Page 29 - Acoustics Today Spring 2011

SCIENCE POLICY MATTERS: OBSERVATIONS FROM TWO YEARS IN WASHINGTON, D.C.
Jeffrey J. Fox
Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, Bureau of African Affairs U.S. Department of State
Washington, D.C. 20520
In the fall of 2009, thanks to an
extraordinary sequence of highly
improbable events, I found myself in
Washington, D.C., about to begin a
Congressional Science & Engineering
Fellowship®. Nearly two years later, I
am still in Washington, continuing to
explore the policy realm. Dr. Steven
Garrett, who organized this special
issue on scientists in public policy and service, invited me to write about my experiences last year as a Congressional Science & Engineering Fellow and this year as a Science & Technology Policy Fellow in the U.S. Department of State. Hopefully this series will be useful to readers who are curi- ous about science policy and who are interested in learning about programs that help research scientists become involved in public policy. Additionally, we hope to convey how important it is for scientists and engineers to engage in policy. That involvement benefits both the scientific com- munity and the U.S. public.
Although scientists and engineers have good reasons to take part in public policy and service, several barriers can hinder their engagement. Fortunately, scientific and techni- cal professional societies have developed a set of initiatives, like the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) Science & Technology Policy Fellowships, to lower the barriers before them. I will discuss some of my observations and experiences as an S&T Policy Fellow, first in the legislative branch on Capitol Hill and then in the execu- tive branch at the State Department. Finally, I will urge you, the reader, and your colleagues, to become more engaged in public policy and service. I will provide concrete actions you can take that vary in scope and commitment. Hopefully, one or more of these suggestions will resonate with your particu- lar interest and background. To be sure, my experiences over the past two years have been challenging, and at times frus- trating. But these two years have also been incredibly reward- ing, and I now have a much greater appreciation for the value that scientists and engineers can bring to public policy and service.
Science for policy and policy for science
There are many excellent resources for those with an
1-14
During the sum- mer orientation for the AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellowships, we received several books, a thick binder of arti- cles, and a series of lectures on the topic. We learned that sci- ence policy is generally thought to include two main con- cepts: science for policy, and policy for science. Often in this article I will use “science” as shorthand for science and tech-
interest in science and technology policy.
“As John Adams,
one of our country’s Founders, would say, facts are stubborn things.”
nology, as well as for science, technolo- gy, engineering, and mathematics. In education policy circles, these are some- times referred to as the STEM fields.
“Science for policy” refers to the use of scientific knowledge or technical expertise to address a policy issue. Many departments and agencies at all levels of government rely on staff or
contract scientists and engineers to provide the expertise necessary to design and inspect equipment and infrastruc- ture, and to collect, distribute, and analyze data that both public and private entities use to make policy decisions. Policy-makers also view science and technology as a source for new or improved solutions to existing problems, and as a key driver of economic development. Science and technolo- gy are critical tools in the policy-making process.
“Policy for science” refers to the policies that public offi- cials put in place to develop and sustain a productive scien- tific community and infrastructure. Officials who work on these policies must decide how to organize funding agencies and where to spend increasingly scarce resources. They must also consider the “human resources” needed to conduct sci- ence. These officials wrestle with difficult challenges: How do we encourage talented students from all backgrounds to enter science and engineering? How do we train them? Is our system sustainable? How do we decide which areas of science deserve the most support from taxpayers? Does our system encourage or hinder the transformation of discoveries and inventions into new products and services? How do we know if our policies are effective?
Policy for scientists and scientists for policy
For those of us who are or have been research scientists supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, or any other federal, state, or local agency, the importance of maintaining a sound policy for sci- ence is self-evident. We rely on taxpayer support for our pro- fessional growth, for our scientific pursuits, and for our liveli- hood. Given that reality, one might expect that research sci- entists would be knowledgeable in the policy processes that govern grant-making in the various agencies that support science. There is also strong incentive for scientists to have a clear understanding of how their research relates to public policy goals, and to be adept at explaining that connection to public officials and the general public. Yet, very few of us know enough about policy to help us accomplish these objec- tives. In some scientific circles these aspects of our work may even be looked down upon.
Science Policy Matters 25