1. Theme 1: Understanding Science and Innovation Summary December 4, 2008

2. Taxonomies & Constructs Different meaning in various fields for key terms, such as innovation, discovery, stochastic, etc Before asking questions need common definitions, constructs (context) and a single taxonomy for the roadmap

3. Number who rated high importancePercent who rated high importanceNumber who ranked #1Percent who Ranked #1 Question 1: What are the behavioral micro-foundations of innovation? 3761.67%2236.67% Question 2: What explains technology adoption and diffusion? 3558.33%2135.00% Question 3: How and why do communities of innovation form and evolve? 3863.33%1626.67%

4. Discussion Comments: Yes ----to----- No Yes Yes-but needs tweaking Yes-but missing questions No! Reformulate

5. Yes with Tweaks The 3 questions are broad enough to cover any other specific question Reorder question for a different thought model 1-3-2 (individual / teams / social systems) Insert various terms such as: –Micro foundation – remove micro –Behavioral – use of

6. Yes-but missing questions What are the evolution and dynamics feedback effects? How does government (any entity) foster a new field of research? What aspects of the system should be considered when seeking to understand the micro phenomena of innovation? When should context (political, social, environmental, regulatory, market, economic, physical nature of the scientific field and available tools) be added to the assessment of understanding innovation?

7. Recommendations Should the federal government take a lead role in fostering the science of science policy? How should the federal government implement? Use of Deterministic models and methods favored over stochastic

8. Government – YES! Serves national interest and potential concerns with accountability and security Transparency of findings and sharing of relevant information and data Positioned to support development of a field due to resources and global perspectives Coordinating role that supports other entities and institutions to conduct science of science research

9. Government Implementation Agency specific with specific missions No federal agency should be lead, instead it should be at OSTP level (with funding and resources) “coordinating office” Scalability – agency specific how is the information aggregated or assessed? Legislation mandate for all R&D agencies to incorporate and to implement Incentives to conduct and to collaborate, including international

10. Are the three high level questions in Theme 1 the right set of questions lead to productive discussions and research toward an understanding science and innovation? Question 1: What are the behavioral micro-foundations of innovation? Question 2: What explains technology adoption and diffusion? Question 3: How and why do communities of innovation form and evolve? 1. Yes 2. Yes, but they need to be tweaked 3. Yes, but questions are missing 4. No, they need to be reformulated 5. No, they miss the point entirely How can we incorporate macrophenomena such as feedback loops or an evolutionary perspective in the high-level questions? 1. Add a new question 2. This discussion is captured under the current questions already 3. These aspects reflect a perspective that is missing from the current questions 4. These are not important aspects.

11. Disagreement on the meaning of words such as “science policy” or “innovation” have been roadblocks in effective discussion, especially across fields, disciplines, agencies, and sectors. Who could most effectively develop a taxonomy for productive discussion? 1. The SoSP ITG 2. A core federal working group 3. Outside consultants 4. Evolutionary consesus 5. Someone else 6. None of the above There is broad consensus from the discussion tools and in our interactive discussion that the Federal government should play the leading role in implementing Science of Science Policy. What should be the nature of Federal implementation? 1.NSF should take a lead role 2.A different Federal agency should take the leadership role 3.The federal government should play a coordinating role with broad agency involvement 4.Science of Science Policy efforts should be agency specific (i.e. each agency pursues its own SoSP efforts) 5.An interagency coordinating office should be created