1. The New Science Policy: Linking Research to Societal Outcomes Michael Crow Chair, Center for Science, Policy, and Outcomes, and Professor, School of International and Public Affairs, and Executive Vice Provost, Columbia University May 1, 2001

2. Foundations of Science Policy Republic of Science Market Failure Model Unpredictability Democratic Science Sociotechnical Outcomes Model Prediction with Uncertainty Current Enhanced

3. InputsProcessesProducts Outcomes Current (Linear) Approach to Science Policy Input-driven process assumes: yAll societal outcomes will be positive yLinear model of innovation and societal benefit

4. Linking Scientific Research and Science Policy to Societal Outcomes Genetically-Modified Organisms (GMOs)

5. Science is a Principal Driver of Change Social change Internet Environmental change Climate National security change Weapons of mass destruction Health and Medical change Biotechnology Science- based economy

6. A New Science Policy Framework: Outcome-Driven zIntegrated zInformed zSelf-correcting zRecognizes and responds to the inextricable links between science and technology and societal evolution

7. Perspectives zDaniel Sarewitz: How does the science that we do affect the social choices we make? zBarry Bozeman: How do the S&T programs we implement affect the distribution and equity of outcomes?

8. Global Climate Change and Societal Outcomes Daniel Sarewitz Senior Research Scholar Center for Science, Policy, and Outcomes Columbia University May 1, 2001

9. How does the science that we do affect the social choices we make?

10. Geophysical Systems Research Social Systems Research Biological Systems Research Technological Systems Research Components of Environmental Science

11. “Our special report explores the hard scientific evidence of the greenhouse effect and the White House stand against a treaty intended to keep things cool.” Time Magazine April 9, 2001

12. Fundamental Research Predictive Models Policy Decisions Societal Benefits Standard (Linear) Model of Science for Decision Making

13. Climate change scenarios: We cannot dictate global socioeconomic paths Source: S. Smith, PNL/Battelle (Warming)

14. Local land use affects climate at every scale Source: C. Ziegler, NOAA

16. Major Disasters 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 60 40 20 0 > 100 killed > 1% of population affected >1% nat’l GDP Source: OFDA/CRED International Disaster Data Base

17. Source: R. Pielke Jr.

18. Hurricane Mitch, October 22 - November 5, 1998 Human Impacts Deaths>10,000 People affected 1.7 million Source: NOAA/OGP Economic Impacts CountryLosses% of GDP NicaraguaUS$2 billion50% HondurasUS$4 billion100% Source: The Economist 11/14/98; slide courtesy of R. Pielke Jr.

19. Source: Pielke, Rubiera, Landsea, and Klein 2000 1998 Estimated Deaths from Historical Central American and Caribbean Hurricanes

20. Major Disasters 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 60 40 20 0 > 100 killed > 1% of population affected >1% nat’l GDP Source: OFDA/CRED International Disaster Data Base

21. Source: Pielke Jr., Kline, and Sarewitz, 2000.

22. Life and Death in the Promised Land, July 2000 (Manila, Philippines)

23. Not Control But Navigation Because the pathway to sustainability cannot be charted in advance, it will have to be navigated through trial and error and conscious experimentation. National Research Council, 2000 Our Common Journey

24. How does the science that we do affect the social choices we make?

25. Science and Technology Policy in the States: Economic Development for Whom? Barry Bozeman Regents Professor, School of Public Policy, Georgia Tech and Distinguished Scholar, Center for Science, Policy, and Outcomes, Columbia University May 1, 2001

26. How do the S&T programs we implement affect the distribution and equity of outcomes?

27. New “Laboratories of Democracy” zUniversity-Industry “Centers of Excellence” zResearch Parks zBusiness Incubators zTechnology Development Centers zManufacturing Assistance Programs

28. Stimulate science and technology Build new businesses Create wealth in the state Societal Benefits The Linear Theory of Innovation: State Government Version Income transfer from middle income taxpayer to the wealthy

29. Why are problems of employment and distribution of income S&T Issues? zS&T and social issues critically interdependent zTechnology strategy drives government spending and its social outcomes zLinear thinking in technology policy is linear thinking in social outcomes

30. A Case Study: Georgia zTop five in spending for S&T Programs zFY2000: $51 million zUniversities highly effective technology transfer sites zStrong Hi-Tech base in Metro Atlanta zBut…Booming and Busting at the Same Time

31. The Georgia Economy is Hot zUnemployment rate below 5% since 1995 zState revenues doubled between 1990 and 1999 zNew corporations per month doubled between 1985 and 1999 z15,000 jobs unfilled right now

32. But…Booming AND Busting zMedian income for: yWhites in Metro Atlanta: $51,000 yAfrican-Americans: $18,000 yRural Georgia families: $27,000 zAtlanta among leaders in creating new millionaires and in percentages of children below poverty level zAverage SAT’s: yGeorgia Tech: 1319 yGeorgia high schools: 874

33. Georgia has the worst high school graduation rate in the nation

34. TABLE ONE. Budget: R&D Based Economic Development Programs of State of Georgia.

35. Georgia Research Alliance zMission: “to foster economic development within Georgia by developing and leveraging the research capabilities of research universities within the state and to assist and develop scientific and technology-based industry.”

36. Georgia Research Alliance: Research Centers zGeorgia Center for Advanced Telecommunications Technology (GCATT) zGeorgia Biotechnology Center (GBC) zGeorgia Environmental Technology Consortium (GETC) zAlliance Technology Ventures

37. Georgia Research Alliance: Impact zGRA Sponsored Research Programs: $700 M in 1996. zIntellectual Property: licenses increased from 22 in 1990 to almost 50 in 1996. zIndustry-University Collaboration zStart-Ups Research Partnerships

38. Is Georgia S&T Policy a “Success”? zYes: Creates jobs, creates wealth, does a lot with a little zNo: Exacerbates wage gaps, promotes uneven development, contributes to suburban rim sprawl

39. Is the Georgia Economic Case Representative? zPoorest 20% of U.S. population had declining real income 1977-1999 zNumber of full-time workers with poverty level incomes increased by 459,000 in 1998

40. Running in Place, Running Ahead: The median wage earner has advanced only 8% in income growth during past two decades

41. The Dual Agenda: Science and Social Equity zThe Challenge : to develop science and technology policy that reaches the significant proportion of each state’s working poor who have been bypassed by the economic boom...

42. Why a Dual Agenda? zPublic program zFairness zRaw self interest

43. Outcomes Challenge zQuality of Life zCooperative Technology Education zRe-focused Centers of Excellence Programs

44. How do the S&T programs we implement affect the distribution and equity of outcomes?

45. Science Policy Research Needs zNew science policy indicators zNew tools of evaluation zNew vision for what science can bring to our future zEducation of scientists and politicians zReplace Cold War paradigm as outmoded

46. Conduct of Science Economic Outcomes S&T Outcomes Societal Outcomes POLICY New industries Tech transfer Knowledge transfer Partnerships New social structures Education New skills New institutions Linking Scientific Research to Societal Outcomes: New Models

47. Morality and Science What is the collective good that we want inquiry to promote? Philip Kitcher, Professor of Philosophy in Science, Truth and Democracy, to be published, 2001