I recently had the opportunity to attend the 2015
AAAS Science and Technology Policy Forum in Washington, D.C. This annual
meeting brings together a range of academics and professionals to discuss the
broad S&T policy landscape. Below are some of my takeaways from the
meeting. I hope to have additional comments from other National Science Policy Group members up
soon.
By Chris Yarosh
The talks and panels at the
Forum encompassed a huge range of topics from the federal budget and the
appropriations outlook to manufacturing policy and, of course, shrimp treadmills. My opinion of the uniting themes tying this gamut together is just
that—my opinion— and should only be taken as such. That being said, the threads
I picked on in many of the talks can be summarized by three C’s: cooperation, communication, and citizenship.
First up, cooperation.
Although sequestration’s most jarring impacts have faded, AAAS’s budget guru
Matthew Hourihan warns that fiscal year 2016 could see a return of…let’s call
it enhanced frugality. These cuts will fall disproportionately on social
science, clean energy, and geoscience programs. With the possibility of more
cuts to come, many speakers suggested that increased cooperation between
entities could maximize value. This means increased partnership between science
agencies and private organizations, as mentioned by White House Office of
Science and Technology Policy Director John Holdren, and between federal
agencies and state and local governments, as highlighted by NSF Director France
Córdova. Cooperation across directorates and agencies will also be a major
focus of big interdisciplinary science and efforts to improve STEM education. Whatever
the form, the name of the game will be recognizing fiscal limitations and
fostering cooperation to make the most of what is available.
The next “C” is
communication. Dr. Córdova made a point of listing communication among the top challenges
facing the NSF, and talks given by Drs. Patricia Brennan (of duck penis
fame) and David Scholnick (the aforementioned shrimp) reinforced the scale of
this challenge. As these two researchers reminded us so clearly, information on
the Web and in the media can be easily be misconstrued for political or other
purposes in absence of the correct scientific context. To combat this, many
speakers made it clear that basic science researchers must engage a wider audience, including elected officials, or risk
our research being misconstrued, distorted, or deemed unnecessary. As Dr.
Brennan said, it is important to remind the public that while not every basic
research project develops into something applied, “every application derives
from basic science.”
The last “C” is citizenship.
Several of the speakers discussed the culture of science and interconnections between
scientists and non-scientists. I think that these presentations collectively
described what I’ll call good science citizenship. For one, good science citizenship means that scientists
will increasingly need to recognize our role in the wider innovation ecosystem
if major new programs are ever going to move forward. For example, a panel on
new initiatives in biomedical research focused on 21st
Century Cures and President Obama’s Precision
Medicine Initiative. Both of these
proposal are going to be massive undertakings; the former will involve the NIH
and FDA collaborating to speed the development and introduction of new drugs to
the market, while the latter is going to require buy in from a spectrum of stakeholders
including funders, patient groups, bioethicists, and civil liberty
organizations. Scientists are critical to these endeavors, obviously, but we
will need to work seamlessly across disciplines and with other stakeholders to
ensure the data collected from these programs are interpreted and applied
responsibly.
Good science citizenship will
also require critical evaluation of the scientific enterprise and the
separation of the scientific process from scientific values, a duality
discussed during the William D. Carey lecture given by Dr. William Press. This
means that scientists must actively protect the integrity of the research
enterprise by supporting all branches of science, including the social sciences
(a topic highlighted throughout the event), and by rigorously weeding out
misconduct and fraud. Scientists must also do a better job of making our
rationalist approach works with different value systems, recognizing that people
will need to come together to address major challenges like climate
change. Part of this will be better
communication to the public, but part of it will also be learning how different
value systems influence judgement of complicated scientific issues (a subject
of another great panel about Public Opinion and Policy Making). Good science
citizenship, cultivated through professionalism and respectful engagement of
non-scientists, will ultimately be critical to maintaining broad support for
science in the U.S.