2001 AAAS Workshop on Science
and Technology Policy Careers

The Future of the S&T Policy Profession
Moderator:
Jacque-Lynne Schulman, National Institutes of Health
Speakers:
James S. Dietz, National Science Foundation
Victoria Friedensen, National Academy of Engineering
Richard H. Smith, II, Coates & Jarratt, Inc.

Jacque-Lynne Schulman of the National Library of Medicine (National Institutes of Health) organized the panel and invited speakers who would personally represent the diversity of the S & T field and who could inform discussion of the field for those considering a career in science and technology policy and related areas.

The speakers began their remarks with a description of their personal paths to a career in Science and Technology.

Victoria Friedensen of the National Academy of Engineering presented data on gender differentials in S & T professions and provided an analysis of statistics dealing with diversity in the engineering workforce. She traced the impact of gender and minority participation from the college environment through graduate education and showed how the impact of these factors continues into the work force. Now on a temporary assignment to NASA, Ms. Friedensen began her science career as an undergraduate in physical anthropology and did field work in the Oldavi Gorge in Tanzania with Louis Leakey. Click here to see Ms. Friedensen's full remarks.

In addressing future federal government needs for science policy analysts and analysis, James Dietz of the National Science Foundation suggested that what is most important is not the needs and expectations of the government itself (which are generally diffuse, low, and uneven) but what science policy analysis and analysts can do to shape this still young discipline. He suggested that there were several traditional tensions in policy analysis that would continue to pose vexing problems for the enterprise and the profession, including the need to balance policy analyst skill levels (knowledge) with craft (know-how), the profession's identity as a science versus an art, the tension between science policy analysis as a democratic or participatory enterprise versus an expertise-based and elite exercise, and its views of facts as empirical truths versus the reflexive conditions of knowledge.

In addition, the role of the analyst is still one that deserves further consideration: Is the analyst a "technician" (stressing depth of knowledge) or a "virtuoso" (stressing breadth)? Should the analyst be the "advocate" for a deserving public enterprise that generally receives little policy emphasis or a "critic" whose role is to strengthen the enterprise by pointing out areas in need of improvement? Is the analyst a "facilitator" whose job is to reflect or points of view in a process of policy development or a "formalist" who takes no ownership of the process and provides a more formal input into the policy process? Finally, should the analyst liken him or herself to an "engineer" who solves problems or a "philosopher" who asks questions. These are some of the age old tensions in policy analysis as a profession. The federal government isn't likely to solve them and it is up to the policy analysis community to shape these along with federal expectations for science policy analysis in general.

Richard Smith, Director of Forecasts in Science, Technology, and Engineering for Coates & Jarratt, Inc., spoke on the role of science and technology in society. He described the global convergence of genomics/proteomics and information technologies -- particularly, but not exclusively, the Web. He gave an example of improvements in sensors, microfluidics, genetic information, and diagnostic software that are about to revolutionize both the practice and the economics of medicine.

He touched on the policy implications of such issues as reproductive health, competitiveness, environmental sustainability, and the funding of multi-disciplinary science. He suggested that society needs more and better education in science and more and better-trained science policy professionals to understand and oversee the unprecedented advances in science and technology. He concluded by describing the work of the National Science Foundation panel on the Social Implications of Nanotechnology and asked the members of the colloquium to join in such forward-looking discussions.

Copyright ©2001