2001 AAAS Workshop on Science
and Technology Policy Careers

Any questions or comments can be emailed to: gte085s@prism.gatech.edu

Elmer Yglesias, Ph.D. student in S&T Policy at the School of Public Policy at Georgia Tech, presented general over-arching themes and possible agenda items for 2002, which he collected from participants prior to the workshop. After the presentation, he opened the session for discussion with the audience to attempt to reach a consensus for a plan.

I. Presentation

To kickoff the session, Elmer first proposed to simply "follow the money", that is--areas of significant money investments are likely to be 'hot' areas/topics for future S&T policy professionals to discuss and even get a job. Examples of these, and potential agenda topics for next year's Workshop 2002, include:

a) the NIH Funding Expansion: widely discussed during the 2001 AAAS S&T Policy Colloquium, essentially the doubling of NIH's budget over five years while all other agencies remain flat or decrease. Possible outcome: topics in S&T policy focusing in health are likely to be a growing field.

b) State Funding for Research: Elmer noted that he was a bit surprised that this topic has not yet become a prevalent concern in S&T policy community; nevertheless, the fact remains that state investment in R&D exceeds an estimated $1 billion over NSF. Possible outcome: in a diminishing Federal R&D investment environment, policy-makers often look & turn towards the states, thus demand for S&T policy analysis of the states may grow.

c) the Role of Industry: (A deliberate contribution by Elmer to the discussion), industry is increasingly establishing collaborations with universities and government, but the impact of these collaborations are not well understood (we broadly know they are good--but what exactly, and how?). Possible outcome: industry could be a good and independent funding source for studies in S&T policy (industry wants to know its ROI).

Apart from "following the money", he also noted that there are two other manifested realities in which S&T policy professionals will have to work and live in:

d) A Global Village: there is a growing international interest in S&T policy as observed in student bodies around the nation; a professional gathering such as the workshop should attract and include international representation. Possible outcome: international comparison of S&T policies is already a growing field; increased collaboration with S&T policy colleagues around the world will produce more balanced analyses.

e) Underrepresented Groups: the crisis in manpower in S&T minority graduates is likely to directly affect the number of professionals opting to follow an S&T policy career track, given that it appears that a background in science or engineering is a typical S&T policy career pre-requisite (as polled at the workshop). Possible outcome: intervention by S&T policy professionals may be necessary; development of national strategy to attract minority scientists into the S&T policy field could be proposed.

II. Next Agenda Items

Elmer proceeded to outline suggestions for the next workshop, as voiced to him by participants prior to the workshop:

a) Should there be a Workshop in 2002?

b) Should we create a forum for the next generation to present research? If so, perhaps we should setup an Executive Committee? What potential topics should be covered?

c) Is there a need for a Society of S&T Policy Professionals?

Finally, he proposed to integrate the Section I (above) with Section II, to create a first working agenda for 2002.

III. Open Discussion (Plenary)

a) Topic Item Ib State is confirmed, with an emphasis in perhaps building a book/reference guide about state/local level investments in R&D.

b) Topic Item Ic Industry is confirmed, agreement by several participants, leading to comments and questions:

• Industry as good alternative hiring source for S&T policy career professionals?
• Invite participants from industry to next workshop?
• How does industry shape policies?
• The role of trade associations, possible invitation to workshop?

c) Topic Proposal: Environmental / Ecological (policy career track):

• Observation of [International] efforts (as mentioned by Indian participant, and expanded by Canadian colleague)
• Topic: Legal Frameworks of Environmental policies?

d) Establishing of a series of Working Panels, agreement by several participants, leading to comments and questions:

• What are the "Timeframes" of S&T policy careers?
• How can we create a networking group?
• Washington Networking Group proposed as first step? Contact c_woytowicz@acs.org
• Observation to target [break out sessions] to practitioners of policy with three foci: 1) Science practitioners, 2) S&T policy practitioners, and 3) Policy/Public Administration practitioners

e) AAAS agrees to support Workshop 2002. Logistics:

• 2002 Coordinating Committee of 3-5 people will be established. Volunteers should contact Dave Cooper (dcooper@aaas.org). AAAS will be included as a member of the committee.
• A proposal of 2002 agenda will be developed by the committee for AAAS.
• The committee will consider the feasibility and logistics of creating a society or network relating to S&T policy professionals. Similarly, the possibility of a journal/newsletter should be discussed/proposed.
• The committee should attract a more representative set of institutions from around the nation and the world to Workshop 2002.

Transcribed May 28, 2001, by Elmer Yglesias.

Copyright ©2001