Science Policy Makers Research Articles

Canadian Science, Technology and Innovation Policy: The Product of Regional Networking?

Salazar M. and Holbrook A. (2007) Canadian science, technology and innovation policy: the product of regional networking?, Regional Studies 41, 1129–1141. The structure of federal countries poses challenges to science, technology and innovation (STI) policy-making and regional development not found in centrally governed nations. This paper tests the thesis that Canadian STI policy is highly regionalized in practice because of its networked structure, despite most of the funding coming from the federal government, which formulates most STI policies and programmes. Many of Canada's STI programmes promote the creation of networks. These networks are part of the federal emphasis given to provincial/regional economic development and more recently to industrial cluster promotion. Salazar M. et Holbrook A. (2007) La politique de STI au Canada: est-ce un produit de la constitution de réseaux régionaux?, Regional Studies 41, 1129–1141. La structure des pays fédéraux présente un challenge à la politique de science, de technologie et d'innovation (STI) et à l'aménagement du territoire, ce qui n'est pas le cas dans les pays centralisés. On cherche à évaluer la thèse sur la forte régionalisation de la politique de STI au Canada en pratique à cause de sa structure en réseau, malgré que la plupart du financement provienne du gouvernement fédéral, qui élabore également des politiques et des programmes. Au Canada, beaucoup des programmes de STI favorisent la création de réseaux. Ces réseaux constituent en partie le point de mire fédéral quant au développement provincial et régional et, plus récemment, pour ce qui est de la promotion des grappes industrielles. Canada Politique de science de technologic et d'innovotion Réseaux Salazar M. und Holbrook A. (2007) Politik für Wissenschaft, Technologie und Innovation in Kanada: das Produkt regionaler Netzwerke?, Regional Studies 41, 1129–1141. Die Struktur der Bundesländer stellt die Politik für Wissenschaft, Technologie und Innovation und die Regionalentwicklung vor Herausforderungen, die sich in zentral regierten Nationen nicht ergeben. Wir schlagen eine Überprüfung der These vor, dass die Politik für Wissenschaft, Technologie und Innovation in Kanada in der Praxis aufgrund seiner Netzwerkstruktur hochgradig regionalisiert ist, obwohl der Großteil der Finanzierung durch die Bundesregierung erfolgt, welche auch die Politiken und Programmeme formuliert. Viele der kanadischen Programmeme für Wissenschaft, Technologie und Innovation fördern die Entwicklung von Netzwerken. Diese Netzwerke sind Bestandteil des föderalen Schwerpunkts, den die Wirtschaftsentwicklung in den Provinzen und Regionen und seit einiger Zeit auch die Förderung industrieller Ballungsräume aufweist. Kanada Politik für Wissenschaft, Technologie und Innovation Netzwerke Salazar M. y Holbrook A. (2007) La política de ciencia, tecnología e innovación de Canadá: ¿es producto de redes regionales?, Regional Studies 41, 1129–1141. La estructura de los países federales presenta retos para la formulación de política en ciencia, tecnología e innovación (CTI), y para el desarrollo regional, no encontrados en naciones con gobiernos centralizados. En este artículo ponemos a preuba la tesis de que la política canadiense en CTI es altamente regionalizada en la práctica, por su estructura en red, a pesar de que la mayor parte del financimiento proviene del gobierno federal, quien también formula las políticas y programas. Muchos de los programas canadienses en CTI promueven la creación de redes. Estas redes son parte del énfasis federal asignado al desarrollo económico provincial/regional y, más recientemente, a la promoción de clusters industriales. Canadá Política de ciencia, tecnología e innovación Redes

Challenges in transdisciplinary technology foresight: cognition and robotics

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to report on experiences and reflect on challenges in transdisciplinary technology foresight as exemplified by cognition and robotics research.Design/methodology/approachThe study was conducted as a broad transdisciplinary process involving users and producers of robot technology solutions as well as scientists and other experts in cognition and robotics. Transdisciplinarity is understood as the transcendence of disciplinary modes together with the involvement and participation of non‐scientists in problem formulation and knowledge provision. The study focuses on the possibilities for innovation at the crossroads where robotics and cognition meet.FindingsThe paper reflects on the following methodological issues: medium‐ and long‐term research and innovation possibilities and barriers in a transdisciplinary context; the classification and framing of transdisciplinary fields; the facilitation of technology foresight processes; and the trustworthiness of the foresight process and its recommendations.Practical implicationsThe results have been disseminated among relevant advisory and grant‐awarding bodies within research and innovation, relevant knowledge institutions and universities, and companies on both the development and user sides of the technologies.Originality/valueThe paper contributes to European experiences on national‐level foresight exercises. The conceptual findings of the case study are of value to science and innovation policy makers, foresight practitioners and scholars within the field.

Evaluations of individual scientists and research institutions

Evaluations of individual scientists and research institutions

Mode 2 knowledge production: evidence from orphan drug networks

This paper seeks to contribute to the understanding of public participation in the process of science policy-making and the lay public's contribution to scientific knowledge production. Nowotny et al (2001) claim that the traditional boundaries between expert and lay knowledge are being transgressed and science and technology are thereby enriched. I provide empirical evidence that a new post-academic model of innovation has emerged where contextual knowledge is socially constructed and integrated into the innovation process. This research indicates that patients and lay experts do not simply speak to science (Nowotny et al, 2001) but in the case of orphan drug development contribute to complex political and regulatory negotiations and collaborate in knowledge production working alongside scientists, clinicians, industry and academics as equal partners, demonstrating the relationships between scientific expertise, public policy-making and the public.

Popular technology: exploring inequality in the information economy

Are we asking the wrong questions about inequality in the information economy? This paper explores what scholars and activists miss when we frame our critiques of science, technology and inequality only in terms of distributive justice. In it, I suggest that recent feminist scholarship on justice and oppression offers important correctives to the “distributional ethic” of science and technology policy-making. I argue that strategies that focus on oppression rather than distribution—like the “popular technology” technique described here—are better suited to understanding and ameliorating the complex inequalities of the information age. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Introduction. China in the era of life science and biotechnology

China has won the world's attention with its booming economic development since the late 1970s. In the new century, it is thought that biotechnology and its related industries will be one of the major impetuses of the social economy. The concept of bioeconomy has been generally accepted worldwide

Exploring the “value” of academic patents: IP management practices in UK universities and their implications for Third-Stream indicators

Third-Stream activities have become increasingly important in the UK. However, valuing them in a meaningful way still poses a challenge to science and technology analysts and policy makers alike. This paper reviews the general literature on “patent value” and assesses the extent to which these established measures, including patent citation, patent family, renewal and litigation data, can be applied to the university context. Our study examines indicators of patent value for short and mid-term evaluation purposes, rather than indicators that suffer from long time lags. We also explore the extent to which differences in IP management practices at universities may have an impact on the validity and robustness of possible indicators. Our observations from four UK universities indicate that there are considerable differences between universities as to how they approach the IP management process, which in turn has implications for valuing patents and how they track activity in this area. In their current form, data as collected by universities are not sufficiently robust to serve as the basis for evaluation or resource allocation.

Identifying and characterizing public science‐related fears from RSS feeds

AbstractA feature of modern democracies is public mistrust of scientists and the politicization of science policy, e.g., concerning stem cell research and genetically modified food. While the extent of this mistrust is debatable, its political influence is tangible. Hence, science policy researchers and science policy makers need early warning of issues that resonate with a wide public so that they can make timely and informed decisions. In this article, a semi‐automatic method for identifying significant public science‐related concerns from a corpus of Internet‐based RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feeds is described and shown to be an improvement on a previous similar system because of the introduction of feed‐based aggregation. In addition, both the RSS corpus and the concept of public science‐related fears are deconstructed, revealing hidden complexity. This article also provides evidence that genetically modified organisms and stem cell research were the two major policy‐relevant science concern issues, although mobile phone radiation and software security also generated significant interest.

Maintaining the Foundations of Science

I applaud the recent Editorial (“Science as smoke screen,” S. C. Trombulak et al. , 19 May, p. [973][1]) decrying changes to the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973 outlined in the bill H.R. 3824. I attended the mark-up of H.R. 3824 in the House of Representatives Resources Committee and witnessed firsthand the contentious nature of the bill, as well as the influence of strong political will on the success of this legislation. I am concerned that given the current political direction and climate in the United States, the suggestion that an independent scientific advisory panel be assembled to advise the U.S. Secretary of the Interior on relevant scientific issues misses an important point. Although such a panel could be a step in the right direction, unless an entirely new framework for federal advisory committees is established, this panel ultimately would be at the discretion of political appointees. Thus, a new panel would likely be prone to the same fate as the Department of Energy's Scientific Advisory board: disbanded after a closed-door meeting ([1][2]). The abolishment of this independent board, reportedly because it was being deemed unnecessary ([2][3]) after nearly 16 years of service, demonstrates the lack of value ascribed to scientific input by the current administration and their subordinates. We need to emphasize creative solutions that provide an avenue for science in relevant policy-making and to protect this channel from the whims of changing political pressures or personalities. In addition, all scientists must recognize these as attacks not only on science in policy-making, but on the scientific process more generally. If people no longer respect the scientific method as a valuable means for pursuing answers, as is the growing trend, we might not only see the disbanding of scientific advisory boards, but the disappearance of the foundations that support science in this country. 1. 1.[↵][4] 1. G. Brumfiel , Nature 440, 725 (2006). [OpenUrl][5][CrossRef][6][PubMed][7][Web of Science][8] 2. 2.[↵][9] 1. M. Janofsky , “Science Advisory Board Is Abolished,” N.Y. Times , 7 April 2006 (available at ). [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1129508 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1. in text [5]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DNature%253B%2BPhysical%2BScience%2B%2528London%2529%26rft.stitle%253DNature%253B%2BPhysical%2BScience%2B%2528London%2529%26rft.aulast%253DHopkin%26rft.auinit1%253DM.%26rft.volume%253D440%26rft.issue%253D7085%26rft.spage%253D725%26rft.epage%253D725%26rft.atitle%253DWellcome%2BTrust%2Bfuelled%2Bbid%2Bto%2Bsave%2BBritish%2Bscience%2Btreasure.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1038%252F440725a%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F16598220%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [6]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/440725a&link_type=DOI [7]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=16598220&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsci%2F313%2F5785%2F297.atom [8]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000236548400009&link_type=ISI [9]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2. in text

America's lab report: investigations in high school science

Laboratory experiences as a part of most U.S. high school science curricula have been taken for granted for decades, but they have rarely been carefully examined. What do they contribute to science learning? What can they contribute to science learning? What is the current status of labs in our nationi'1/2s high schools as a context for learning science? This book looks at a range of questions about how laboratory experiences fit into U.S. high schools: * What is effective laboratory teaching? * What does research tell us about learning in high school science labs? * How should student learning in laboratory experiences be assessed? * Do all student have access to laboratory experiences? * What changes need to be made to improve laboratory experiences for high school students? * How can school organization contribute to effective laboratory teaching? With increased attention to the U.S. education system and student outcomes, no part of the high school curriculum should escape scrutiny. This timely book investigates factors that influence a high school laboratory experience, looking closely at what currently takes place and what the goals of those experiences are and should be. Science educators, school administrators, policy makers, and parents will all benefit from a better understanding of the need for laboratory experiences to be an integral part of the science curriculumi'1/2and how that can be accomplished.

Technology foresight on Danish nano‐science and nano‐technology

PurposeThe purpose is to report on a Danish nano‐science and nano‐technology foresight project carried out in 2004.Design/methodology/approachThe foresight process had the following key elements: review of international technology foresight projects on nano‐technology; mapping of Danish nano‐science and nano‐technology; broad internet survey among interested parties; expert reports; workshops related to the expert reports; analysis of the dynamics of innovation within nano‐technology; survey on hazards and environmental and ethical aspects; group interviews with members of the public.FindingsThe article reflects on the following methodological issues: domain classification and its influence on conclusions; the use of statements or hypotheses; trustworthiness of the foresight process and its recommendations.Practical implicationsRecommendations from the project have already been used in decision‐making on R&D funding and in strategic deliberation in publicly funded institutions conducting R&D. Others are expected to be used for decision‐making, and some are being discussed in research councils and ministries or are being investigated and developed further. Moreover, the foresight process has created broader awareness of, and debate especially about, the hazardous aspects of nano‐technology among researchers and decision makers.Originality/valueThe article contribute the to the European experiences with national level foresight exercises. The case and the findings are of value for science and innovation policy makers, foresight practitioners and scolars within the field.

Agencies Hope to Cash In on the Allure of Competition

In the wake of the Ansari X Prize for space travel, U.S. science policymakers see prizes as a way to stretch tight budgets and uncover new talent.

Science Policy and Politics

Science is never far from government policymaking. Throughout history, scientists have been rewarded or punished depending on whether their scientific views sup ported the policies preferred by the people in power. When science and the enlightenment that science fosters do not support politically favored policies, science suffers. During the last 4 years, we in the United States have observed a notable clash between science and an administration that believes it can make policy without open scientific debate. Now there are warnings from the White House of retribution against the science community that has challenged this ad ministration. Will the next 4 years be different? Will the Bush administration change its politicized approach to science or will it continue to attack, suppress, and misrepresent science to the public? Will distortion of science for policymaking be limited to domestic decisions, or will it impinge on programs beyond our borders-in other countries and in international organizations? The Bush administration has united the scientific com munity in protest over the way this administration has de meaned the integrity of science and scientists. Scientists' opposition to this administration is, in my memory, unprec edented. Scientists, new to bringing their scientific concerns into the public debate, have proceeded with caution and carefully reasoned analyses. Emanating from every scientific quarter, opposition to the administration's policies departs radically from the usually mild discontent with government science policy that is not uncommon in our country. Perhaps scientists perceive the very integrity of science to be in jeopardy. Surely, it is not surprising that epidemiologists are speaking out early. Epidemiologic research (which, among other things, assesses the human health consequences of exposures) has often experienced nasty political pressure. From the start, the administration opened a broad cam paign against science-based public health and environmental regulation. This administration has reversed science-based policy decisions on global warming,' arsenic in drinking water,2 ergonomics in the workplace,3 and diesel exhaust particulates in underground mines.4 The administration sub stituted policies that offended many advocates (and probably pleased others). More important, the process itself alarmed scientists because of its disregard for science. A more sys tematic attack on science policymaking has followed.

Grants Councils Say More Isn't Nearly Enough to Keep Science Healthy

OTTAWA-- Research no longer carries the political cachet it once did. That9s the message Canadian science policy makers are taking from a new budget put forward last week.

A focus on the individual

In January 2003, Time magazine published a feature article on the ‘brain drain’ of the brightest researchers in Europe to the USA (Chu, 2004) and cited two German scientists who, on returning from the USA, were so upset about the situation that they planned to cross the Atlantic again as soon as possible. The Scientist was another journal that ran several articles about this problem (Stafford, 2004). The foreign press are not alone in highlighting the problem—these criticisms are also shared by German scientists. Thomas Tuschl, an assistant professor at Rockefeller University (New York, NY, USA), explained why he left a group leader position at the Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry in Gottingen, Germany, to work in the USA. “I had to get really good postdocs in order to withstand the competition,” he said, and he found it easier to attract them to his laboratory at Rockefeller University than if he had stayed in Germany. Gunter Meister, one of Tuschl's postdocs who actually plans to return to Germany, was even more blunt. “[Science in] Germany is not attractive, not even for Germans,” he said, referring to the arcane and unpredictable career paths for young scientists. Many science policy‐makers and administrators in Germany share his view. “It is safe to say that the new academic generation was not sufficiently supported over the last few years,” commented Hans‐Jurgen Promel, Vice President for Research at Humboldt University in Berlin, Germany. > Rather than nurturing the best and brightest, the post‐war educational system in Germany focused on equality and equity, which ensured free and broad access to education but created mediocrity in many areas, including research The good news is that the problem has dawned on both university presidents and the federal government in Berlin. Since she took office in 1998, Edelgard Bulmahn, the …

How large is the Swedish ‘academic’ sector really?: A critical analysis of the use of science and technology indicators

Sweden is perceived to be top ranking, and a ‘role model’, in terms of its volume of academic R&D. This perception is based on analyses using two standard indicators. We assess the validity of these and argue that institutional features skew the result in favour of a high ranking. Swedish academic R&D is more appropriately characterised as average, or below average, in terms of input and above average in terms of output. Science policy makers need to acknowledge this and devise policies that strengthen, rather than threaten the functioning of an efficient system.

Engaging the public in the regulation of xenotransplantation: would the Canadian model of public consultation be effective in the US?

The value of engaging the public in science policymaking is becoming increasingly controversial. In the US, however, the regulation of biotechnologies remains in the domain of the scientific elite. By contrast, Canada recently conducted a very public process aimed at including the public in the regulation of xenotransplantation. Members of the US xenotransplantation community were asked to comment on the public consultation process with specific attention given to the Canadian consultation on xenotransplantation. These scientists agreed that gathering public opinion is usually desirable but expressed some serious concerns about the methods used to gather these opinions. They challenged the notion of an informed public as defined by the organizers of the Canadian consultation. Therefore, in order for the Canadian model of public consultation to be well received in the US, there would have to be more stringent adherence to representative sampling and more rigorous public education strategies.

Science policy for risk governance.

Rather than regarding risk governance as a burden, science should embrace it as an opportunity to build public trust

Scientific information and uncertainty: challenges for the use of science in policymaking.

Science can reinforce the healthy aspects of the politics of the policy process, to identify and further the public interest by discrediting policy options serving only special interests and helping to select among "science-confident" and "hedging" options. To do so, scientists must learn how to manage and communicate the degree of uncertainty in scientific understanding and prediction, lest uncertainty be manipulated to discredit science or to justify inaction. For natural resource and environmental policy, the institutional interests of government agencies, as well as private interests, pose challenges of suppression, over-simplification, or distortion of scientific information. Scientists can combat these maneuvers, but must also look inward to ensure that their own special interests do not undermine the usefulness of science.

Science shops in Europe: the public as stakeholder

After two decades of relative silence, science shops seem to be back on the agenda of science policy-making. In this article, country-specific and country-independent factors for their success and failure and their co-operation with civil society are discussed in terms of different traditions in political culture. Science shops seem to be at a cross-roads, where their work focus and their coalitions may have to change. On the one hand, they are still connected to their roots, the social movements. On the other hand, a general trend towards business co-operation in science policy can be observed. The increasing debate about science and society interfaces lends importance to the science shop concept, as is especially visible in the recent support given them by the European Commission. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.