Science, Society, and Public Policy. Michael M. Crow Columbia University

Transcription

1 Science, Society, and Public Policy Michael M. Crow Columbia University

2 - THE IMPORTANCE OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCE - THE SOCIAL SHAPING OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE BASE - S&T POLICY: THE 1950 S MODEL - TRADING IN THE 1950 S MODEL

3 SCIENCE AS AN INSTRUMENT OF POLICY: Science is an instrument that can be used for a variety of social objectives, including: - Meeting Basic Human Needs - Making War - Improving the Quality of Life - Economic Growth and Development

4 SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND ECONOMIC GROWTH: Between 1870 and 1973, the U.S. economy had grown at an average rate of 3.4% annually. Between 1973 and 1993, the average rate of growth flattened to 2.3%.

5 GDP 3.4% long term rate 2.3% slow growth losses

6 Economic Growth: Importance Over the 20 years since 1973, the accumulated losses in goods and services due to slow growth have come to nearly $12 trillion, or $40,000 per person.

7 Economic Growth: Importance $12 trillion is more than enough to: Have bought each of America s landowners a new house; or, Paid off all of our government, mortgage, and credit card debt; or, Replaced all of our nation s factories, including capital equipment, with new ones.

8 Economic Growth: Importance As the triangle grows over time, so does the cumulative damage. By the year 2013, assuming the post-1973 trend of growing just one-percent less than our historical average holds, the losses would be $35 trillion of lost production since This is a loss of over $100,000 per person.

9 Economic Growth: Importance Compounded over generations, a 1 or 2 percent reduction in the overall growth rate could be the difference between the standard of living merely doubling or increasing five-fold over a 100 year period.

10 Most economists agree that scientific and technical change accounts for as much as 50% of long-run economic growth. A large number of economists argue that, when we measure scientific and technical change properly, the figure is as high as 75%.

11 NATIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS AND SCIENTIFIC/TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCE National Innovation Systems: The Complex Network of Agents, Policies, and Institutions Supporting the Process of Scientific and Technical Advance in an Economy

12 The Narrow NIS Organizations and Institutions Directly Involved in Searching and Exploring Activities, e.g. Universities and Research Laboratories

13 The Narrow NIS Public S&T Labs Mission Agencies Universities Hybrid S&T Labs Private Firms Intellectual Property Regimes Scientific and Technological Societies Technology Sharing Regimes Technology Licensing Regimes

14 The Broad NIS Includes, In Addition To The Components Of The Narrow NIS, All Economic, Political, And Other Social Institutions Affecting Learning, Searching, And Exploring Activities, e.g. A Nation s Financial System, Its Monetary Policies, And Internal Organization Of Private Firms

15 The Broad NIS Organization of Financial System User-Producer Relationships Hybrid S&T Labs Public S&T Labs Scientific and Technological Societies Mission Agencies Private Firms Technology Sharing Regimes Universities Intellectual Property Regimes Technology Licensing Regimes Monetary Policies Internal Organization of Firms Industrial Organization Natural Resources

16 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% National R&D Expenditures, By Performer: % 13% 71% 4% 7% 5% 10% 49% 24% 2% 14% 67% 10% 9% 12% National R&D ($171.0 billion) Basic Research ($29.6 billion) Applied Research ($39.8 billion) Federal Government Industry Academia U&C FFRDCs Other

17 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Sources of Academic R&D Funding, By Sector Other Academic Institutions State/Local Govt. Industry Federal Govt Year

18 The Complexity of the NIS Author Sector of the U.S. Papers Cited in Industry Patents % of Papers FFRDC Non-Prof Academic Government Industry Unknown

19 Impact of University Research Distribution of citations across U.S. performer sectors, by field: Field Academia Industry Federal FFRDC Nonprofit Other All fields Clinical medicine Biomedical research Biology Chemistry Physics Earth & space sciences Mathematics Engineering and Technology

20 Impact of University Research Patterns of cross-sector citations, by citing sector Citing sector Academia Industry Federal FFRDC Nonprofit Other articles United States, total Academic institutions Industry articles United States, total Academic institutions Industry

21 Support for Academic R&D, 1935, and (Millions of Current Dollars) % 71% 68% $16,000 80% 70% Millions of Dollars $50 63% 24% $1,474 $2,335 $646 67% $6,077 $3,409 $9,686 63% 58% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% % Federally Supported % Total Academic R&D % Federally Supported

22 The Complexity of the NIS Institutional Origin of Papers Cited in IBM Patents Other Foreign Foreign Companies Foreign Universities Other US Other U.S. Companies IBM U.S. Universities Number of References

23

24 The Components of the NIS Have Different Effects and Operate Differently Across Industries; For Example: University Science More Relevant to Some Industries than Others Different Extraindustry Sources of Technological Knowledge Across Different Industries Effectiveness of Patents Varies Across Industries

25 Science THE RELEVANCE OF UNIVERSITY SCIENCE TO INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY # of Industries Industries in Which the Relevance of with scores* Science was Large >= 5 6 Biology 12 3 Animal feed, drugs, processed fruits/vegetables Chemistry 19 3 Animal feed, meat products, drugs Geology 0 0 None Mathematics 5 1 Optical Instruments Physics 4 2 Optical Instruments, Electron tubes Agricultural Science 17 7 Pesticides, animal feed, fertilizers, food products Applied Math/ Operations Resea 16 2 Meat products, logging/sawmills Computer Science Optical Instruments, logging/sawmills, paper machinery Materials Science 29 8 Synthetic rubber, nonferrous metals Medical Science 7 3 Surgical/medical instruments, drugs, coffee Metallurgy 21 6 Nonferrous metals, fabricated metal products Chemical Engineering 19 6 Canned foods, fertilizers, malt beverages Electrical Engineering 22 2 Semiconductors, scientific instruments Mechanincal Engineering 28 9 Hand tools, specialized industrial machinery * on a scale of 1 (low) to 7 (high) Source: Rosenberg and Nelson (1994)

26 INDUSTRIES RATING UNIVERSITY RESEARCH AS IMPORTANT OR VERY IMPORTANT Fluid milk Dairy products except milk Canned specialties Logging and sawmills Semiconductors and related devices Pulp, paper, and paperboard mills Farm machinery and equipment Grain mill products Pesticides and agricultural chemicals Processed fruits and vegetables Engineering and scientific instruments Millwork, veneer, and plywood Synthetic rubber Drugs Animal Feed Source: Rosenberg and Nelson (1994)

27 THE RELEVANCE OF SCIENCE TO INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY Science # of Industries Industries in Which the Relevance of with scores* University Science was Large >= 5 6 Biology 14 8 Drugs, pesticides, meat products, animal feed Chemistry Pesticides, fertilizers, glass, plastics Geology 4 3 Fertilizers, pottery, nonferrous materials Mathematics 30 9 Optical instruments, machine tools, motor vehicles Physics Semiconductors, computers, guided missiles Agricultural Science 16 9 Pesticides, animal feed, fertilizers, food products Applied math/operations rese 32 6 Guided missiles, aluminum smelting, motor vehicles Computer Science Guided missiles, semiconductors, motor vehicles Materials Science Primary metals, ball bearings, aircraft engines Medical Science 8 5 Asbestos, drugs, surgical/medical instruments Metallurgy Primary metals, aircraft engines, ball bearings * on a scale of 1 (low) to 7 (high) Source: Rosenberg and Nelson (1994)

28 EXTRAINDUSTRY SOURCES OF TECHNOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE Source # of Industries Industries in which external with scores* contribution to knowledge was large >= 5 6 Materials Suppliers Food products, lumber/wood products, radio/tv sets Production Eqpt. Suppliers Food products, lumber/wood products, metal working Research Eqpt. Suppliers 20 4 Food products, drugs, soap/detergents, semiconductors Users 30 6 Machinery, electrical eqpt., surgical/medical instruments University Research 9 3 Animal feed, drugs Government Labs 6 2 Fertilizers, logging/sawmills, optical instruments Other Govt. Agencies 5 2 Auto components, optical instruments Technical Societies 12 3 Paper industries machinery, logging/sawmills Independent Inventors 9 5 Hand tools, metal doors/frames, etc. * on a scale of 1 (low) to 7 (high) Source: Levin et al. (1987)

29 EFFECTIVENESS OF PATENT PROTECTION ACROSS INDUSTRIES WITH TEN OR MORE RESPONSES (MEAN SCORE ON SCALE OF 1-7) Process Products Patents Patents Industry (Mean) (Mean) Pulp, paper, and paperboard Cosmetics Inorganic chemicals Organic chemicals Drugs Plastic materials Plastic products Petroleum refining Steel mill products Pumps and pumping eqpt Motors, generators, and controls Computers Communications eqpt Semiconductors Motor vehicle parts Aircraft and parts Measuring devices Medical instruments Full sample Source: Levin et al. (1987)

30 The Evolution of the American National Innovation System

31 The Evolution of the American National Innovation System: Four Periods Laissez-Faire ( ) The War and Post-War Period ( ) The Federalization Period ( ) The Revisionist Period ( ) Source: Crow (1994)

32 The Evolution of the American National Innovation System Laissez-Faire Period: A Pre-Policy Period: Government Has No Distinct Science and Technology Policy or Mission The Key Institutions in the National Innovation System: Independent Corporate R&D Labs Government Does Establish Some R&D Labs to Support Weak Industries (i.e. Mining) Beginning of the Late 1800 s: Universities Emerge as the Home of Basic Science and Advanced Training

33 The Evolution of the American National Innovation System The War and Post-War Period To Support the War Effort, the Government Establishes Many New R&D Institutions and a New, Expanded Role for Academic Science During the War, Large Scale Federal Investment, Federally Mandated R&D Objectives, Targeted Funding, and Industrial and Governmental Cooperation are the Norm By the end of the War, Hundreds of New R&D Labs had been established, and the potential of Large Scale R&D for meeting national objectives is demonstrated

34 The Evolution of the American National Innovation System The War and Post-War Period Following the Dramatic Change in Science and Technology Policy During the War, Policy Makers Sensed the Potential of Science and Technology to Serve the National Interest

35 The Evolution of the American National Innovation System The War and Post-War Period In 1944, President Roosevelt asked Vannevar Bush, the Director of the Wartime OSRD, to Look Ahead to the Role of Science in Peacetime. Bush s Design, Presented in Science the Endless Frontier, Became the Foundation for U.S. Science Policy

36 LINEAR TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT MODEL Pure Basic Research Directed Basic Research Intermediate Range Applied Research Applied Research Tech. Development Tech. Commercialization FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH AND DISCOVERY FOCUSED RESEARCH AND PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT FOCUSED DEVELOP- MENT MARKET DRIVEN TECH. DEVELOP- MENT Increasing Role of Universities Increasing Role of Industry Increasing Role of Government

37 The Evolution of the American National Innovation System The Bush Design Was Built Around the Following Characteristics: Political Autonomy: Self Regulation by Scientists: Focus on science for science s sake as well as problem solving Strong academic model of individual achievement General Accountability(linked to broad objectives of national well being) Single Major Basic Research Agency Limited resources for only the best scientists

38 The Evolution of the American National Innovation System: The Bush Design Political Autonomy Separation from Political Control Separate Governance

39 The Evolution of the American National Innovation System: The Bush Design Self-Regulation by Scientists Peer-Review

40 The Evolution of the American National Innovation System: The Bush Design Focus on Science for Science s Sake As Well as Problem Solving Basic Science/Fundamental Discovery Applied Science

41 The Evolution of the American National Innovation System: The Bush Design Strong Academic Model of Individual Achievement Scientists as Individual Thinkers

42 The Evolution of the American National Innovation System: The Bush Design General Accountability (Linked to Broad Objectives of National Well-Bring) Success Measured by Overall National Achievement

43 The Evolution of the American National Innovation System: The Bush Design Single Major Basic Research Agency NSF in original design

44 The Evolution of the American National Innovation System: The Bush Design Limited Resources for Only the Best Scientists Small Budgets

45 The Evolution of the American National Innovation System Federalization Period: By the end of the period, five types of institutions were important in the NIS: Hundreds of Large Industrial Labs Dozens of Large Federal Labs Thousands of Small Technology Oriented Labs and Companies Hundreds of Unconnected and Unplanned Federal Labs Researchers at Universities

46 The Evolution of the American National Innovation System The Revisionist Period Economic and Technological Position of the United States began to slip The Bush model prevailed: Research dollars concentrated on defense and on basic science However, pushed by local political demands, Congress did make some attempts to make to U.S. more competitive and to improve upon the Bush model

47 The Evolution of the American National Innovation System The Revisionist Period Major Efforts to Change Science Policy Stevenson-Wydler Technology Act (1980) Bayh-Dole Act (1982) National Productivity and Innovation Act (1983) Federal Technology Transfer Act (1986)

48 The American NIS Today Today, the design parameters for basic science and the cultural design for basic science and technology remain essentially those suggested by Bush.

49 The American NIS Today The Bush design is in serious need of updating and improvement, and has been for some time. The rationale for updating is simply that Bush failed to build into the system the feedback and response mechanisms needed for a postindustrial democracy.

50 The American NIS Today In updating the Bush design, we must keep in mind that the NIS today is a complex web of institutions, actors structures, and relationships. We cannot completely overhaul it while it is in motion. We must be aware of the size and the complexity in the system before prescribing change

51 The American NIS Today: Examples of Size, Complexity Interactions between Public, Private, and Hybrid Science and Technology Labs Government Funding of Academic Basic Research, Applied Research, and Development Percentage of New Products and Processes Based on Recent Academic Research

52 Distribution of R&D Laboratory Type circa Private Science Labs Public Technology Labs Hybrid Technology Labs Public Science Labs Public S&T Labs Private S&T Labs Private Technology Labs Hybrid Science Labs Hybrid S&T Labs Public Knowledge and Technology Products Private Knowledge and Technology Products

53 SUPPORT FOR ACADEMIC R&D, 1935, AND (MILLIONS OF CURRENT DOLLARS) $16,000 80% Millions of Dollars % 71% 68% 63% 67% 63% $9,686 $6,077 24% $3,409 $2,335 $1,474 $646 $50 58% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% % Federally Supported % Total Academic R&D % Federally Supported Source: Rosenberg and Nelson (1994)

54 PERCENT OF FEDERAL RESEARCH FUNDS ORIGINATING WITHING PARTICULAR AGENCIES Source: Rosenberg and Nelson (1994)

55 FEDERAL AND NONFEDERAL R&D EXPENDITURES AT UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES, BY FIELD AND SOURCE OF FUNDS, 1989 Field Thousands of % Dollars Total Science and Engineering $ 14,987, Total Sciences $ 12,599, Life Sciences $ 8,079, Physical Sciences $ 1,643, Environmental Sciences $ 982, Social Sciences $ 636, Computer Sciences $ 467, Psychology $ 237, Mathematical Sciences $ 214, Other Sciences $ 337, Total Engineering $ 2,387, Electric/Electronic $ 600,016 4 Mechanical $ 340, Civil $ 249, Chemical $ 185, Aero/Astronautical $ 146,548 1 Other $ 866, Source: Rosenberg and Nelson (1994)

56 EXPENDITURES FOR BASIC RESEARCH, APPLIED RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT, (MILLIONS OF CURRENT DOLLARS) Year Total Academic R&D ($) Basic Research ($) % Applied Research ($) % Development ($) % ,474 1, ,335 1, ,409 2, ,077 4, , ,686 6, , ,000 10, , Source: Rosenberg and Nelson (1994)

57 UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY RELATIONS Over the past two decades, there has been a significant increase in the fraction of academic research funded by industry and in the number and size of university-industry research centers. Some academics, while welcoming this trend, do not want industries to influence the research orientation of universities. Other academics both welcome industry funding and are eager to reorient their research to make it more commercially relevant and rewarding. In the 1980s, industry leaders were enthusiastic about the ability of academics to contribute to technical advance in industry. Today, however, there is considerable skepticism in industry: a prevailing view is that academics should stick to basic research and training young scientists, and to stop thinking of themselves as the sources of new technology. Source: Rosenberg and Nelson (1994)

58 % OF NEW PRODUCTS AND PROCESSES BASED ON RECENT ACADEMIC RESEARCH, U.S., % that could not have % that was developed been developed with very substanial (without substantial aid from recent delay) in the absence academic research of recent academic research Industry Products Processes Products Processes Information Processing Electronics Chemical Instruments Pharmaceuticals Metals Petroleum Average Source: Rosenberg and Nelson (1994)

59 The American NIS Today: Updating the Bush Design

60 FREEMAN S THREE PHASES OF SCIENCE POLICY Source: Crow (1994)

61 RECOMMENDATION I Political Autonomy Establishment of an institutional mechanism for forecasting our national science and technology needs

62 DESIGN PARAMETER I: POLITICAL AUTONOMY 1. CONGRESS should establish a National Science and Technology Forecasting Institute 2. OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY would use the National Science and Technology Forecasting Institute to identify the specific S&T objective of a particular administration 3. MISSION AGENCIES would develop research agendas with regard to the S&T forecast 4. NSF s research agenda and areas of focus would be mapped according to the S&T forecast

63 RECOMMENDATION II Self Regulation by Scientists Spending time and resources on educating the public about science and research Development of a formal science court for internal discipline and conflict resolution Broadening the criteria for peer review to include potential for social profit

64 DESIGN PARAMETER II: SELF REGULATION BY SCIENTISTS c Congress and the President would establish the U.S. Science Court. National Science Board would establish a greatly expanded public information and access program. Research Agencies would develop expanded criteria for project selection.

65 RECOMMENDATION III Focus on Science for Science s sake as well as Problem Solving Eliminate references to basic and applied research projects without specific definitions of these projects Evaluate projects with regard to their purpose, realizing that the type of research conducted (basic, applied, and fundamental technology development) are functions of the missions of agencies Consider all projects and program areas as equal, regardless of scientific focus or technical objective, until they are evaluated

66 DESIGN PARAMETER III Focus on Science and Problem Solving 1. OMB would establish meaningful budget categories and improved nomenclature for defining research activity. Research would be classified by purpose and not by function. 2. OSTP would develop project and program classification nomenclature for research type and purpose for uniform use in all agencies. 3. Mission Agency research agendas would be contextually placed with regard to the S&T forecast. 4. NSF s research agenda and areas of focus would be mapped according to the context setting forecast.

67 RECOMMENDATION IV Strong Academic Model of Individual Achievement Enhanced team funding mechanisms Expanded recognition mechanisms for team participation Evaluation of scientists on a group and disciplinary basis Including contributions to other fields or departments in the evaluation of particular fields or departments Heavy funding of star groups

68 DESIGN PARAMETER IV: STRONG ACADEMIC MODEL OF INDIVIDUAL ACHIEVEMENT 1. OMB would permit institution building among dispersed research enterprises such as universities. 2. Mission Agencies would concentrate funding on the best labs and roups. 3. NSF would concentrate funding by increasing grant size, develop more center type R&D efforts, and provide for enhanced linkage building between and among research groups at different institutions.

69 RECOMMENDATION V General Accountability Evaluating agency research programs based on their success or failure in attaining particular pre-defined goals and objectives Integrate these evaluations into funding and priority setting models

70 DESIGN PARAMETER V: GENERAL ACCOUNTABILITY 1.OSTP/Congress would set annual five and ten year objectives for National Science and Technology investment. 2. All Research Agencies would establish formal R&D evaluation capabilities at the agency and division levels.

71 RECOMMENDATION VI Single Basic Research Agency Define roles and functions of agencies with greater care Place National Science Foundation (NSF) in charge of building foundation knowledge and research tools for other programs of research Reorient NSF research agenda towards research foundation building needs

72 DESIGN PARAMETER VI: SINGLE BASIC SCIENCE AGENCY 1. Congress would require a linked science budget plan indicating who is doing what and how the NSF budget request is linked. 2. Research Agencies would re-think budget and planning models to define their roles as producers of foundation knowledge, basic knowledge, or specific solutions to problems.

73 RECOMMENDATION VII Limited Resources for only the Best Agencies should concentrate their resources in those fields of greatest importance to their individual missions Increase the size of average grants: more funding for fewer groups

74 DESIGN PARAMETER VII: LIMITED RESOURCES FOR ONLY THE BEST All Research Agencies would re-think allocation models so as to begin concentration of resources to the best research groups and labs. New allocation models would be based on: - Scientific Track Records - Institutional Infrastructure - Quality of science and support groups - Overall goal attainment