Technology and public policy: Whither side of Janus?

Scientists gathered in Mill Valley [CA] Thursday as part of a fact-finding mission to determine what effect the Drakes Bay Oyster Co. has on the ecology of Drakes Estero. The company’s lease allowing it to grow and harvest oysters in Drakes Estero ends in 2012, and the Point Reyes National Seashore wants to turn it into a wilderness area thereafter. But owner Kevin Lunny said the operation causes no harm and may help the ecosystem. He wants to stay. The National Research Council—an arm of the National Academy of Sciences—was tapped by the National Park Service to examine the issue at the request of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D.-Calif. That process began Thursday as the nine members of the committee—including experts in agriculture, disease, marine sciences and oceanography—heard from a variety of people connected to the issue in what had the feel of a courtroom at the Aqua Hotel . . .

Most of the developed and developing nations, including BRICS countries, have been devoting considerable attention to ST BILAT-USA in Analysis of ST Gassler et al in Priorities in science & technology policy—an international comparison. Project report commissioned by the Austrian Council for Research and Technology Development, 2004; Gokhberg et al in Deploying foresight for policy and strategy makers: creating opportunities through public policies and corporate strategies in science, technology and innovation. Springer International Publishing Switzerland, Netherlands, 2016; Grebenyuk et al in Priority setting in the EU countries and the Russian Federation: The best practices, M.: National Research University Higher School of Economics, 2016; Cagnin in Foresight-Russ 8(2):46–55, 2014; Kuwahara et al in Foresight in Japan. The Handbook of Technology Foresight Concepts and Practice. 2008; Li in Research priorities and priority-setting in China. Vinnova Analysis, Vinnova, 2009; Pouris and Raphasha in Foresight STI Gov 9(3):66–79, 2015). Relevant efforts are mainly focused on solving strategic socio-economic problems, and making efficient use of national competitive advantages (OECD in Meeting global challenges through better governance. International Co-operation in Science, Technology and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2012; European Forum on Forward Looking Activities in How to design a European foresight process that contributes to a European challenge driven RI Meissner et al. in Science, technology and innovation policy for the future. Potentials and limits of foresight studies. Springer, New York, Dordrecht, London, Heidelberg, 2013; Poznyak and Shashnov in Foresight-Russ 5(2):48–56, 2011; Sokolov and Chulok in Futures 80:17–32, 2016). S&T priorities are currently being set through a comprehensive assessment of their possible contribution to achieving sustainable socio-economic development, and strengthening the country’s competitiveness.

IN THE SYNOPSIS SECTION of my course syllabus, Science, Technology and Public Policy, I make the statement that science and technology are artifacts of the mind. As such, they are influenced by the values, attitudes, beliefs, ideologies and behavior of their creators, and by the cultures in which they are created, developed and deployed. That is, they are fundamentally human endeavors and we lose much in an examination of the products of those endeavors whenever we separate them from the people who made them. Moreover, science and technology are seldom without purpose (implicit in their design and construction) and/either goal, vectors conditioned by the sociopolitical and psychocultural milieux within which they are learned and practiced. That is, contrary to the conventional wisdom, they are not done for their own sake alone. Thus the untenability of believing in their objectivity (a social construct) or value neutrality, terms employed to mask their fundamentally political character.1 Accordingly, it is both right and proper to talk about their regulation as social products since, as devices for focusing power (a basic force of/in the universe), they have consequences for the societies which support them and employ their products in a variety of ways. Thus, science and technology policy where policy-making is understood as a proposed course of action addressed to some specific concern executed by an actor or set of actors legitimized by some social authority to do so concerns itself with making choices about what kinds of science and technology are encouraged and supported, and how they will be used, managed, evaluated and regulated as they do not exist in a social vacuum however much science education is

Journal Article Disincentives to research Get access Intellectual Property Rights in Science, Technology, and Economic Performance: International Comparison 1990 edited by Rushing Francis W and Brown Carole Ganz Westview Special Studies in Science, Technology and Public Policy, 1990, £29.95, 0-8133-7916-4 Reinaldo Plaz Reinaldo Plaz Head of the research programme at the Universidad Technologica del Centro, Valencia, Venezuela He is currently working on a PhD programme at the University of Manchester, UK. His address is Board of Studies in Science and Technology Policy, University of Manchester, M13 9PL, UK Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Science and Public Policy, Volume 18, Issue 5, October 1991, Pages 329–330, https://doi.org/10.1093/spp/18.5.329 Published: 01 October 1991

Judy Auerbach is Vice President, Public Policy at the American Foundation for AIDS Research (amfAR), where she is responsible for developing, leading, and managing the activities of amfAR’s Public Policy Office in Washington, D.C. These activities include advocating for sound, science-based HIV/AIDS policy and protecting the rights of people infected with HIV and those at risk of infection. Prior to coming to amfAR, Dr. Auerbach served as the Director of the Behavioral and Social Science Program and as the HIV Prevention Science Coordinator in the Office of AIDS Research (OAR) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). During 1998, while on a detail from the OAR, Dr. Auerbach served as Assistant Director for Social and Behavioral Sciences in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). Prior to going to the NIH, Dr. Auerbach was a Senior Program Office at the Institute of Medicine/National Academy of Sciences, where she was Study Director for the Committee on Substance Abuse and Mental Health Issues in AIDS Research. Dr. Auerbach began her policy work in Washington in 1988 as an AAAS Congressional Science Fellow, sponsored by the Society for Research in Child Development, when she worked on child, family, and health policy issues in the office of Representative Pat Schroeder. From 1989 to 1990, she served as Director of the Institute for the Study of Women and Men at the University of Southern California. She then returned to Washington and served as Associate Director for Government Affairs at the Consortium of Social Science Associations. Dr. Auerbach received her Ph.D. in sociology from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1986, and taught sociology at Widener University and the University of California, Los Angeles. In addition to a number of articles and book chapters, she is the author of the book, In the Business of Child Care: Employer Initiatives and Working Women (Praeger, 1988).

This text, written by a philosopher of science and a political theorist, introduces students to the issues and controversies surrounding science and technology policy in the United States. As the impact of technological advancement is increasingly felt, the policy-making process for science and technology is undergoing a marked transition. The making of this policy is no longer solely the function of government agencies and institutions. New actors in the policy arena are raising questions about the future of technological advancement in the United States and elsewhere, and their voices are affecting—sometimes obstructing—the traditional policy process. This book surveys the entire domain of science and technology policy making with special emphasis on the growing role of citizen participation, the ethical issues raised by modern policy problems, and the general principles that guide current policy. The authors discuss current philosophical views about the nature of science and technology as social and political entities and also consider the history of the relations between these fields and political authority. They combine an issues and case study approach with a narrative discussion of how ethical, participatory, and institutional factors have merged in the policy process. Among the topics addressed are nuclear power and siting policy, hazardous waste, communications technology, and biomedical technology. After reviewing the difficult problems facing the modern policy maker, the authors assess the methods and ethical assumptions of the current policy-making framework and consider alternatives that are more sensitive to the complexity of contemporary policy issues. Intended as a core text for courses in Science, Technology, and Public Policy, the book can also be used in interdisciplinary courses focusing on the relationship between science, technology, and society. The text is also appropriate for courses in the philosophy of science and technology and for courses in social and political philosophy.

There is growing understanding that a vibrant innovation ecosystem is an important element of a healthy and prosperous nation. What is less known is what the role of Government is in nurturing this ecosystem. In this Chapter, we explore recent experiences in Australia and Asia with science and technology (S&T) policy. For example, we consider how university-industry collaboration occurs across different nations and its effect on the diffusion of technology. We reflect on what S&T policy can tell us about public policy in the Asian century and how we might manage the ongoing tension between national interests and global prosperity. We also delve into recent Asian experiences with S&T policies, examining a range of programs in Asia that have been introduced.

Underdevelopment in Africa continues to be one of the most perplexing issues of this century. Conventional development policies have failed throughout the continent, and lack of scientific and technological capabilities is considered among the primary causes of the prevailing crisis. Attempts to address underdevelopment have been conducted in terms of what is scientifically and technically feasible in industrialized countries instead of what is socioeconomically and culturally desirable in Africa. Undue reliance on foreign scientific and technological expertise hinders local innovation and creativity, which are crucial to self-sustained development. Redefinition of science and technology policies is urgently needed. Africa should not circumvent the use of science and technology in the quest for development, but it is crucial that African policy makers determine in whose interests science and technology will be developed.

Political scientists talk about the ‘securitisation’ of public policy: the process by which organisational or political actors use security rationales to support claims for funding particular activities or where the ‘security state’ uses the rhetoric of external (or internal) threat as a pretext for entering into new policy fields or for developing new powers.1 Such ideas should be familiar to historians of science and technology (S&T) policy because the very notion that governments should intervene to fund and direct science was largely a product of the Cold War security environment. Since 9/11 a new threat has been constructed: the threat of international terrorism. We are said to be living in ‘a new anti-terrorism era’ that has widespread implications for public policy — including S&T policy.2

Empowering technology: Implementing a US strategy : Edited by Lewis M. Branscomb, 315 pp., £33.75 cloth, £15.95 paper

Four years ago, Frank Press came to Washington to take on what amounts to the position of chief scientist for the United States of America. He came to serve a new President as his personal science advisor and to be director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President. As a new administration takes over in Washington, Frank Press has returned to MIT for a brief respite before assuming, on July 1, 1981, the presidency of the National Academy of Sciences for a 6‐year term.When Frank Press arrived in Washington in early 1977, he was relatively unknown in political circles. He would have to become very well known to the President, to members of the House and Senate committees, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to representatives from industry, and to all departments of the executive branch of government. Frank Press leaves office not only very well known but very well respected as an apolitical human who served effectively among politicians.

Social consensus is considered to be a necessary condition for a policy to be introduced and implemented effectively. This is the case with the approval, regulation and prohibition of certain advanced medical research and technology, especially when they could invoke moral disputes in society. Public policies on organ transplantation, definition of death, euthanasia, genetic screening and diagnosis, and human stem cell research are recent examples. The concept of consensus, however, is elusive, along with the measures to secure it. Technocratic decision making, as a paternalistic activity frequently led by experts, sometimes poses a challenge to democratic decision making, supposedly based on a well-informed and rational public. It also remains to be proved whether public involvement in policymaking can be a solution to ethical value conflicts in society. From the perspective of policy sciences, this paper first introduces the concept of consensus, especially consensus on moral issues in pluralistic societies, and its implications to public policy, including citizen participation in decision making. Then, it briefly explains the historical background with which social consensus and public involvement have increasingly flourished in the field of technology assessments and technology policy making, including biomedical technology. Next, major institutions, governmental and nongovernmental, involved in the ethical aspects of medical research and technology, are presented along with their efforts for citizen participation. Finally, the paper discusses some of the future agendas on this issue.

Urban residents' response to and evaluation of low-carbon travel policies: Evidence from a survey of five eastern cities in China

Governments around the globe enact various energy and environmental policies focused on electricity production and consumption, conservation, waste management, water and air pollution, and many others. The public policy approaches to address such issues often lean toward a status quo that favors more powerful actors who sometimes attempt to stifle innovation. This paper reviews the "Punctuated Equilibrium Theory" framework and how it illuminates novel policy changes in an energy and environment context. This paper, entitled, "Punctuating the equilibrium: A lens to understand energy and environmental policy changes," is a unique perspective piece that details a key public policy theory using an energy/environmental lens. The goal of this paper is to outline common attributes of policy change, as highlighted by key terms and interactions. Readers can use this piece to understand and strategize for future energy and environmental policy alterations. Energy policies refer to the suite of governmental actions that address planning, generation, and consumption issues around items such as electricity, transportation, and efficiency. These decisions are sometimes politically contentious, given the complexities and interests from various sides of the stakeholder aisle. Governmental entities often enact various financial incentives, taxation strategies, conservation tactics, and many other policies to best develop solutions for society's energy and environmental future. However, these solutions sometimes require massive shocks to change the historic status quo and bring forth strategies for newer, sustainable energies that have lower environmental and social costs. Many schools of thought illustrate how key events are the stimuli for scientific change innovations toward alternative energy sources. Over the years, the public policy discipline has specifically developed a number of theories to better comprehend changes and these types of governmental decision making processes. Such theoretical frameworks include Rogers' Diffusion of Innovation Theory, Kingdon's Multiple Streams Theory, Lindblom's Incrementalism, and Baumgartner and Jones' Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PET)1, among others. Downs' Issue-Attention Cycle concept is also relevant as a means to understand the public's attention to an issue and how that stimulates change. Generations of prior scholars have utilized these policy theories in both quantitative and qualitative research. Rogers' Diffusion of Innovation Theory, later termed by scholars as "policy diffusion," is a widely used and relevant approach at framing energy and environmental policy change and adoption. This theory centers on how policies are replicated and spread (ie, best practices) over geographic areas (eg, US states). Rogers categorized different levels of innovation adopters as innovators, early adopters, early majority, later majority, and laggards. Such diffusion of innovation occurs over time, meaning that there are a number of aspects (eg, the media) that can speed or slow diffusion. Kingdon's Multiple Streams approach explains agenda changes through three "streams" of separate, simultaneous activity surge: problems, policies, and politics. Kingdon's explanation of policy change accommodates some elements of rationalism and incrementalism, which relates to Lindblom's framework, which discussed policy change as evolutionary rather than revolutionary (ie, small incremental changes rather than a few substantial changes). Other theories in this realm include Advocacy Coalitions and Choice Awareness Theory, among others. These frameworks and concepts have proven useful in revealing themes for citizen, group, and governmental actions, though their value varies depending on the policy arena and situation. History is perhaps the most important aspect in understanding energy and environmental policy formulation (eg, certain events have triggered policy change or adoption), and Baumgartner and Jones' PET offers the strongest resource for such a historical narrative. Moreover, it provides the most robust set of predefined phrases (eg, bounded rationality, disproportionate attention, framing, policy monopolies, etc) that help describe how change transpires in the complex realm of energy and environmental policy. Overall, PET can be a useful framework due to the historically radical shifts in policy adoption (eg, US state Renewable Portfolio Standards), and the fact that the United States, for instance, may be at the beginning of another radical shift in policy adoption for more renewable energies. This theory also highlights political power and how institutions (and actors, such as electric utilities) often pursue an energy policy status quo (ie, policy punctuation/adoption can happen, but only via the right set of circumstances). This highly vetted theory is both unique and valuable to the study of energy and environmental policy, particularly in industrialized countries. The phrase "punctuated equilibrium" in the public policy sciences was inspired from its original application in the natural sciences to describe dramatic shifts as opposed to incremental progress in evolution. In the discipline of public policy, equilibrium (ie, balance or stability) is the result of dominance within governmental structures in maintaining the status quo. Therefore, punctuation refers to an actual public policy change or shift using data or viewpoints to alter the decisions of policymakers. In Agendas and Instability in American Politics, scholars Frank Baumgartner and Bryan Jones developed PET as a framework to comprehend policy stability and change. They argued that long periods of policy stability, supplemented by short periods of intense change, can be explained by the important interaction of "policy images" with "policy venues." The concept of "policy images" refers to how policies are discussed and understood by the public and policy elites/experts (ie, they refer to the various perspectives one may have on a public policy issue). In contrast, "policy venues" refer to the establishments that literally make public policy decisions, such as state legislatures on renewable energy incentives. Since public policies affect individuals in dissimilar ways, the public holds diverse images, both positive and negative, of the same policy. In other words, there are various ways in which a policy is understood and discussed. As part of this process, the concept of framing helps explain the way such policy images can be arranged to make them appear technical and relevant only to experts, or linked to wider social values to heighten participation. For instance, to draw interest in the United States, persons often link ideas to the widely accepted values of independence, patriotism, and economic growth. As part of the policy image development, framing is "a mixture of empirical information and emotive appeals."2 Most public policy issues are multifaceted and, therefore, can command a wide range of policy images. For instance, energy policy can be framed in terms of public health, nuisances (eg, wind farm noise or shadow flicker), employment, taxation, the role of corporations, civil liberties, and human rights, among many others. Nevertheless, while there exist various ways to frame the same problem, there is also limited time and vitality to devote to issues. Consequently, highly complex matters are often simplified, with very few issues focused on at any one time at the expense of all the rest. Conversely, policy venues are sets of governmental institutions or actors where authoritative decisions over policy are made. Relevant examples of policy venues include the federal executive branch (in the United States), Congress (United States)/Parliament (United Kingdom), courts, and lower levels of government such as state/province and local jurisdictions. Baumgartner and Jones argue that changes in a policy image can produce changes in policy venue and, reciprocally, venue changes can facilitate image changes. The interaction between venues and images may result in long periods of stability or, in some cases, short periods of intense change. An illustration of an image and venue interaction is the case of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), which was enacted in 1969 in the United States. Around that time, there was a growing concern for nuclear energy technologies by the greater citizenry as a byproduct of World War II, with nuclear anxieties further continuing into the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s.3 Environmental groups were particularly concerned about nuclear power and the regulatory decisions made by the US federal government, and so they appealed to previously uninvolved members of Congress. Congress became more sympathetic to this new image of environmental policy and passed legislation to regulate business and help develop the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which was more consistent with the new policy image. This image was advanced in public opinion by the nuclear power plant accident at the Three Mile Island, as many lost confidence in the nuclear industry.4 In essence, persistent opposition by the environmental groups, as well as a key triggering/focusing event, shifted the policy image of nuclear power from a positive one to an overwhelmingly negative one, causing policy and programmatic changes. These changes snowballed into other developments. For instance, in 1977, the US Department of Energy formed as an agency focused on energy and environmental policies and safety in handling nuclear materials.5 In 1986, an event in the Soviet Union at Chernobyl also led to the relative decline of the nuclear power industry and these changing policy images. Consequently, the 1980s and 1990s saw an increased focus, both through policies and programs, on renewable energy technologies such as hydrogen, solar, and wind. The Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 added to the increasing image shifts from nuclear and fossil fuel technologies toward the increased exploration of alternative energy sources and more stringent environmental policies.6 Taken as a whole, the past 40 to 50 years in US energy and environmental policy have seen dramatic shifts in attention and policy image emotions, stimulating intense changes. Often, crises such as environmental disasters serve as a triggering event, focusing media, government, and public attention to an issue previously lower (or non-existent) on the policy agenda. Such triggering or focusing events may also act as dramatic symbols of problems that are already rising to greater attention. This inclination to give disproportionate attention to disasters over more routine events allows an opportunity for activists to push forth their long-standing demands. Sometimes, these parties label problems as a crisis "to elevate a concern when facing an environment overloaded with competing claims."7 Venue shopping is the phrase and strategy used to describe this situation of policy images and the seeking of sympathetic policy venues. According to Baumgartner and Jones, this tactic involves the manipulation of policy images in order to push policy debates toward favorable venues. In other words, those who have not succeeded in policy debates will seek supporters in alternative venues such as congressional committees, courts, or even state government agencies. In this quest, the manipulation of policy images explains why an issue is discussed in a particular venue and attracts the interest of the members of such venue. There are commonplace techniques of venue shopping. For example, venue shopping typically works to appeal to a broader audience so that more supportive participants get involved in the debate. Further, attacks to current policies from decision makers occur in other venues aiming to extend their own policy jurisdictions. The study of group-to-government relations has fashioned numerous approaches and an abundance of terms to describe this relationship such as competitive pluralism, state corporatism, sub-government, policy whirlpools, and iron triangles. One intriguing approach is the discussion of policy communities and policy networks as deliberated in PET. Baumgartner and Jones described policy communities as systems of limited participation containing interest groups and persons knowledgeable of a particular policy arena. This suggests a steady, close, and typically concurring relationship between a small number of groups and government. In contrast, policy networks represent a more comprehensive set of associations between interest groups and governments, which contains less stability and agreement. These concepts are illustrated in Table 1. As Table 1 outlines, policy communities are typically protected from the wider political process. This happens since public policies are dissected and analyzed at a level that a limited number of actors have the time or resources to become involved. These policy communities compose of stable relationships between public officials and influential interest groups. These relationships are sustained since the participants share a general agreement or expertise about a policy issue, and, at times, attempt to restrict others interested in the issue. Moreover, individuals involved in policy communities understand that while not all may agree with every decision made, it remains preferable to act in this manner as opposed to seeking larger networks which may diminish their power. In fact, such policy communities are often monopolistic in nature, as institutional structures that develop policy decisions while limiting the entrance of other participants. In turn, monopolistic control over policy venues makes changes in policy images difficult, which weakens the possibilities for policy change. The preservation of the policy monopoly requires an agreement to the same policy image as well as an ability to exclude groups who disagree. A policy issue is often rendered as dull, to minimize external interest, or as technical, requiring a certain level of expertise, specifically to leave out others. Accordingly, policymaking is often incremental and based on prior agreements between a small number of individuals. The monopolistic structure of a policy community can only be altered when new participants with opposing interests make their way into the community. Those excluded from the policy monopolies will attempt to shift the debate by questioning the existing approach and appealing to public officials. New understandings of public policy issues attract new participants to the policy process, which can sometimes weaken the power of policy monopolies. Once more, an example of this occurred when the negative images surrounding nuclear power helped diminish the powerful policy monopoly of the time. Environmental advocates raised the issue in several arenas, and an increased number of individuals were immersed in nuclear policymaking, causing the previous policy monopoly to collapse. Baumgartner and Jones acknowledged that shifting institutional and political environments can influence public policy change, as well as stimulate change in policy via centralized government structures. For instance, Congress in the United States can be either a source of policy stability or a promoter of change; it can work to maintain or destroy policy communities. When Congress pays more attention to a particular policy issue in response to requests, interest groups or executive agencies can force change in congressional behavior toward those issues. Members of Congress can link their interests with those of persons outside of Congress to move the issue to a different policy venue. This framework is also applicable in state legislatures and other forms of government, depending on the structure. The notions of agenda setting and bounded rationality are also fundamental components of PET. Since key decision-makers cannot consider all issues at all times, they disregard most and consider only a few at the top of their particular agenda. Moreover, some public policy issues are much more pressing than others, whereas some require quick actions. For example, economic issues (eg, unemployment) often remain high on the political agenda, while catastrophic events (eg, natural disasters) demand an immediate response. However, since the attention of audiences is limited, and the number of policy issues is seemingly limitless, the importance of each issue is open to various analyses and deliberations. More specifically, agenda setting refers to the aptitude of policymakers to focus on one policy issue while disregarding others. The absence of attention to a majority of policy issues explains why numerous public policies do not change, whereas concentrated periods of attention to other policy issues may stimulate alternative ways to frame and resolve such problems. The concept of bounded rationality suggests that policymakers' ability to implement decisions is inseparable from their objectives (ie, true rationality does not exist). Therefore, even individuals who intend to make rational choices are bound to make satisficing choices in these complex policymaking environments. These political environments of public policy change all point to the key PET concept that political systems can be characterized as both stable and dynamic. Most public policies stay the same for long periods, whereas others change very quickly and dramatically. Alternatively, public policy change in a certain arena may be incremental for several years, yet followed by overwhelming changes which set an entirely new direction for the issue(s) in the future. The aim of PET is to explain these long periods of policy stability punctuated by short, but intense, periods of change, considered on a time and evolution scale, as illustrated in Figure 1.8 The PET approach suggests that powerful political actors attempt to strategically control policy images through rhetoric and symbols in a way that favors their own political goals. Policies remain the same within certain communities since there is limited external interest, or perhaps limited capacity of outside parties to participate. Policies change when adequate external interest, often triggered via key focusing events (eg, an oil spill), initiates the collapse of the policy communities. In this scenario, external attention rises and the issues are considered in a broader environment, where power is more evenly spread and new actors can influence the agenda. If the levels of external pressure gain enough momentum, they may cause major policy punctuations, as opposed to the more common minor policy changes. The increased attention and communication can cause novel approaches to be considered, which may rouse new conflicts between political actors. Overall, with PET, changes in energy and environmental policy can be explained by a successful challenge to policy monopolies. Naturally, the majority of public policies remain unchanged for long periods since policymakers are incapable or reluctant to pay enough attention to them. However, those excluded from monopolies have an interest in challenging or reshaping the dominant way of defining policy problems, which are often triggered or brought to the agenda by focusing events. The successful re-definition of a policy problem prompts an influx of new actors. Previously excluded interest groups can work to attract the attention of decision-makers in other venues through the definition of new policy images. Practitioners working in the energy and environmental arenas can use this framework and analysis to comprehend how policy changes follow a progression of increased attention, venue shopping, and shifting policy images. As individuals come to understand the nature of a policy problem in a different way, more and more become attentive and involved. This growth in outside involvement offers an increased likelihood of an additional shift to a policy image, as new participants discuss new ideas and propose policy solutions (eg, renewable energy mandates). Although most public policy issues display stability, and there are numerous policy communities, they are continually being created and destroyed. Therefore, changing narratives and considering venue shopping may be a strategic approach to enact future, innovative energy and environmental policies. While challenges remain in powerful equilibriums that maintain the status quo, strategies such as attention seeking and public participation may assist in altering the equilibrium. This is greatly heightened with dramatic triggering or focusing events that can be catalysts for stimulating such punctuation. This framework and historical underpinning of policy change offers considerable, practical relevance for those interested in energy and environmental policy issues in terms of how future modifications can be made.

The winged bean has had an exceptionally fast rate of dispersal, development and acceptance as a new food crop throughout the tropical regions of the world. Numerous superlatives have been used to extol its virtues. Mansfield (17) was the first to call attention to the potential of the crop, and world-wide interest was generated in 1975 by the widely distributed National Academy of Sciences publication The Winged Bean: a High-Protein Crop for the Tropics (18). Revelle (22) has also called attention to the crop, along with other neglected or underutilized plants. Winged beans made the big time with a half-page article entitled “Miracle Plant. Anyone for Winged Beans?” in Time magazine (1). It was recently cited by Frank Press, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Science and Technology Adviser to the President, as an example of what science and agriculture can do in the years ahead to meet important human needs (20). What makes this previously rather obscure plant, Psophocarpus tetragonolobus (L.) DC, such a winner?