University of Washington



Mid-term: April 29, 2009

University of Washington

Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs

Topics in Science, Technology, and Public Policy:

Policy Formulation and Implementation

PBAF 585 A (3 credits)

Spring, 2009

Monday Wednesday 4:30 to 5:50

From the spaceship to the computer chip, modern technology affects most activities that governments undertake. In turn, public officials work hard to promote scientific discovery and advance technology.

To help students understand the relationship between science, technology, and public policy, an essential skill for persons leading 21st century institutions, the Evans School of Public Affairs will offer a course on this subject in the Spring, 2009, quarter. A graduate certificate is under development. Through readings and case studies, students will examine the interaction between culture and technology; the effect of ideology on science policy; why bad science can form the basis for government policy; the manner in which governments organize themselves to make science policy; the ways in which scientists organize themselves to influence government; national and state policies in which science and technology have played a decisive role; executive leadership for science and technology; the levels of technical discretion allowed scientists and engineers in government; tools utilized by public officials to encourage invention and hasten commercial acceptance of new technologies; science and technology in the courts; innovation; economic competitiveness; issues of sustainability; emerging developments and unconventional ideas that could alter future policy; and instances in which the government defers to the private sector.

The course will focus on policy fields in which students are interested. Potential fields of study may include robotics, nanotechnology, information technology, artificial intelligence, health care, genetic engineering, biotechnology, energy policy, climate modification, nuclear power, marine affairs, transportation, national and homeland security, missiles and rockets, aeronautics, and space exploration.

The instructor, Howard McCurdy, specializes in public policy, public administration, and science policy. He has produced seven books on the national space program, including the award-winning Space and the American Imagination; a book on NASA’s organizational culture; an analysis of cost innovation techniques; a book on the myth of presidential leadership; and the recently released Robots in Space. The course will utilize frameworks drawn from works like these to analyze the science and technology policies that students select. The instructor received his B.A. and M.A. from the University of Washington and his Ph.D. from Cornell.

Information on the instructor: mccurdy@u.washington.edu; Parrington 321, 206-543-9175. Office hours: Tuesday/Friday 3 to 5; Monday/Wednesday before or after class (by appointment please).

Reading material

Three books have been ordered through the university book store.

Alan I. Marcus and Amy Sue Bix, The Future is Now: Science and Technology Policy in America Since 1950 (Amherst, NY: Humanity Books, 2007). ISBN 978-1-59102-472-9.

Albert H. Teich, ed., Technology and the Future, 11th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2008). ISBN-13 978-0495570523.

Robert Park, Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud (Oxford University Press, 2001). ISBN-13 978-0195147100.

Additional readings can be located on the internet or are available on the class web site:

Course requirements:

Given the large number of science and technology policies examined in the course, students will be asked to contribute insights that supplement the policy expertise of the instructor. Everyone should contribute information from the policy specialization of his or her choice.

At the first class meeting, the instructor will ask students to identify the policy areas in which they are interested. Students should form groups based on common policy interests. Students may use time during the second class meeting to discuss common efforts and distribute tasks.

Over the course of the term, the instructor will ask students to complete four short papers. Some papers may take the form of a PowerPoint presentation or (in one case) a visual “map.” The papers/presentations may be group or individually written. Students may form groups to write the papers/presentations or they may complete the assignments individually. Papers and presentations should be designed in such a manner as to inform the class, including the instructor. The four assignments should fit together in a cohesive manner, flowing smoothly from one to another. The total length need not exceed what one would find in an article or book chapter (5,000 to 12,000 words).

In combination, the papers should provide a cohesive history or description of a specific science and technology policy. Insofar as possible, the papers should employ relevant frameworks, themes, and concepts from the course. Use only those frameworks and such as are relevant; do not force a paper into concepts that do not fit.

• Begin by “mapping” the policy – the major players, the scale of expenditures, the institutions that distribute and spend the funds, and their strategic plan if one exists. This can be a short essay, a poster, or a diagram. You might include offices in the Executive Office of the U.S. President that deal with the policy, major congressional committees, pertinent interest groups, and the federal administrative agency that handles the policy. As outliers, identify state agencies (especially in Washington State) and international organizations that participate in policy formulation. This assignment is not due until the middle of the class and should be attached in some fashion to the policy decision section described below.

• Write a short paper on your policy area that describes the way in which this science or technology is viewed within the society at large. Identify the metaphors that are used to explain the policy to the general public. You might examine the presentation of your policy in film, fiction, and popular culture. Pay special attention to any “gaps” between imagination and the challenges of carrying out the policy. Here are some questions you might address.

o What is your policy?

o How is it treated in the culture at large? (What assumptions do people make about the subject?)

o What is the vision of the policy and the basic steps for carrying it out?

o What motivates public officials to follow the vision?

o Do gaps exist between the vision and reality?

o How do advocates react to those gaps?

• With your “map” as a base, write a short paper that describes history of your policy or some decision associated with it. Identify who participated in the formulation of the policy and the development of the methods for implementing the policy. Characterize the type of decision making. If necessary, update your map. Address questions such as those that follow.

o How did the issue get on the policy agenda? Was there some punctuating event?

o What type of coalition did policy advocates form? (Include your policy “map.”) Did it affect the design or concept of the program? Were advocates able to separate “good science” from values?

o How was the policy announced? If the president announced it, how much deference was given to the announcement? If a lesser official, how much?

o How much technical discretion was allowed the scientists and engineers called in to run the program?

o Was the policy incremental or “rational?”

o What “tools” of government were used to implement the policy?

o Ultimately, let the story tell itself.

• Write one paper on innovation, implementation, competitiveness, or emerging developments likely to affect future plans or activities in the policy area of your choice.

Please prepare the following materials for class discussion. These materials should be ready for presentation to the class during the last week in which that subject is being examined.

• For the section on science, technology, and society, prepare some visual materials on your policy that can be shared with the class.

• For the section on policy formulation, prepare a short (about one page) written summary of your policy history and bring enough copies to distribute to the other members of the class.

Students are encouraged to hand in sections of their paper for review by the professor during the course of the term, although this is not required. The whole set of papers, including the policy map, should be submitted during the last week of class. Officially, the papers are due at the last class meeting.

Teaching methods: Following the organizational work completed during the first two meetings, each section of the course will be completed in roughly three weeks. During the first week, we will organize the class. Each student should identify one policy area and meet with the other students interested in that policy. Drawing on his own specialization, the instructor will present two lectures in each section that provide a framework for the subjects covered. Discussion of the readings will follow. Students in their policy groups will be asked to share the findings from their papers and their policy areas. A few guest speakers will be invited where appropriate.

Grades will be based on the last three papers or presentations (25 percent each—the map will be assessed as part of the policy decision paper) plus class attendance and participation (25 percent). Please complete all work by the end of the quarter. Be careful to identify any materials of four or more words taken from other sources with quotation marks and an appropriate citation.

Course Topics and Assignments

Organization of the course and creation of policy groups

Federal research and development and R&D plant budget authority, by budget function, National Science Foundation, 2006.

Examine “The Players in Science Policy” from Neal, Smith, and McCormick, Beyond Sputnik: U.S. Science Policy in the 21st Century (2008). This reading is assigned under the policy formulation section.

Culture, Society and Ideology

Culture and technology; the effect of ideology on science policy; why bad science can form the basis for government policy. (About three weeks)

Dwight Waldo, The Administrative State (1948) 12-21; Stephen J. Pyne, “Seeking Newer Worlds: An Historical Context for Space Exploration,” in Steven J. Dick and Roger D. Launius, eds., Critical Issues in the History of Spaceflight (2006); in which we study the rise of the scientific outlook on human affairs: the history of science in the Renaissance, principles in the age of Enlightenment (see the Wikipedia for these concepts), modernism, and post-modernism.

Leo Marx, “Does Improved Technology Mean Progress?” (January 1987) in Teich.

McCurdy, “Vision and Leadership: The View from Science Fiction,” Public Integrity (Summer 2006) 257-270.

McCurdy, Space and the American Imagination (2nd ed. Forthcoming), Introduction: the Vision.

Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky, Risk and Culture (1982) excerpts.

Christopher Buckley, Thank You for Smoking (1994) 42-49.

Michael Crichton, State of Fear (2004) excerpts.

Donella Meadows, et al, The Limits to Growth (1972) – read the abstract by Eduard Pestel. For additional background (not required reading) see the Wikipedia article “The Limits to Growth”and the response by Allen Kneese and Ronald Riker in “To Grow or Not to Grow, Newsweek (13 March 1972) 102-3 orHenry Wallich “More on Growth” 86.

Emmanuel Mesthene, “The Role of Technology in Society,” (1969) and John McDermott, “Technology: The Opiate of the Masses,” (31 July 1969) both in Teich.

Samuel Florman, “Technology and the Tragic View” (1981) in Teich.

Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (1995) excerpts.

Park, Voodoo Science (Pick a few chapters that interest you. For the controversy the book has generated, go to the web site by googling Park Voodoo Science review.)

Additional sources[1]:

Wendy Kaminer, Sleeping with Extra-Terrestrials: The Rise of Irrationalism and the Perils of Piety (2000).

Michael Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things (1997).

Robert Ehrlich, Nine Crazy Ideas in Science (2001).

John Maddox, What Remains to be Discovered (1998).

Roderick Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind, 4th ed. (2001).

Joseph Corn, The Winged Gospel: America’s Romance with Aviation, 1900-1950 (1983).

Marc Reisner, Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water (1993).

Roger Launius and Howard McCurdy, Robots in Space (2008), chapter 2 “Human Spaceflight as Utopia.”

Frank Tipler, The Physics of Immortality (1997).

Arthur Clarke, 3001: The Final Odyssey (1997).

“The Day the Earth Stood Still” (either version of this classic film).

McCurdy, “The Cold War,” in Space and the American Imagination (2nd ed. Forthcoming).

The Creationism Museum (Petersburg, Kentucky)

Robert Pool, “How Society Shapes Technology,” in Teich, from Beyond Engineering (1997).

Wendell Berry, “Why I am Not Going to Buy a Computer” (1990) in Teich.

Aaron Wildavsky, Searching for Safety (1988).

Thomas Birkland, An Introduction to the Policy Process (2005) 96-101.

Policy Formulation and Implementation

The manner in which governments organize themselves to make science policy; the ways in which scientists organize themselves to influence government; national and state policies in which science and technology have played a decisive role; executive leadership for science and technology; the levels of technical discretion allowed scientists and engineers in government; tools utilized by public officials to encourage invention and hasten commercial acceptance of new technologies; science and technology in the courts; specific government policies. (About three weeks or more.)

In preparation for this section of the course, review the participants in science and technology policy.

“The Players in Science Policy” from Neal, Smith, and McCormick, Beyond Sputnik: U.S. Science Policy in the 21st Century (2008).

Robert Roseth, “UW is one of six ‘suns’ in map of tech industry’s ‘solar system’” (19 February 2009).

Look at the following selections on concepts related to policy formulation.

Albert Teich, “Government and Technology,” (2005) in Teich.

Charles Lindblom, “The Science of ‘Muddling Through,’” Public Administration Review 19 (Spring 1959) 79-88. Read page 79 and 80 through the first paragraph on “By Root or by Branch,” the description of the root and branch methods on page 81, and “The Test of a ‘Good’ Policy” on pages 83 and 84. The summary statements on page 87 are also useful. This classic article describes the differences between incremental decision making and ends-means (or rational) decision making.

McCurdy, “Strategic Planning Study: NASA Roles With Regard to Significant Space Markets, 2002-2025,” a report submitted to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 13 January 13 2003, excerpts. This selection covers the “tools” of government.

Select individual case histories that interest you. You may select materials from the following list or supplement it with materials you find on the internet. Please note that you are not being asked to read all of the following materials—just the ones that interest you.

Alan Marcus and Amy Sue Bix, The Future is Now: Science and Technology Policy in America Since 1950 (2007). Concentrate on the policies or the historic section in the evolution of science policy that interest you.

Select any relevant articles on specific government policies from Teich. The 11th edition contains articles on climate change, counter-terrorism, stem cell research, genetics, neuroscience, and information technology. See previous editions of the book for other articles and subjects such as bioethics and computers. Feel free to consult others sources on government policies affecting nanotechnology, energy policy, national security, or other subjects.

“Big Science,” from Neal, Smith, and McCormick, Beyond Sputnik (2008). Covers the Superconducting Super Collider, the International Space Station, the Human Genome Project, and the International Theromuclear Experimental Reactor. Read as much or as little as interests you.

Mullan Cook-Deegan, “Origins of the Human Genome Project.

McCurdy, "The Decision to Build the Space Station," Space Policy (November 1988) 297-306; or McCurdy, The Space Station Decision: Incremental Politics and Technological Choice(1990), afterword.

McCurdy, "The Decision to Build the Space Station," Space Policy (November 1988) 297-306; or McCurdy, The Space Station Decision: Incremental Politics and Technological Choice(1990), afterword.

W. Henry Lambright, “Apollo: Critical Factors in Success and Implications for Climate Change,” (14 May 2008).

Read the following materials in anticipation of the class meeting on science and the law.

Donald G. McNeil, “Court Says Vaccine Not to Blame for Autism,: New York Times (13 February 2009) – google title and source on line.

Laurie Goodstein, “Judge Rejects Teaching Intelligent Design,” New York Times (21 December 2005)—google title and source on line; for additional insights (not required), see NOVA, “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial,” Public Broadcasting System, November 2007. Covers the case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (see Wikipedia).

Ted Vosk, “Chaos Reigning: Breath Testing and The Washington State Toxicology Lab,” The Champion (May/June 2008).

Just for fun, read the following article on global climate change.

Patrick Barta, “Silencing the Lambs: Scientists Target Sheep Belching to Cut Methane,” Wall Street Journal (26 February 2009). (Can government encourage the development of technologies that resolve the harmful byproducts of technology?)

Additional sources:

Neal, Smith, and McCormick, Beyond Sputnik: U.S. Science Policy in the 21st Century (2008).

Lewis Branscomb and James Keller, eds. Investing in Innovation (1998)

Kenneth Flamm, Creating the Computer: Government, Industry and High Technology (1988).

Vernon W. Ruttan, Is War Necessary for Economic Growth? Military Procurement and Technology Development (2006).

Daniel Greenberg, Science, Money, and Politics (2001).

Daniel Sarewitz, Frontiers of Illusion: Science, Technology, and the Politics of Progress (1997).

Sheila Jasanoff, Science at the Bar: Law, Science, and Technology in America (1995)

Sheila Jasanoff, The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers (1990)

Bruce Smith, The Advisers: Scientists in the Policy Process (1992).

Sal Restivo, ed., Science, Technology, and Society: An Encyclopedia (2005).

Tools of Government

Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, National Research Council, National Academies Press, 2009.

Roger Pielke, The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics (2007).

Innovation, Competitiveness, and Emerging Developments

Innovation in the technology-based society; economic competitiveness; issues of sustainability; international cooperation, emerging developments and unconventional ideas that could alter future policy; and instances in which the government defers to the private sector. (About three weeks or less.)

McCurdy, Faster, Better, Cheaper (2001), chapter 1.

Aaron Wildavsky, “Trail and Error Versus Trial Without Error,” in Julian Morris, Rethinking Risk and the Precautionary Principle (2000).

Alvin Weinberg, “Can Technology Replace Social Engineering” (1966) in Teich.

Reading assignment on the X-prize to be announced.

Francis Fukuyama and Caroline Wagner, “Governance Challenges of Technological Revolutions (2001) in Teich.

Ray Kurzweil, “Promise and Peril” (2003); Bill Joy, “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us,” Wired (April 2000); John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid, “A Response to Bill Joy and the Doom-and-Gloom Technofuturists” (13 April 2000); all in Teich.

Amory Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins, “Terrorism and Brittle Technology” (2000).

Michael Sandel, “The Case Against Perfection” (2007) in Teich.

Seth Shostak, “In Touch at Last,” Science 286 (3 December 1999) 1872-74.

Steven Dick, “They Aren’t Who You Think,” Mercury 32 (November/December 2003) 18-26.

Additional sources:

Roger Launius and Howard McCurdy, “Homo Sapiens, Transhumanism, and the Postbiological Universe,” in Robots in Space (2008), chapter 6.

Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near (2005).

Issac Asimov, “Reason” (1941) in I, Robot and Robot Visions.

NOVA, “The Great Robot Race” PBS (28 March 2006).

Peter Menzel and Faith D’Aluisio, Robo sapiens: Evolution of a New Species (2000).

Jennifer Kahn, “Nano’s Big Future,” National Geographic (June 2006).

William Sims Bainbridge, Nanoconvergence: The Unity of Nanoscience, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science (2007).

Robert Zubrin, The Case for Mars (1996) or Entering Space (2000).

-----------------------

[1] Additional sources are included for use in developing the short papers or for students wishing to further pursue a special topic. They are not assigned readings. Students are encouraged to contribute additional works to the three lists.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download