’ (SEO codes) which show the $8.92 billion for 2010-11, which amounted 7See http://www.innovation.gov.au/ABOUTUS/ split of public investment against desired at that time to 2.59 per cent of total FINANCIALINFORMATIONANDLEGISLATION/ outcomes (Figure 2 below). BUDGETINFORMATION/Pages/default.aspx Australian Government expenditure.

2.0 Figure 1: Australian Government support for 3.9 science, research and innovation by portfolio ($m) 4.2 7.9 (Source: 2011-12 Budget tables) 24.3 25.0 Key 96.2 174.9 Innovation, Industry, Science 178.9 255.8 and Research Health and Aging 392.3 Defence

456.3 Resources, Energy and Tourism Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Education 6,413.1 Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities Foreign Affairs and Trade 1,349.1 Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Attorney-General Infrastructure and Transport Prime Minister and Cabinet Human Services

27.0 Figure 2: Australian Government support for sci- 46.7 ence, research and innovation by SEO code ($m) 104.5 (Source: 2011-12 Budget tables) 315.5 345.3 Key 395.1 2,512.2 General advancement of knowledge

493.6 Industrial production and technology Health Agriculture 496.6 Energy Exploration and exploitation of the earth Defence 544.4 Environment Transport, telecommunication, infrastructure 552.7 Political and social systems Culture, recreation, religion and media 1,923.0 Exploration and exploitation of space Education

Science policy: beyond budgets and breakthroughs 7 The Australian Government of course UNESCO’s latest report on the state of gathers much more information on global science (UNESCO, 2010) notes that Australian science than is briefly captured science policy has been “brought in from and discussed here. But the examples the cold to play a central role in innovation presented above demonstrate the policies” in Australia as in many countries government’s role in framing and measuring around the world. The challenge now – both the public investment into, and the within a crowded and dynamic landscape public outcomes from, Australian science. – is to clearly define the role, focus and priorities for science policy in a way that However, joining the dots between makes most sense for the Australian different published data sets, and between Government and its objectives for the investments and outcomes, is difficult. For nation as a whole. example, the information available does not readily enable comparison and evaluation In order to support this, we next address four of all environmental science (or agricultural pervasive ‘myths’ and two ‘mental models’ science, or energy, etc) across the various of science policy, before turning (in section relevant Australian Government portfolios, 5) to more practical suggestions for dealing institutions and programs, which will of course with these in enhancing science policy. have different modes and objectives. Nor does it necessarily support comparison of investments in infrastructure as opposed to operating/program funding. Individual programs and institutions report on alignment with policy priorities and performance, but it is unclear how this detailed information is scaled up to inform national policy and priorities for science, incorporating information from the State and Territory level as well. The links and feedback loops between various data, institutions and decisions are fuzzy at best. DIISR’s recent work to improve innovation metrics and data demonstrates a commitment to transparency. However the framing of science policy within innovation – and the dominance of standardised international measurement focused on innovation and R&D rather than public science per se – contributes to the challenges faced when trying to bring together a holistic evidence base to underpin improved science policy decisions. Any attempt to improve coherent, coordinated and evidence-based science policy in Australia will therefore need to take place within this pre-existing landscape of priorities, data and values. While the available government reporting on Australian science provides an important resource, its focus on monetary inputs serves to reinforce a view of science policy as ‘science budget policy’, and its focus on measures of quality internal to science makes reconciling the activity performed with broader public values difficult. The use of standardised measures is also problematic, given that neither science nor government is monolithic – data needs to be able to support questions and decisions about which investments, processes and institutions are most effective in different circumstances at achieving different things.

Science policy: beyond budgets and breakthroughs 8 4. Science policy myths 4.1 Myths and mental models Infinite Benefit8 This section deals with a variety of Myth More science and technology problematic ideas that face anyone trying will necessarily lead to to innovate and inject new thinking into more public good. Any new science policy institutions and decision- knowledge is helpful. making. These problems result from myths about science that are inaccurate, or that Reality Benefit is not a foregone at the very least grossly oversimplify the conclusion. Science and complex role of science in society. They technology may be useless, are manifested in the mental models of even harmful. people involved in science policy, in the organisations and processes related to The myth of infinite benefit is a powerful managing science, and in political discourse. rhetorical tool used to advocate against cuts to research budgets, or for budget increases. Of This discussion does not imply deliberate course, it is true that science is an important disingenuousness – science and science contributor to increased well-being and policy are undertaken by people working productivity. But its many benefits are not in good faith – and we should not be completely unmitigated. We should also bear overly critical of programs that were never in mind the many social, environmental, and intended to address the questions that are economic problems that new science and now being asked. However, despite having technology have created. Debates about been repeatedly discredited in recent science policy have a tendency to focus on decades, the assumptions and narratives past revolutionary advances, and ignore any discussed below are still quite common, downsides of society’s rapidly increasing and retain disproportionate cultural power. scientific and technical prowess. This is also A person who rejects myths about science manifested in the most commonly used must nevertheless contend with them in a measures of science internationally, such as variety of forms. investment in R&D as a percentage of GDP, which contains a strong in-built assumption that a higher number automatically equates to more benefit. As a result of these drivers, more and more nations are setting national science policy goals and targets based on increasing single quantitative measures (OECD, 2010b). Similarly, the myth of infinite benefit drives high- level policy discourse focused on macro-level budget fluctuations. In this view, the health and value of a nation’s science investment is communicated simply through year-to-year changes in the budget: if budgets go up, science is doing well; if they go down, science is doing poorly. But this narrative completely ignores science policy questions that are far more relevant to the health of the scientific enterprise, regardless of budget levels: what are we funding, why are we funding it, how are we funding it, and is it working? When the US doubled the budget for the National Institutes of Health in the late 1990s, there was little discussion of the connection between that investment and public health. More than ten years later, the infrastructure and human resources devoted to medical research in the US has grown immensely, but we still can say very little about the impacts of this growth on the nation’s health (Sampat, 2009; 8See (Sarewitz,1996) for a more in-depth Crow, 2011). discussion of science policy myths.

Science policy: beyond budgets and breakthroughs 9 The myth of infinite benefit is also sometimes reinforced by the manner in Box 1 which science engages with the public. Science Communication and the ‘deficit model’ In seeking to engage more effectively Science communication is still sometimes framed as a one-way interaction, in with the broader community, science which experts seek to improve the understanding of science among lay-people. communication aims to articulate the many The reasoning behind this strategy is that greater understanding of science leads benefits stemming from scientific research to greater appreciation and support for science, which, following from the myth and the application of this research of ‘infinite benefit’, should translate into great benefits for society. In other words, in new technologies and other forms. making up the ‘deficit’ in public understanding of science is good for science But the singular reporting of individual and society. breakthroughs and benefits actually hinders attempts at any more holistic A wide range of research findings challenge both the veracity and the legitimacy of appraisal or balancing of positives and the deficit model and its underlying logic. To begin with, science literacy does not negatives, benefits and costs. (See Box 1 necessarily correlate with enthusiasm and optimism for science and technology. In for more on science communication and areas such as genetically modified organisms, nanotechnology, stem cell research, the ‘deficit model’). and human enhancement, attitudes toward science are complex and tangled in deeply held personal values. A greater understanding of science may do little to There exists a clear role for government change a person’s beliefs about what is right or desirable, and may even increase to address this failing, to optimise its his or her wariness of the potential effects of new technology in the future. considerable investment in science in meeting its stated priorities and values. The The very fact that people may have mixed feelings about science and technology, Australian Government’s Inspiring Australia regardless of education, points to a pressing need for two-way interactions program announced in 2011 makes the between science and society. Just as scientists and the government have a connection between improved public responsibility to communicate openly about scientific research, they also have a duty engagement and delivering on national to listen to the public, and include a broader set of views in decision-making about priorities. The 2010 Inspiring Australia science and technology. In other words, science must be ‘democratised’. report9 emphasised the importance Recent decades have seen a proliferation of different approaches to this task. of dialogue in supporting “a strong, Some are focused on guiding technological development at the level of individual open relationship between science and projects and programs, while others are aimed at higher-level government decision- society”, as well as the importance of making. Others include the public as a means of improving research in terms of the the global context and evaluation. There legitimacy, salience, and credibility among potential users of research results. is an opportunity to build on this and related government initiatives such as the It has become almost second nature for governments to seek to involve the public National Enabling Technologies Strategy in policy decision-making, but public participation in science policy is under- (see section 5 below) and agricultural R&D developed by comparison. extension networks to improve broader two-way engagement on complex issues of science’s impacts in society. Evidence of the mixed results of publicly- funded science has existed for decades. Studies conducted in the 1960s and 1970s (see for example Friedland and Barton, 1976; Winner, 1986) tracked the impacts of publicly-funded science in their application in agricultural industries in the United States. While productivity benefits were realised through the application of new technologies arising from this research, there were also widespread and detrimental impacts on sections of the labour market and rural communities. Of course, not all effects of the application of science can be predicted in advance – and indeed the same science may be applied very differently in different locations. Science therefore needs to address more explicitly how it delivers outcomes that meet a range of public values, recognising that these values may at times be overlapping and even contradictory 9See http://www.innovation.gov.au/science/ (for example increasing productivity, inspiringaustralia/Pages/default.aspx

Science policy: beyond budgets and breakthroughs 10 sustaining rural and regional communities and ensuring environmental protection) Box 2: and that they will change over time. There Impact Evaluation is a role for government to put in place the framework and processes for thinking In recent years, the Australian Government has made a significant investment in about its investments in science in relation CSIRO’s National Research Flagships, which draw from across a range of scientific to possible impacts and stated public disciplines to address issues of national importance, such as climate change values. As discussed below in section adaptation, water, and energy. All of the Flagships have set goals which would deliver 5, a range of evidence and methods are improved outcomes for Australia in terms of economic and public benefits (which, as available but rarely used. discussed above, are not always the same thing). In a promising move away from the myth Evaluating progress toward such goals is a challenge. In recognition of this challenge, of ‘Infinite Benefit,’ science institutions CSIRO is building on the work already underway in Flagships with a new Impact 2020 in Australia such as CSIRO are actively project to “strengthen its capacity in planning for, monitoring and demonstrating triple- working on the evaluation of ‘impact’ in bottom line impact”. Examination of CSIRO processes as part of research by one of addition to traditional measures of research the authors has shown that publications and citations are still the primary indicators performance which focus on outputs (see used to report on Flagship success, along with case studies of particular projects Box 2 for further detail). Added to this is the that suggest fulfillment of public values, but are not easily aggregated. The external recent announcement that the Australian review teams that evaluate Flagship progress are generally composed of senior Technology Network and Group of Eight scientists who do not necessarily have the experience necessary for an analysis of the are set to trial research impact measures Flagship’s impact outside of the scientific community. Even with the right review teams, in their member universities.10 However evaluation would be difficult because Flagships generally do not collect data about this is not yet being pursued in a coherent external impacts on a systematic and continuous basis. This is not just an issue for national way. Given the evidence of (and CSIRO, but for the Australian science community as a whole. people’s everyday experience of) the Many research organisations and government departments are struggling with similar complicated costs and benefits of science, challenges. The US National Science Foundation has established a Science of Science this is an area that requires further attention and Innovation Policy program, recognising that the tools currently available to research in science policy. Focus should also be managers are simply inadequate, and that new approaches are needed (see Lane, given to ways in which multiple “impacts” 2010). The SciSIP program is making significant progress and contributing to a stronger from science can be discussed and community of practice across US institutions, but is taking a ‘scientised’ approach and weighed, rather than focusing on singular initially focusing on a relatively narrow set of economic indicators of impact. There is descriptions of impact. more work to be done by science and science policy organisations alike to improve the Consequences for science policy: evaluation of science with respect to broader impacts, to develop approaches that are Rejecting the myth of “Infinite Benefit” flexible and which can learn from success and failure, and to share information across does not mean questioning the notion institutional and national boundaries. that science has had, and will continue to have important benefits for society. It means opening up to a more nuanced and well-reasoned approach to science and technology in society. To do this in a coherent and systematic way is no small undertaking, but starting to take steps following a rejection of this myth will have an empowering effect on science policy. Regardless of the steps that we take, we face choices about what kinds of science to pursue, and those choices carry a great variety of implications for Australia. Assuming that all science is beneficial renders those choices meaningless.

10See http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher- education/go8-backs-impact-measure-trial/ story-e6frgcjx-1226102290954

Science policy: beyond budgets and breakthroughs 11 because we never know from where the Serendipity next breakthrough will come. Indeed, at Myth Because the benefits of times in recent decades, science and science are unpredictable, we innovation policy have been seen as should not attempt to steer oxymoronic – attempts to guide and shape science in a particular direction. something that is in fact un-shapeable. Reality Serendipity is an important But it is of course possible to embrace the part of research, but this possibility of unexpected breakthroughs does not prevent us from while still pursuing science that comports making well-reasoned with the aspirations of society and has a choices about the kinds of plausible role in problem-solving. Science investments, institutions, policy decision-makers should be wary and scientific practice likely of arguments based on the myth of to yield useful knowledge serendipity: use-inspired research and and technologies. serendipity are not mutually exclusive.

Authoritativeness The idea that many major discoveries and inventions (eg penicillin, DNA, lasers, the Myth Scientific information provides internet) have been serendipitous is often an objective basis for invoked to argue for more investment in resolving political disputes. ‘pure’ science: curiosity-driven research Reality Science may inform policy across a spectrum of disciplines, without and politics, but such consideration of future use, or practical disputes are based on problem solving. This argument involves values. Conflict based on two mistaken assumptions: values is unlikely to be i. that serendipity only results from resolved through science. ‘pure’ science When addressing difficult policy problems, ii. that only directly applied research can there is often a real need for scientific be problem focused and therefore that information. The recent focus on ‘evidence- basic research must be free of such based policy’ in a number of countries considerations. highlights the importance of this issue for The history of science is in direct conflict policy across many parts of government. with these notions. Many of the most However, science is not always a useful well-known discoveries and inventions of input to decision-making. It is only likely to the twentieth century resulted from basic be helpful in situations where values are research conducted in a highly user-focused agreed upon, and when there is a clearly environment, such as a government defined role for scientific information in the defense project or a corporate research decision-making process (see Box 3 on the laboratory. A shift toward user-focused following page). science does not in any way decrease the A common problem in policy and regulatory chance of serendipitous discoveries. There decision-making is to over-rely on inputs are legitimate reasons to support curiosity- from scientific research, with the hope that driven, or ‘pure’ science with public new information will make decisions easier resources, as well as the development of or more straightforward. As the examples in human capital and physical infrastructure Box 3 demonstrate, this is not necessarily to underpin discovery-oriented research, a valid assumption. If the primary obstacles but the notion that such research is the sole preventing policy progress are values- source of new ideas is incorrect. based disagreements, then science may It also leads to simplistic arguments about simply complicate and actually delay the the balance of public funding for ‘basic’ decision-making task. Science carries no versus ‘applied’ research, and the balance special authority in these circumstances. of ‘public good’ science versus assistance Another common manifestation of this for development and deployment in the logic is the ‘knowledge gap’ approach to private sector. science policy. In this model, policy-makers Consequences for science policy: target specific problems, such as climate The myth of serendipity suggests that change, an ageing population, or terrorism, science should not be guided by external and allocate money for research on these forces (ie government decision-makers), issues. But within each of those problems

Science policy: beyond budgets and breakthroughs 12 there are still infinitely many relevant questions and lines of scientific research Box 3 that could be funded. Who should make Science and decision-making: abortion politics and tornado politics these decisions, and how should they In his book, The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Policy and Politics, Roger Pielke make them? Jr demonstrates the problem of defining a role for science in policy making with two Priority setting in these circumstances examples from opposite ends of a spectrum. is commonly justified in terms of filling The first example is tornado politics. A group of people is gathered for a meeting ‘knowledge gaps.’ The argument is made on the third floor of a building. Looking out the window, one notices a tornado on by expert panels, which review what is the horizon. Should they head to the relative safety of the basement? Do they have known and not known in a given area, time to leave the building entirely and avoid the path of the approaching storm? In and then target the ‘gaps’ in knowledge this situation, the salient questions are obvious, as is the range the policy options. as needing increased funding. The ‘gap’ What is needed is information. How serious is the storm? Where is it headed, and metaphor evokes the idea that humanity at what speed? These straightforward questions can be answered through science is working toward a smooth surface of and effective information delivery mechanisms, so that the group can make the right knowledge, once all the gaps are filled in decision. a particular area. But of course, we can never fill all of our knowledge gaps. In fact The opposite extreme of this spectrum is abortion politics. Disputes over the moral research often does more to identify further status of an unborn child are based on deeply held values. Conflict over these gaps than fill existing ones. And filling a gap values, and on the range of policy approaches to regulating abortion, will almost does not necessarily lead to progress on a certainly not be resolved through science of any kind. We can conduct highly challenging policy issue (see section 5.2 for reductionist studies of fetal brain activity, or social psychological research on the an example of this problem). nature of morality, but the use of this information to inform policy will be contested in much the same ways that any other argument about abortion would be. Awareness of knowledge gaps may be useful. But the existence of a gap is not Most policy problems will fall somewhere between these two extremes. This thought necessarily a valid argument for filling it, any exercise demonstrates that involving science in decision-making requires: more than the existence of a button on a 1. a deep understanding of the wider social and political context of the problem control panel is a justification for pushing it. 2. a clearly defined role for science, based on that understanding of the Consequences for science policy: wider context. Well-intentioned, well-executed research programs may fall short of expectations if the links between those programs and other components of policy process are weak or nonexistent. Yet evaluation of science programs seldom focuses on this aspect of implementation. In cases where policy makers initiate science as a part of a wider policy strategy, the input of science into that process must be clearly defined, and actively managed. In cases where researchers argue for funding based on policy relevance, evaluators should pay close attention to the researchers’ understanding the policy context and their ability to participate constructively (more on this in section 5.1).

Science policy: beyond budgets and breakthroughs 13 Science Foundation (see Box 2 on page Accountability 11) focused on this problem, and the Myth Metrics of scientific quality (eg US Office of Science and Technology peer review, journal citations) Policy, which he directed, maintains a are sufficient indication of parallel network promoting this work worthwhile investments. across the government. The result is a Reality Policy makers (and growing community of practice in the US scientists) justify research focused on the problem of evaluating the investments based on links between science programs and the the promise of social outcomes of science in society. benefits, thus taking on While such developments are promising, responsibility beyond they take place within a much larger scientific quality. scientific environment in which traditional peer review processes and publication There are a variety of well-established metrics are still dominant. In Australia, ways to measure the quality of scientific perhaps the most significant science policy work, such as peer review and the analysis development in recent times has been the of publication and citation data. These introduction of the Excellence in Research internal indicators of quality can be useful in for Australia (ERA) initiative by the ARC. assessing the performance of an individual The first ERA National Report, published in or institution with respect to others in the 2010, sets out to provide “a comprehensive scientific community. However, quantitative overview of the quality of research measures of scientific quality say little about undertaken in higher education institutions the relevance or utility of science outside of across the country in an international the scientific community. context” (ARC, 2010). It has clearly had a huge impact within the Australian Scientific quality is important and a university sector. The ERA process and legitimate area of focus for science policy, report compiles indicators of research but (as discussed above) almost all quality (ranking of journals, publication/ government investments in science are citation analysis and peer review); research made in order to contribute to some kind of activity (researchers, research outputs and public benefit, such as increased economic research income); research application productivity, a cleaner environment, or (research commercialisation income and enhanced national security. The choices patents); and recognition (awards and of what to fund and how to fund it should esteem measures). The 2010 report makes not only be evaluated based on whether a clear commitment to transparency and the science met standards of rigour and to a more systematic approach to the excellence; they should also be considered evaluation of Australian science. It also in terms of fulfillment of the goals and sets out the ways in which the information public values that motivated the funding in gathered will be used to inform other policy the first place. and investment decisions. The need to measure outcomes (as Measuring the quality of publicly-funded opposed to a sub-set of outputs) is science is an entirely appropriate role of becoming increasingly recognised government science policy. The 2010 ERA internationally, but methods for putting report does provide an unprecedented this into practice are still in their infancy. amount of information on the quality As a former US Science Advisor to the of science undertaken in Australian President, John Marburger, was fond of universities, but there is not yet any saying, “the nascent field of the social comparable process in place to examine science of science policy needs to grow the social, economic and environmental up, and quickly, to provide a basis for impacts of this science across the understanding the enormously complex universities or system more broadly. dynamic of today’s global, technology- Nor is there a process for weighting the based society.”11 Marburger recognised importance of quality in relation to the other that if we want to move past simple public values which government seeks to indicators of rigour and quality, assessed address through its investment in science. primarily within the science community itself, new tools for science policy analysis Bozeman and Sarewitz (2011) outline are needed. He was instrumental in developments in science evaluation 11http://www.aaas.org/news/ establishing a new program at the National (including advances in peer review releases/2005/0421marburgerText.shtml

Science policy: beyond budgets and breakthroughs 14 processes, bibliometrics and some 4.2 Mental models economic methods of evaluation) and conclude that is has made “great strides”. The myths described above lead to two But they point out that methods focused on prominent and problematic mental models measures internal to science, augmented of how science works, and how society by a narrow approach to certain economic benefits from science. dimensions of the value of science, are not in themselves able to adequately address Linear model of science into society the science policy problem of choice and questions of how best to maximise the Model Basic Research → Applied alignment between the activity undertaken Research → Development → and the public values (scientific, economic Social Benefit and otherwise) motivating the public Reality Benefit is not guaranteed. investment in science. Their analysis Interconnections and also makes clear the different levels of dynamics among basic, evaluation required, with differentiated roles applied, and development for scientists, science program managers are complex and nonlinear. and science policy-makers. Consequences for science policy: Basic research is commonly argued to be Recognising that science is accountable to the engine of innovation at one end of a standards beyond internal criteria of quality ‘pipeline,’ supplying ideas that drive applied leads to several problems for science policy research and technology development. decision-makers. The first, as mentioned, The metaphor of a pool of basic is evaluation: methods that are sensitive knowledge, from which applied science to the particular science, institutions and can draw for inspiration, is also common. objectives, and the appropriate ways to Regardless of the metaphor, this linear implement those methods. A second, more model is both oversimplified and, in many subtle challenge is cultural. Embedding ways, inaccurate. consideration of outcomes in both science Problems: The first problem with this policy processes, and science itself, is mental model is the assumption of social challenging, because such considerations benefit (directly related to the “infinite have not traditionally played a prominent benefit” myth described above). In reality, role in these communities. These cultural new technologies have many complex dynamics mean that as science policy impacts on society, some of them positive, researchers develop new methods and and some negative. Just as we can tools for evaluating science, testing and attribute massive advances in well-being adopting these methods in a complex and productivity to science and technology, science policy system will be a significant so too can we blame our most pressing challenge. It will require changing incentives problems on our evolving technical and standards, a policy change that may prowess. Since he completed the 2008 create winners and losers, and encounter review of the National Innovation System political resistance. for the Australian Government, Dr Terry Cutler (2010) has described innovation as a “two-edged sword”. It was, he writes, “the dazzlingly innovative financial instruments that eventually undermined the global financial system”. One should therefore not assume that inexorably pushing knowledge forward in a particular area will continue to generate benefits consistent with the public purpose of science funding. Secondly, the linear nature of this mental model has been shown, time and time again, to be inaccurate. Bozeman and Sarewitz (2011) describe the linear model as having been “thoroughly discredited by economists of innovation”. In reality, the arrows between research, development and social outcomes go in every direction. Many of the cutting-edge questions in basic

Science policy: beyond budgets and breakthroughs 15 research today are driven by advances in Consequences for science policy: technology and applied science, just as Following this mental model can lead to they have been throughout the history. missed connections and inefficiencies in a science program. For example, a The final critique of this model is aimed at government might aggressively support the terms themselves. The dichotomy of fundamental research on renewable basic vs applied research, in practice, is energy, simply assuming that new ideas both inaccurate and problematic for the will be taken up by industry if they are purposes of conceptualising science policy. economically viable. In reality, this does not These two categories tend to perpetuate happen automatically. There are a variety the myths of ‘accountability’ and of institutions and processes needed to ‘serendipity,’ by encouraging us to assume bring new technologies to market, and that anything in the ‘basic research’ box government plays an important role in each simply needs to be good science, and part of that process. with luck, applied scientists will turn it into something useful. As noted earlier, This mental model also discourages serendipitous discoveries could come from science policy innovation. It suggests that anywhere along the spectrum, and much the best way to create social benefit is to of our basic research investment is justified ensure the quality and productivity of basic based on very specific problems that need research, so that the ‘pipeline’ is always addressing. In other words, it is ‘use- full and flowing. As the Stokes argument inspired’. As Donald Stokes laid out in an demonstrates (see Figure 3), there are important discussion of these categories, many different modes of research, each the notions of basic and applied make more of which includes historical examples of sense as perpendicular axes on a graph, enormous importance. Different modes rather than opposite ends of a spectrum of research require different incentive (see Figure 3 below) structures and organisational frameworks, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach to science and science policy.

Figure 3: The spectrum of pure to Pure Basic Use-Inspired applied research is altered to create Research Basic Research two axes. The result is a more (Bohr) (Pasteur) accurate (though still simplified) picture of the research landscape with regard to considerations of Stamp Pure Applied use, and the search for fundamental Collecting Research knowledge. The quest for

Quest for Fundamental Understanding? (Edison) fundamental understanding may still involve considerations of use (adapted from Stokes, 1997). Consideration of use?

‘pure’ ‘applied’

Science policy: beyond budgets and breakthroughs 16 increase the uptake of climate forecasts Linear model of science into policy among farmers, fishers, water managers, Model Science → Reduced and other groups, have found that Uncertainty → Better Policy information quality is only one of several Reality More science may very important factors. It is also important increase uncertainty. that the information be salient, credible, Policy progress will not and legitimate. Trust plays a very large role necessarily result from in these interactions between science and improved understanding, other social groups (Cash et al., 2003; or additional data alone. McNie, 2008; Buizer et al., 2010). When funding research in order to aid The linear model of science into policy decision-making, it is essential to understand is similar in form to the previous mental the dynamics of the decision context, and model, but relates to a much more specific the potential role that new information would set of ideas about how science can inform play in that context. Funding science without governance. This mental model is especially attention to those aspects of decision- prominent in regulatory and environmental making may result in wasted time and policy, but examples can be found in many resources. Evaluating science aimed at these policy arenas, especially those focused impacts without taking these factors into on so-called ‘wicked problems’. Wicked account is also problematic. problems, such as water management or climate change, are characterised by Consequences for science policy: complex systems, multiple perspectives, Rejecting the linear model of science and conflicting values. The definition of a into policy means contending with the wicked problem depends on who is defining complexity and contingency of decision- it. One cannot expect to ‘solve’ wicked maker needs, and attempting to meet problems; they must instead be managed those needs through targeted science (see for example, Lach et al., 2005). efforts and equally effective engagement techniques. Science and government Problems: The assumption that more institutions are still learning how to do research on a particular question (eg “does this well, but there are already promising this chemical cause cancer?”) will reduce examples of success. Approaches to this uncertainty is not necessarily appropriate challenge are discussed in the next section. (see for example, NRC, 1996; NRC, 2005). Especially in cases involving complex systems (eg the climate system, the human body, social networks), more research may expand the uncertainty around an issue, generating many more questions, but very few definitive answers. Whether or not uncertainty can be reduced, predicating policy decisions on the reduction of uncertainty can create difficulties for policy- makers and opportunities for political actors to search for, and exploit uncertainties to prevent particular policy outcomes (Sarewitz, 2004). Reduced uncertainty may have little impact on the ability of a person or institution to make a decision (as discussed in relation to the myth of ‘authoritativeness’). In some cases, it has been argued, increased certainty may clarify the potential winners and losers, thus further entrenching opposing interests on a particular issue, preventing policy progress (Sarewitz, 2004). Information can be helpful in making decisions, but it is not always a lack of information that prevents decision-making. For example, researchers seeking to

Science policy: beyond budgets and breakthroughs 17 5. Frameworks for follows, we use examples (theoretical and practical) mostly from the United States. making better science But there are similar discussions underway policy decisions in Australian institutions (see for example Box 2 on page 11), and also some links Speaking at an OECD innovation policy between Australian researchers and their workshop in December last year, the international counterparts. Much more Australian Minister for Innovation, Industry, could be done to support the sharing Science and Research re-emphasised the of experiences and institutional learning government’s commitment to building a across both domestic and international “richer, fairer and greener” nation (Carr, boundaries. We believe there is a clear 2010). Science and science policy (framed role for government to lead this process, in Australia as in the OECD in the broader in order to be able to meet its broader context of innovation and innovation policy) science and innovation policy objectives. can play a key role in helping to meet this This section deals with the conceptual goal, enabling Australia to address ‘wicked challenge of making choices about what problems’ and to spread prosperity as science to pursue. As should be clear from equitably as possible. the previous discussion of myths and mental The Minister also noted that technological models, effective science policy requires advance has the potential to perpetuate more than simply funding high-quality inequalities, quoting an International science, or targeting knowledge gaps; it Monetary Fund study from 2008 which requires consideration of which kinds of new found that “three-quarters of the global knowledge will be most useful in fulfilling increase in inequality since the 1980s was goals and solving problems. Identifying and caused by technological progress” (Carr, filling gaps is far easier than bringing an in 2010). He concluded that there was a depth understanding of the societal context crucial role for governments in science, to bear on a decision-making process, and technology and innovation, and indeed then carefully defining a science agenda that it is “only governments” that can based on that knowledge. But the gaps ensure that innovation meets public needs, approach is far more likely to result in missed expectations and values. opportunities, inefficiencies, and a lack of institutional learning. So far in this paper, we have sought to define and frame science policy, place this within the context of existing institutions, 5.1 Reconciling Supply and processes and information in Australia, Demand (RSD) and address a number of pervasive myths and mental models that hinder the ongoing We can improve on the gap-filling approach development of effective, evidence-based by conceptualising science policy in terms science policy. This leaves us with difficult of supply of, and demand for, scientific questions: how do we know we are knowledge. This framework, borrowing focusing our activities in the right areas? from economics, highlights the need to How could we improve the system that be aware of the context in which science we currently have, and the decisions we may be used, in addition to the context in make within it? And what is the appropriate which it is produced. Unlike in economics, role for government – both to ensure it however, there is no ‘invisible hand’ optimises its significant investment of public ensuring that supply will meet demand. funds in science, but also to set the right To reconcile supply and demand, we framework to ensure an equitable sharing need effective institutions that can actively of the benefits that derive from mediate boundaries between various this investment? groups involved: the experts producing knowledge; the organisations supporting In the remaining sections of the paper, we and facilitating science; the potential users provide examples of work underway to of research results; and those affected. begin to address these questions and to enhance science policy, before concluding The RSD framework is conceptually simple, with principles and recommendations. but its implications for science and science The good news is that there are methods policy are complex. Applying RSD means being tested, and that there is a growing confronting inaccurate myths and mental literature on these issues (see for example models, which can be challenging. On the Wetmore, 2007; Logar, 2009). In what other hand, the framework encourages the

Science policy: beyond budgets and breakthroughs 18 democratisation of science (see Box 1 on Science Implications: RISAs do not page 10), promotes reflexive learning on the just generate more useful science; they part of science organisations, and can lead constitute a different environment in which to more tangible and immediate positive to do science. Scientists must take time outcomes for society. to establish working relationships with nonscientists, and be ready to adapt their Example: The RISA program (adapted research agenda to the needs of external from Dilling et al, 2010) groups. These ongoing interactions require The Regional Integrated Science and patience, flexibility, and a willingness to Assessment (RISA) program was spend time on activities not traditionally established by the US National Oceanic valued within academia. and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Scientists that do well within the RISA context to organise research around the problems may face difficulties within their academic faced by decision-makers in particular home. Universities have been slow to find regions of the US. There are currently ten ways of recognising and valuing work that RISAs in operation, each with its own is highly interdisciplinary and/or community approach to science, and a unique mission oriented, despite paying lip service to such and scope in terms of engaging with activities. A challenge for the RISA program decision-makers. This variation reflects a is training and attracting scientists that can balance between the issues of importance operate effectively at the boundary between in a given region (eg grazing, fisheries, science and decision-making. water availability, coastal vulnerability), and the scientific capacity of the researchers Science Policy Implications: Creating and institutions taking on the project. the RISA program required re-thinking the terms on which science is usually funded The programs use a variety of formal and within NOAA. Grants are traditionally made informal techniques to reconcile their on a 3-year basis, but this is not enough scientific research efforts with their various time to establish relationships and build a users’ information demands. All of the research agenda around the learning that RISAs engage in frequent communication occurs during this process. Thus RISA with their stakeholders, starting their grants last five years. NOAA has also conversations early in the research process. had to re-think its approach to evaluating These events involve one-on-one meetings, science programs, focusing more on group meetings, or conversations over the external impacts and information use, phone. Informal communication provides and less on outputs such as publications. a forum for both sides to clearly identify These changes sound simple, but were and understand the nature of the problem the result of hard-fought battles within the they seek to resolve, and to understand organisation by dedicated public servants the unique contexts of potential solutions. looking to create a program that better Through such informal, iterative meetings, served the public values espoused by the RISA researchers are able to adjust NOAA research office. their own research objectives, provide existing information to stakeholders, or Program managers are still working to stop producing information for which the find effective ways of evaluating the RISA users had no plausible need. Moreover, program. They are also seeking ways of these meetings create opportunities for translating lessons learned to other areas both sides to develop trusting, mutually of the research program, and even to respectful relationships on which to base research program at other agencies. future efforts. Advantages and Limitations of RSD: The RISAs also engage in more formal RSD’s most important and straightforward efforts to reconcile supply with demand. For contribution to science policy is the explicit example, one RISA program created and recognition that effective science policy administered formal surveys to thoroughly requires an intimate knowledge of the test the effectiveness of the RISA’s data ‘demand’ side. Case studies using the RSD and information products. Other surveys framework show a variety of ways in which investigated how well decision-makers this approach can be helpful to structuring understood the particular ways in which science programs from the individual project the data presented. The RISAs used these level, up to the portfolio or agency level. engagement opportunities to assess, adjust, initiate or abate individual research streams.

Science policy: beyond budgets and breakthroughs 19 It is also important to recognise that Example: Hazards Research and supply and demand are not always easy Prediction (for more, see Maricle, 2011) to delineate. In some cases, stakeholders Hurricanes and earthquakes both have themselves constitute a very important enormous impacts on society, and the source of knowledge that can help in US has devoted significant resources solving problems. to studying these events, in the hope of Furthermore, the RSD framework says ameliorating their negative effects. The little about the problem of navigating differing approaches to the research are distributional and ethical issues associated instructive, from the perspective of public with engaging the ‘demand’ side of the values. In both cases, the motivating public equation. Access and equity become value is obvious: reduce vulnerability to extremely important, especially in cases save lives and protect communities. The where there may be great economic question is, what sort of science program is disparities which affect different groups’ most likely to achieve these goals? ability to access, understand, and use new Earthquakes: It is hard to say whether information (see for example Pfaff et al., repeated attempts to predict the occurrence 1999). See the next section (5.2) for more of earthquakes in the 1980s and 90s were on these issues. successful from a technical standpoint, but it is certain that they were a failure in 5.2 Public values in the eyes of the public, and the politicians science policy that control the funding for such efforts. As a result, the US Geological Survey found Most public science investments are itself in danger of being eliminated from justified with public values—broadly the federal budget if it did not seek a new agreed-upon ideas that serve as a basis approach. They responded by abandoning for governing. Public values such as prediction efforts almost entirely, and health, human dignity, clean air and safety focusing instead on preparedness and are useful motivations for policy, but this vulnerability. By working with city planners, does not mean that everyone agrees on emergency response systems, and a variety the best way to pursue them, or on their of other groups, researchers were able to importance relative to other values. But we help communities understand the risks can look to public values as forming a basis of an unpredictable event, and develop for legislation, and for shaping the public strategies for mitigating that risk. The result investment in science. is a remarkable improvement in social, physical, and political infrastructure that can The Public Values Mapping (PVM) react quickly and effectively to minimise loss framework (Bozeman, 2007; Bozeman in an earthquake. and Sarewitz, 2011), is simply the idea that science policies that are justified based on Hurricanes: Hurricane prediction has public values should also be implemented been much more successful in terms of and evaluated on that basis. But they our evolving technical ability. Hurricane rarely are. Instead, science investments Katrina was predicted with great accuracy, are justified in terms of public values, but days in advance. Of course, the disastrous then evaluated based on academic outputs outcomes of this event are well-known. such as publications and citations, or The social, political, and physical resources simply on the degree to which knowledge needed to respond effectively to the has advanced. event were wholly inadequate. Hurricane researchers have focused far more on Evaluation based on public values can prediction than they have on the social take place at a variety of scales, from the systems required to respond effectively to individual project level to large portfolios a prediction. The assumption that better of grants within or across government predictions will yield better outcomes agencies. It may focus on the outputs has proven inaccurate, but the research or outcomes of science, but it also program has been built around this idea. concerns the organisational structures that underpin scientific activity, and the Science Implications: The comparison logic and processes of decision-making of these two experiences shows that that take place as a part of that system. advancing technical knowledge is not A key focus is on the assumptions that necessarily correlated with public values science programs must make about the success. In the case of earthquakes, the connections between advancing knowledge failure to predict was what spurred a shift and improved societal outcomes. in thinking, and eventually led to a much

Science policy: beyond budgets and breakthroughs 20 more successful approach. In the case previous National Biotechnology Strategy of hurricanes, successful prediction has and National Nanotechnology Strategy, been conflated with public values success, approved in 2008. The NETS program12 despite mounting evidence that prediction explicitly seeks to “balance risk and reward” is insufficient as a scientific approach. and to ensure that policy is “informed by an understanding of health, safety, Science Policy Implications: Public environmental, social and economic Values Mapping asks us to consider the considerations”. To do this, NETS activities links between decisions about science and support national coordination, international the broader context. This is similar to the engagement, appropriate regulation, RSD framework, but it focuses specifically measurement and standard-setting, on the outcomes that have been promised foresighting and community engagement. as a result of public funding, and the mechanisms that are needed to achieve This program is small within the broader those outcomes. Scientists and program context of the Australian Government’s managers are not responsible for specifying support for science and innovation, but public values, but they do bear some significant in its attempts to facilitate responsibility for recognising those values, broader engagement to inform more and pursuing them through the facilitation effective and appropriate public and evaluation of their science programs. investments in science and technological innovation, and the related policies. Also Advantages and Limitations of PVM: of significance is the clear statement of the PVM is a useful tool for expanding role of government in these areas. discourse about science policy, and for examining assumptions about the links Examination of elements of the NETS between science and social problems. program (see for example Lyons It provides an alternative to the more and Whelan, 2010) notes this stated common measures of policy outcomes: commitment to more “inclusive, economic indicators, and academic transparent, pluralistic, participatory outputs. And it directly confronts the myths and deliberative processes”, and the and mental models outlined in section 4. importance of these if the risks and rewards of new technologies are indeed to be The Public Values framework has been balanced more effectively into the future. In used primarily as a tool for researchers discussions of science and science policy, it examining science programs and science is commonplace to refer back to polarised policy processes, but it is also holds debates about ‘genetic engineering’ in the promise as a tool that decision-makers can 1990s as evidence that the governance use in planning and evaluating programs. of science and new technologies needs CSIRO’s Climate Adaptation National to improve. Lyons and Whelan point to a Research Flagship is currently considering number of other ways to enhance these implementing the framework to assist with processes, such as ensuring that public internal monitoring, evaluation, and planning. engagement occurs ‘up-stream’ while there To this point, the most effective uses is still an opportunity to shape decisions, of PVM have been qualitative, and ensuring that the outcomes of engagement aggregating information about public values can be linked back into policy and across programs, or across scales, remains regulation, and ensuring that engagement a challenge. is continuously evaluated, with lessons being able to be incorporated back into 5.3 Building on success future processes. We return to the importance of evaluation In addition to the two methods discussed at at the end of this section. But there is length above, there are a number of other a broader question raised by the focus approaches that it is worth mentioning of government programs such as NETS briefly, that seek to address the myths and (and similar initiatives in other countries) deficiencies of science policy as it has been on a relatively narrow selection of fields framed in the past. Indeed, in certain areas of science, such as biotechnology and the Australian Government has actively nanotechnology. Nanotechnology has engaged with some of these issues. become a key site of science policy The government’s National Enabling experimentation in recent years, perhaps Technologies Strategy (NETS) was because of the prominence of rapid 12See further information at www.innovation.gov. announced in 2010 and replaced the scientific development and application, and au/nets

Science policy: beyond budgets and breakthroughs 21 widespread concerns about the potential Which brings us back to the importance consequences. This has allowed for the of evaluation. This is a topic which comes testing of cutting-edge science policy up repeatedly in efforts to address current research in actual programs. The Center for limitations of science policy, and where Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State there is a clear role for government to University is an excellent example of this.13 both set the framework conditions for improved evaluation of science and science But given what we know about the impacts policy, and to promote the sharing of the of science (and the de-bunking of science necessary data and experiences. The policy myths), why would we not expand OECD’s most recent Science, Technology these methods across a much wider range and Industry Outlook (2010b) provides of fields of science? To do this effectively an overview of the efforts underway in would require mechanisms for learning from many countries to improve evaluation in a past experience, for scaling up tools and coordinated way. techniques, and for applying them in new ways. It would also require the training of We know that science, like government, is people with the new skills needed to operate not monolithic and that government invests at the interface of science and society. public money in science to meet a range of objectives and needs. Evaluation of science Implementing these ideas would also and science policy must recognise this. contribute to ‘anticipatory governance’ To be effective, investment and evaluation (Guston, 2008), enhancing our ability to deal should be appropriate to the scale, scope with unpredictable outcomes from scientific and time-frame of the program or policy in advances. This contribution to ‘preparedness’ question. It should also be continuous, with has been recognised as a key outcome a clear connection into decision-making of science policy in Australia and in other processes so that findings and lessons countries such as the UK (Matthews, 2009). can inform future decisions and activity. Evaluation of publicly-funded science The Australian Government’s description must necessarily go beyond measures of the NETS program also alludes to the internal to science, in recognition of the importance of “strategic assessment of the range of important economic, social and development of new enabling technologies environmental outcomes to which science and the convergence of new and existing is directed and contributes. This will also technologies” to ensure that positive and require evaluation of classes of activity negative impacts can be considered and not traditionally measured – for example balanced as well as possible. This recalls processes and relationships as well as the focus on ‘technology assessment’ outputs. Finally, evaluation along these lines that is most often associated with the will be more effective when it incorporates US Congressional Office of Technology more participation and a diversity of Assessment (OTA), which existed from the perspectives, as early as possible. 1970s until the mid-1990s (see Bimber, 1996). Similar models continue to operate in European parliaments (both at the European Commission and national levels) with some, such as the Danish Board of Technology, pioneering new participatory methods. There have also been recent calls for renewed government support for technology assessment both in Australia (see for example Switkowski, 2011) and in the United States (Sclove, 2010). What Sclove and others have in mind would be more systematic than current efforts focused on a small number of specific fields of science. It would have a strong focus on community engagement and participatory processes, and innovate through the use of new information and communication technologies. And it would learn from the successes and failures of 13See further information at http://www.cspo. previous technology assessment efforts. org/projects/nanotechnology/

Science policy: beyond budgets and breakthroughs 22 6. Principles and 3. Think ahead. We know that government decisions about and recommendations investments in science now will lead to for science policy a wide range of outputs and outcomes – both positive and negative – well into This discussion paper seeks to highlight the future. This is not a process that we some common misconceptions about the must just surrender to. The development role of science in society and the role of and use of science are shaped by government in science, and to suggest human institutions and there exist a some useful ways of approaching problems range of techniques and tools to help and enhancing science policy into the us steer towards more positive and less future. We recognise that implementing negative consequences. There is a clear science policy based on these ideas is far role for government to set a framework more complicated than simply discussing for these techniques to be used and for them in the abstract. Moving towards enhancing preparedness. a science policy system that rejects 4. Engage outside the science inaccurate myths and mental models is a community. A more equitable, forward- slow process of incremental change. To thinking, and productive science policy begin this final section, we present six broad requires improved public engagement. principles for science policy, distilled from This is partly because the public the ideas and examples presented above: deserves a voice in the many ethical, 1. Serve public values. Science policy is legal and social implications of advancing innovation policy and economic policy, knowledge, and partly because doing but it is also social policy. Science plays useful and beneficial science requires a crucial role in fulfilling a wide variety input from lay communities. There are of societal and governmental needs, a variety of mechanisms that can aid from national well-being and security, to with this goal, but they are rarely used. environmental regulation, to international To meet its own goals, government diplomacy. Public values will change over should encourage science organisations time, but we need to be able to articulate to explore ways of promoting and the ways in which we structure science embedding these activities in their core policy decisions and science institutions operations to increase democratic in response to them, and then also involvement in publicly-funded science. evaluate accordingly. In addition, public 5. Promote evaluation and values, and the ethical, legal, and social organisational learning. We don’t implications of science and technology always know what knowledge will should be considered explicitly, both as be most useful in efforts to solve a part of internal science policy decision- problems, nor the best way to purse making, and as a part of efforts to that knowledge. But organisations engage the public on science issues. that learn from experience, and apply 2. Recognise diversity. There is no that knowledge to future decisions single best way to fund and manage and investments, are more likely to science with public money, nor is make significant progress than those there a single best way to monitor and that proceed blindly. There is a need evaluate those investments. Beware to learn from the past, as well as for experimentation and new thinking in of universal standards (eg net present science policy. valuation, journal citations) and funding models (eg peer review) for science, and 6. Remember the rest of the world. instead consider whether the institutional Australia represents a tiny fraction structures in place are appropriate for of world science, which is already the circumstances. Just as we expect global and continuing to globalise. some failure as a part of scientific Science policy debates in traditional experimentation, we should expect ‘superpowers’ such as the US, Europe that some science policy models will and Japan will be different from those work better than others, and seek to here. Science-policy decision-making innovations and improvements over time. needs to be cognisant of this – linked There are new tools and frameworks into international best practice and that can help in planning and evaluating efforts but also clearer about the different approaches to science policy. balancing of Australia’s unique national

Science policy: beyond budgets and breakthroughs 23 needs and values and international objectives and imperatives. ‘International’ issues and considerations are not a separate sub-set but should be a part of all science policy decisions. In promoting and implementing enhanced science policy across the Australian Government, an obvious issue is the need for greater whole-of-government coordination. To constructively engage the range of other departments and agencies involved in science and science policy, DIISR has an opportunity to lead the updating of the Australian Government science policy framework informed by both theory and practice. Practical suggestions are provided below of areas where engagement could commence across government to improve science policy, informed by the six principles outlined above. 1. Examine the evidence base across government for making better science policy decisions and lead work to improve this (as part of existing work on innovation metrics). 2. Lead an initiative to look at the use of science in policy across government and ways to improve this, contributing to a more sophisticated understanding of ‘evidence-based policy’. 3. Set out principles for science priority- setting on behalf of the nation that are more inclusive and forward-looking. 4. Foster networks and a community of practice across existing boundaries to enable the sharing and improved coordination of techniques and tools used in Australia to improve science policy. 5. Examine the potential of using a small portion of existing government funding for science to support science policy research, with researchers encouraged to undertake activities directly relevant to government needs. This could also include related training and education.

Science policy: beyond budgets and breakthroughs 24 7. Conclusion The principles set out above aim to provide a practical framework, to improve By all measures, the United States is still the linkages between science policy the world’s strongest scientific nation. In his decisions and the social, economic and 2011 State of the Union speech14, President environmental outcomes that flow from the Obama confirmed the importance of science they support. science in meeting America’s goals, and of This will be an ongoing project, and it is of investing in science at levels not seen “since course not a new one. In 1979, Dr Herbert the height of the Space Race”. And yet the Cole ‘Nugget’ Coombs wrote a short paper US lacks a single, coherent national science entitled Science and technology: for what policy. So does national science policy purpose? which was later taken up by the actually matter? Sarewitz (2007) concludes Commission for the Future, established at that it would matter a great deal if it could that time within the Department of Science become more than science budget policy, of the Australian Government. and address broader public values. In that paper, Coombs argued that science The policy focus on innovation and was of critical importance, but that it economic productivity has helped to “needed to reconsider its objective, to demonstrate part of the significant reorient to some degree its directions, and, contribution that science makes to particularly, to examine its impact upon the Australia. But a renewed focus on science human and social aspects of society”. policy – and the complexity of science in society – is needed to develop this into a More than 30 years later, those imperatives more coherent and coordinated picture. We are just as important, and they relate to believe that science will struggle to gather science policy just as they do to science itself. increased public funding and support until it can engage with these issues. Our argument in this paper has been that the commonplace focus on science budgets and breakthroughs has hindered the development of a more holistic science policy. In taking science policy forward, it is not our intention to recommend to government specific ‘answers’ to science policy questions. We do not propose an appropriate balance between basic and applied research, we do not suggest new national priorities, we do not propose specific changes to some institutions over others and we do not emphasise quality over impact, or vice versa. In truth, all of these things are important questions for science policy, but there are no permanent ‘right’ answers to them. They will and should be addressed openly by a dynamic and democratic process, which is linked to the public values that form the rationale for public science, recognising that these values will themselves change over time. Our focus is the deeper question – what institutions and processes does the Australian Government put in place to make sure that we can keep addressing these important questions and learning 14See http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press- from previous experience, for better policy office/2011/01/25/remarks-president-state- and better science? union-address

Science policy: beyond budgets and breakthroughs 25 8. References cited Crow, M.M. (2011) Time to rethink the NIH. Guston, D.H. (2006) Science Policy: Nature 471, 569-571. Institutions and Issues, paper delivered at NSF workshop on the Social Organization Adams, J., King, C., Webster, B., (2010) Cutler, T., (2008) Venturous Australia: of Science and Science Policy. Accessed at Thomson-Reuters Global Research Report Building strength in innovation. Report to the http://www.cspo.org/library/search/?action – Australia and New Zealand. Accessed at Australia Government, Canberra. Accessed =getfile&file=425$section=lib http://researchanalytics.thomsonreuters. at http://www.innovation.gov.au/Innovation/ com/m/pdfs/globalresearchreport-anz.pdf Policy/Documents/NISReport.pdf Guston, D.H. (2008) Innovation policy: not just a jumbo shrimp. Nature 454, 940-941. ARC (2010) Excellence in Research Cutler, T., (2010) Australia’s innovation for Australia 2010 National Report. agenda: a stocktake. Accessed at www. Lach, D., Rayner, S., Ingram, H. (2005) Commonwealth of Australia, cutlerco.com.au Taming the Waters: Strategies to Canberra. http://www.arc.gov.au/era/ Domesticate the Wicked Problems of Demeritt, D. (2010) Harnessing science outcomes_2010.htm Water Resource Management. International and securing societal impacts from publicly Journal of Water 3, 1. Bimber, B.A. (1996) The Politics of funded research: reflections on UK science Expertise in Congress: The Rise and Fall of policy. Environment and Planning A, 42. Lahsen, M., Nobre, C.A. (2007) Challenges the Office of Technology Assessment. State of connecting international science and DIISR, (2009) Powering Ideas: An University of New York Press, Albany, NY. local level sustainability efforts: the case of Innovation Agenda for the 21st Century. the Large-Scale Biosphere‚ Atmosphere Bozeman, B. (2007) Public Values and Department of Industry, Innovation, Science Experiment in Amazonia. Environmental Public Interest: Counterbalancing Economic and Research. Commonwealth of Australia. Science & Policy 10, 62. Individualism. Georgetown University Press. http://www.innovation.gov.au/Innovation/ Bozeman, B., Sarewitz, D. (2005) Public Policy/Documents/PoweringIdeas.pdf Lane, J. (2010) Let’s make science metrics more scientific. Nature 464, 488-489. values and public failure in U.S. science Dilling, L. (2007) Towards science in policy. Science & Public Policy 32, 119. support of decision making: characterizing Logar, N. (2009) Towards a Culture of Bozeman, B., Sarewitz, D. (2011) Public the supply of carbon cycle science. Application: Science and Decision Making Value Mapping and Science Policy Environmental Science & Policy 10, 48. at the National Institute of Standards & Technology. Minerva: A Review of Science, Evaluation. Minerva 49, 1-23. Dilling, L., Holbrook, J.B., Logar, N., Learning & Policy 47, 345-366. Brooks, H., (1996) The Evolution of U.S. Maricle, G., McNie, E.C., Meyer, R., Neff, Science Policy, in: Smith, B., Barfield, C. M., (2010) Usable Science: A Handbook Logar, N. (2011) Chemistry, Green (Eds.), Technology, R&D, and the Economy. for Science Policy Decision Makers. Chemistry, and the Instrumental Valuation Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, pp. Science Policy Assessment and Research of Sustainability. Minerva 49, 113-136. On Climate, Washington DC. http:// 15-47. Logar, N.J., Conant, R.T. (2007) sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/sparc/outreach/ Reconciling the supply of and demand for Buizer, J., Jacobs, K., Cash, D. (2010) sparc_handbook/index.html Making short-term climate forecasts useful: carbon cycle science in the U.S. agricultural Linking science and action. Proceedings of Feeney, M.K., Bozeman, B. (2007) Public sector. Environmental Science & Policy 10, the National Academy of Sciences. Values and Public Failure: Implications of 75. the 2004-2005 Flu Vaccine Case. Public Lovbrand, E. (2007) Pure science or policy Bush, V., (1945) Science, The Endless Integrity 9, 175-190. Frontier: a Report to the President by involvement? Ambiguous boundary- Vannevar Bush, Director of the Office of Friedland, W.H., Barton, A. (1976) Tomato work for Swedish carbon cycle science. Scientific Research and Development, technology. Society 13, 35-42. Environmental Science & Policy 10, 39. Washington, United States Government Gaughan, M., (2002) Public Value Mapping Lyons, K. and Whelan, J. (2010) Printing Office. Breast Cancer Case Studies, in: Sarewitz, Community Engagement to Facilitate, Carr, K., (2010) Speech to launch D. (Ed.), Knowledge Flows and Knowledge Legitimize and Accelerate the OECD innovation workshop. Collectives: Understanding the Role Advancement of Nanotechnologies in Accessed at http://minister.innovation. of Science and Technology Policies in Australia. Nanoethics 4, 53-66. Development. Consortium for Science, gov.au/Carr/Speeches/Pages/ Macilwain, C. (2010) Science economics: Policy and Outcomes, Washington, DC. OECDINNOVATIONWORKSHOPLAUNCH. What science is really worth. Nature 465, http://www.cspo.org/home/cspoideas/ aspx 682-684. know_flows/Rock-Vol2-2.PDF Carr, K., (2011) Speech to HASS on the Maricle, G.E. (2011) Prediction as an Ghosh, P., (2010) ‘Vital’ science spared Hill 2011. Accessed at http://minister. Impediment to Preparedness: Lessons from deep cuts. BBC News: Science & innovation.gov.au/Carr/Speeches/Pages/ the US Hurricane and Earthquake Research Environment. Accessed http://www. HASSontheHill2011.aspx Enterprises. Minerva, 1-25. bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment- Cash, D.W., Clark, W., Alcock, F., Dickson, 11579949?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_ Matthews, M. (2009) Giving preparedness a N.M., Eckley, N., Guston, D.H., Jager, J., medium=statusnet central role in science and innovation policy. Mitchell, R.B. (2003) Knowledge Systems FASTS policy discussion paper. Accessed Guston, D.H. (1994) Congressmen and for Sustainable Development. Proceedings at http://www.fasts.org/images/news2009/ scientists in the making of science policy: of the National Academy of Sciences of the preparedness%20nov%2009.pdf United States of America 100, 8086-8091. The Allison Commission, 1884–1886. Minerva 32, 25-52.

Science policy: beyond budgets and breakthroughs 26 McNie, E.C. (2007) Reconciling the supply Sarewitz, D. (2004) How science makes 9. Further reading of scientific information with user demands: environmental controversies worse. an analysis of the problem and review of Environmental Science & Policy 7, 385. Reconciling Supply and Demand (RSD): the literature. Environmental Science & Sarewitz, D. (2007) Does Science Policy A short handbook for decision-makers Policy 10, 17. Matter? Issues in Science & Technology 23, on managing science to generate useful McNie, E.C., (2008) Co-Producing Useful 31-38. information for decision-makers has more Climate Science for Policy: Lessons from information on the RSD framework, as Sarewitz, D., Foladori, G., Invernizzi, N., the RISA Program, Environmental Studies. well as practical examples and advice (see Garfinkel, M. (2004) Science Policy in its University of Colorado, Boulder, CO. Dilling et al., 2010). Social Context. Philosophy Today 49, Mervis, J. (2011) How Science Eluded 67-83. A special issue of the academic journal the Budget Ax‚ For Now. Science 332, Environmental Science & Policy contains Sarewitz, D., Pielke, R.A., Jr. (2007) 407-408. two articles establishing the conceptual The neglected heart of science policy: framework (McNie, 2007; Sarewitz and Meyer, R. (2011) Public Values Failures of reconciling supply of and demand for Pielke, 2007), as well as several case Climate Science in the US. Minerva 49, science. Environmental Science & Policy studies, in which the framework is applied to 47-70. 10, 5. agricultural research, carbon cycle science, NRC, (1996) Understanding Risk: Informing Sclove, R. (2010) Reinventing technology sustainability science (Dilling, 2007; Lahsen Decisions in a Democratic Society, in: assessment. Issues in Science and and Nobre, 2007; Logar and Conant, 2007; Committee on Risk Characterization, Technology, Fall 2010. Lovbrand, 2007). See also a case study on C.o.B.a.S.S.a.E. (Ed.). National Academies the US National Institute of Standards and Scott, J.C. (1998) Seeing Like a State. Yale Press, Washington DC. http://books. Technology (NIST) by Logar (2009). University Press, New Haven. nap.edu/openbook.php?record_ Public Value Mapping (PVM): id=5138&page=R1 Slade, C. (2011) Public Value Mapping of The PVM framework, as it applies to Equity in Emerging Nanomedicine. Minerva NRC, (2005) Thinking Strategically: The policy analysis across a range of problem 49, 71-86. Appropriate Use of Metrics for the Climate areas, is developed in a book by Barry Change Science Program. National Stokes, D.E. (1997) Pasteur’s quadrant : Bozeman (2007). Its direct applicability to Academies Press, Washington, DC. basic science and technological innovation. science policy is explored in two papers by http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_ Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Bozeman and Sarewitz (2005, 2011). id=11292 Switkowski, Z. (2011) Take the politics A series of case studies across a range of OECD, (2010a) The OECD Innovation out of assessment of technology. The scientific disciplines and problem areas show Strategy: Getting a Head Start on Australian, 9 February. the wide applicability of PVM as it relates to Tomorrow. Orgnisation for Economic connecting knowledge with public values UNESCO, (2010) UNESCO Science Cooperation and Development. Directorate (Gaughan, 2002; Feeney and Bozeman, Report 2010: The Current Status of for Science, Technology and Industry. 2007; Logar, 2011; Maricle, 2011; Meyer, Science around the World. UNESCO http://www.oecd.org/document/15/0,3746 2011; Slade, 2011; Valdivia, 2011). Publishing. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ ,en_2649_34273_45154895_1_1_1_1,00. images/0018/001899/189958e.pdf Further resources, including a handbook html for decision-makers, and a trial of PVM Valdivia, W. (2011) The Stakes in Bayh- OECD, (2010b) The OECD Science, as a planning and management tool, are Dole: Public Values Beyond the Pace of Technology and Industry Outlook under development. Innovation. Minerva 49, 25-46. 2010. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. http:// Wetmore, J.M. (2007) Introduction to www.oecd.org/document/36/0,3746, special issue on science, policy and social en_2649_34273_41546660_1_1_1_1,00. inequity. Science & Public Policy (SPP) 34, html 83-84. Pfaff, A., Broad, K., Glantz, M. (1999) Who Winner, L. (1986) The Whale and the Reactor: benefits from climate forecasts? Nature A Search for Limits in an Age of High 397, 645-646. Technology. University of Chicago Press. Pielke, R.A., Jr. (2007) The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge University Press. Sampat, B.N., (2009) The Dismal Science, The Crown Jewel and the Endless Frontier: An Economist’s Perspective on the NIH, in: Foray, D. (Ed.), The New Economics of Technology Policy. Edward Elgar, p. 148. Sarewitz, D. (1996) Frontiers of illusion: science, technology and the politics of progress. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA. Science policy: beyond budgets and breakthroughs 27