Public values and public failure in US science policy

Abstract

Domestic science policy in the United States is linked inextricably to economic thinking. We seek to develop a practical analytical framework that confronts the manifest problems of economic valuing for science and technology activities. We argue that pervasive use of market valuation, market-failure assumptions and economic metaphors shapes the structure of science policy in undesirable ways. In particular, reliance on economic reasoning tends to shift the discourse about science policy away from political questions of "why?" and "to what end?" to economic questions of "how much?" Borrowing from the "public values failure framework", we examine public values criteria for science policy, illustrated with case vignettes on such topics as genetically modified crops and the market for human organs.

Realizing Societal Benefit from Academic Research: Analysis of the National Science Foundation’s Broader Impacts Criterion

“…First, as Bozeman and Sarewitz (2005) argue, the potential societal benefits imagined by individual scientists might not necessarily be desired by the rest of society. In addition, one interesting study looked at variables that impact eventual utilization of research results, and found no correlation between researchers' focus on users' needs and the likelihood of knowledge utilization (Landry, Amara, and Lamari 2001).…”

“…The question of which users to invite to the table is difficult. Science policy scholars have recommended public participation in merit review (Bozeman and Sarewitz 2005;Guston 2004). Alternatively, Frodeman and Holbrook (2007) suggested inviting both experts in education and public outreach and researchers on science, technology, and society to participate on the merit review panel to judge the broader impacts.…”

“…This report contributes the first descriptive data that illustrate how researchers actually address BIC to an ongoing scholarly debate over the utility of the broader impacts review criterion (Bozeman and Sarewitz 2005;Holbrook 2005). I will first review the role of NSF and the broader impacts review criterion in the larger context of the publicly funded research in the United States, which generally separates basic and applied research in different agencies or departments.…”

Los Elementos Básicos Para La Formulación De Políticas Científicas, Tecnológicas Y De Innovación Para La Cohesión Social. Una Visión CTS

“…Además, deja claro que esta "justicia distributiva" debe llegar a transformarse en una serie de valores públicos (Bozeman y Sarewitz, 2005) con miras a consolidar una ciencia democrá-tica, que tome en consideración los problemas y las visiones de "los de abajo" (Woodhouse y Sarewitz, 2007) y donde la comunidad político-científica (Granados y Viales, 2013) (conjunto de actores políticos que formulan políticas científicas y tecnológicas, y que toman decisiones en esta materia) considere el criterio de los científicos como expertos (Viales, Arellano y Granados, 2012), para construir políticas de alcance nacional, regional y local (Bhushan, 2015 Si bien, la relación entre Ciencia y Sociedad es intrínseca, lo que sí ha cambiado es la historicidad de la relación, es decir, la manera en que se han vinculado ambos campos y la forma en que se ha interpretado esa relación, en distintas épocas y en espacios históricos diferentes.…”

Ex-Post Evaluation of the Impacts of the Science-Based Research and Innovation Program: A New Method Applied in the Case of Farmers’ Transition to Organic Production in the Camargue

“…The Public Value Mapping (PVM) of Science Outcomes is a conceptual tool that aims to comprehend causes of social outcomes (Bozeman, Sarewitz, 2005). Outcomes stand for changes in the behaviors, relationships, activities and/or actions of the stakeholders (Earl et al, 2001).…”