|Topic||Time Devoted to Each Topic||Activity|
|Introductions Science and Technology Policy – The Landscape and Concepts||3 hr||Read:|
a) Stine, D. (2009) Science and Technology Policymaking: A Primer. Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC.
b) Pielke, R. (2007) The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge Press: Cambridge, UK. Chapters 1 to 4. Pp. 1-53
c) Funtowicz, Silvio and Jerry Ravetz (2008). "Post-Normal Science." In: Encyclopedia of Earth. Eds. Cutler J. Cleveland (Washington, D.C.: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment).
|U.S. Federal Government: S&T Budget, Agencies, & Operation Climates for S&T||3 hr||1ST REFLECTION/QUESTION SET DUE|
a) AAAS Report XXXVII R&D FY 2013 Budget (2012). Chapters 1-3 Pp. 5-34. http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/rdreport2013/
b) NSF Science and Engineering Indicators 2012. (2012) Chapter 4 “Research and Development: National Trends and International Linkages” pp 4-1 to 4-58. SKIM, looking at tables/figures primarily.
c) Crow, and Tucker. “The American Research University as America’s de facto Science Policy”, Science and Public Policy 28 (1): 1-9 (1999)
d) Press and Washburn. “The Kept University,” AAAS Yearbook (2001). http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/yrbk01.htm
|S&T Policy Research and Analysis||3 hr||2ND REFLECTION/QUESTION SET DUE|
a) Bardach, E. A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The 8-fold path to more effective problem solving pp. xiii-46 (2000).
b) Morgan, and Henrion. Uncertainty : A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis Chapter 3. pp. 16-45 (1990).
c) Varvasovszky, Z. and R. Brugha (2000) How to do a stakeholder analysis . Health Policy and Planning 15: 338-345.
d) Chapter 4 , 111-121 Making Hard Decisions. R.T. Clemen, and T. Reilly. Duxbury Thomson Learning (2001)
Skim below as examples of briefs and analyses—look for your own examples too.
The content of these “readings” will not be specifically discussed (so no need to read in detail) but the type of document and methods will.
f) Policy brief—statement of problem, see AAAS policy briefs http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/briefs/accesstodata/index.shtml
g) Policy brief—in between just a problem statement and analysis
h) Qualitative policy analysis example—
Alic, Morey, Rubin, eds. Pew Center for Global Climate Change. “U.S. Technology and Innovation Policies: Lessons for Climate Change,” 2003.
|S&T Policy and the Public – Engagement, Participation||3 hr||3RD REFLECTION/QUESTION SET DUE|
a) Guston, D. “Forget politicizing science. Let’s democratize science!” Issues in Science and Technology Fall 2004, http://www.issues.org/21.1/p_guston.html
b) Jasanoff, S. (2003) Technolgies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science.Minerva 41: 223-244.
c) Rowe and Frewer “Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation,” Science, Technology & Human Values, Vol. 25, No. 1, 3-29 (2000)
d) Daniel Lee Kleinman, Jason A. Delborne and Ashley A. Anderson (2011) Engaging citizens: The high cost of citizen participation in high technology. Public Understanding of Science 20(2) (2011) 221–240
e) NSF Science and Engineering Indicators 2012. (2012) Chapter 3. Science and Engineering Labor Force. Pp 3-1 to 3-65 (skim only, focusing on tables/figures)
f) Handelsman, J. et al. ”More Women in Science” Science 309:1190-1191 (2005)
g) Barres, B. “Does Gender Matter,” Nature 442: 133-136 (2006)
h) Sismondo, Sergio (2010) Feminist Epistemologies of Science. In: An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. Chap. 7, pp 72- 80, Wiley-Blackwell, Sussex, UK
|Technology Policy – Innovation, Productivity, Development, & Social Good||3 hr||4TH REFLECTION/QUESTION SET DUE|
a) NRC. Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Revisited: Rapidly approaching Category 5: Condensed Version
b) Sarewitz, D. Frontiers of Illusion. “End of the Age of Physics”, “Myth of Infinite Benefit” Chapters 1&2 pp. 1-29. (1996).
c) Sarewitz, D. Frontiers of Illusion. “Science, Technology and the Marketplace,” Chapter 7 pp. 117-140 (1996).
d) Judi Wangalwa Wakhungu, “U.S. Science and Technology Policies from the Vantage Point of the DevelopingWorld,” AAAS Yearbook (2003)
e) Hassan, M. (2008). Worlds Apart Together. Nature, October 30, supp. 6-8.
f) Ahrens, J. (2005). Building Science, Technology, and Innovation Policies. Policy Brief. Sci.Dev.Net. http://www.scidev.net/en/science-and-innovation-policy/policy-briefs/building-science- technology-and-innovation-policie.html
g) Bozeman & Sarewitz (2011). Public Value Mapping (PVM) and Science Policy Evaluation. Minerva 49: 1-23.
h) OSTP (2008). The Science of Science Policy: A Federal Research Roadmap. November 2008.
|Intellectual Property: Polices & Impacts||3 hr||Read:|
a) Hemphill, T. (2008) US Patent Policy: Crafting a 21st Century National Blueprint for Global Competitiveness. Knowledge Technology in Society 21(2): 83-96
b) Fox, J. (2011) America Invents Act Receives Cautious Welcome. Nature Biotechnology 29: 953-954.
c) Clemente Forero-Pineda (2006) The impact of stronger intellectual property rights on science and technology in developing countries. Research Policy 35: 808–82
d) Cimoli et al. (2011). Innovation, technical change and patents in the development process: A long term view. LEM Working Paper Series 2011/06
e) Sampat and Lichtenberg (2011). What are the respective roles of the public and private sectors in pharmaceutical innovation? Health Affairs 30:332-339.
|Science and Technology in Regulatory Policy ||3 hr||5th REFLECTION/QUESTION SET DUE|
a) Pielke, R. (2007) The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge Press: Cambridge, UK. Chapter 5. Pp. 54-75
b) Wiener, J.B. The regulation of technology, and the technology of regulation. Technology in Society 26: 483-500 (2004).
c) Sarewitz, D. Frontiers of Illusion. “Myth of Authoritativeness” Chapter 5 pp. 71-96. (1996).
d) Franklin, Pamela M. (2006) EPA’s Drinking Water Standards and the Shaping of Sound Science In: Guston H. D. & Sarewitz D. (eds.) Shaping Science and Technology Policy: The Next Generation of Research. Chap. 5 pp 102-123. The University of Wisconsin Press, Wisconsin, USA
e) Stirling, A. Risk, precaution and science: towards a more constructive policy debate. EMBO Reports 8(4):309- 315. (2007)
f) United States House of Representatives Committee On Government Reform — Minority Staff Special Investigations Division “Politics And Science In The Bush Administration,” August 2003 read preface, skim rest
g) OMB Watch (2007) Background on rule-making. (5pp)
|GEOs in the US – Regulation & Uncertainty||3 hr||6TH REFLECTION/QUESTION SET DUE|
a) McHughen, A. and Smyth, S. (2007). US regulatory system for genetically modified [genetically modified organism (GMO), rDNA or transgenic] crop cultivars Plant Biotechnology Journal 5: (11pp.)
b) Myhr, A. I. (2010). The Challenge of Scientific Uncertainty and Disunity in Risk Assessment and Management of GM Crops. Environmental Values 19: 7–31. (24pp)
c) Wield, D. et al. (2010) Issues in the Political Economy of Agricultural Biotechnology Journal of Agrarian Change, Vol. 10 No. 3, 342–366. (25 pp)
d) H. Charles J. Godfray, et al. (2010) Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People. Science 327, 812-818 (6pp)
e) Potrykus, I. (2010) Regulation must be revolutionized. NATURE
|Ecology and Biodiversity – Valuation and Connections to Human Well-being, International Agreements/Treaties and Policy Options||3 hr||GROUP OUTLINE PAPER DUE|
a) Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems & Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment. Chapter 6, Concepts of Ecosystem Value and Valuation Approaches. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC (2003).
b) Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems & Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis World Resources Institute, Washington, DC (2005) pp 1-16 only (16-85 optional)
c) Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems & Human Well-being: Volume 3, Policy Responses. Summary: Response Options and Strategies. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC (2005) i-21
d) Costanza, R. The value of ecosystem services: putting the issues in perspective Ecological Economics 25: 67–72 (1998).
|National Security and S&T ||3 hr||7th REFLECTION/QUESTION SET DUE|
PEER REVIEWS OF OUTLINE PAPERS DUE
a) Alibek, K. “Biological Weapons: Past, Present, and Future” Chapter 15 In Firepower in the Lab, Laynew, Beugelsdijk, and Patel Editors. Joseph Henry Press (2001). Pp177-185.
b) NRC. Biotechnology Research in an Age of Terrorism. Pp. 1-44 and 79-106.
c) Ruttan, V. Is War Necessary for Economic Growth?: Military Procurement and Technology Development. Chapter 1 pp 3-20 & Chapter 8 159-190.
d) Sarewitz, D. Frontiers of Illusion. ”Science as a Surrogate for Social Good,” “Toward a New Mythology,” Chapters 8&9, pp. 141-195. (1996).
e) Dusek, Val (2006) Technological Determinism In: Philosophy of Technology – An Introduction. Chap. 6 pp 84 – 104.Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK
|Student Presentations from Group Policy Analysis Paper||3 hr||DRAFTS OF FINAL PAPERS DUE|
Student Presentations from Group Policy Analysis Paper
Course Review and Synthesis