What Will the Next 75 Years of Science Policy Bring?

By Sheeva Azma

A collection of essays seeks to define the challenges of 21st century science policy as Vannevar Bush, the first US presidential science advisor, did after World War II.

Tweet

As someone working within science and technology policy, I was excited to see a new publication looking ahead to the future of science and society from Issues in Science and Technology, a publication of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and Arizona State University. They recently published a collection of essays entitled The Next 75 Years of Science Policy, which you can view online or download as a PDF.

At the heart of Fancy Comma’s mission is to demystify complex subjects in science and technology for important stakeholders. We have written white papers to be read by Congress; compiled public-facing memos for people seeking to understand hot-button political issues such as immigration and trade policy; copyedited reports on space weapons; and generally helped people in business, health, policy, science, technology, and finance communicate complex subjects. Furthermore, we have a section on our website dedicated to helping scientists get started in both science policy and science communication – two things that go hand in hand. 

Keep reading for my summary of The Next 75 Years of Science Policy.

What’s covered in The Next 75 Years of Science Policy

The essay collection reflects on the state of science and technology in the context of education, policy and society. There are eight focus areas, each of which features a collection of several essays:

• Competing in the 21st century
• Reimagining the research university
• New frontiers for innovation policy
• Science in the service of society
• Creating meaningful diversity, equity, and inclusion
• Educating tomorrow’s scientists and engineers
• Collaboration in a global context
• Science philanthropy’s evolving role

The collection is inspired by science policy visionary Vannevar Bush, professor and dean of the MIT School of Engineering who was tapped to become the first presidential science advisor in the US. This essay series considers science policy in an age of globalization, and amidst the social implications of our time – including maintaining science and technology superiority in an era of open science and global collaboration, and seeking to develop a more diverse and inclusive workforce that can tackle challenges in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).

Vannevar Bush created the US science research framework

At the height of World War II, the government needed to leverage US research and development capability to rapidly develop technologies to support the war effort. In 1942, Franklin Roosevelt appointed Bush to be head of the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD). Leading OSRD, Bush oversaw most of the US’s wartime scientific research endeavors, including the Manhattan Project and development of radar technology.

In 1944, Roosevelt wrote Bush a letter asking him to provide advice on ways science can shape the future of the US, and in response, Bush drafted an essay that became a national research and development infrastructure to surmount future challenges, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Bush argued that federal support should be the main mechanism to fund basic research at universities. His solution was to establish an independent agency to oversee federal research funding –  what he called the National Research Foundation.

“The Federal Government should accept new responsibilities for promoting the creation of new scientific knowledge and the development of scientific talent in our youth,” Bush writes in Science, the Endless Frontier.

In 1950, President Harry Truman established the National Science Foundation based on Bush’s idea.

As innovation policy expert William Bonvillian of MIT writes, Vannevar Bush was “no less brilliant an engineer than he was a policy entrepreneur; he grasped the power of simple ideas that captured the imagination of policymakers.” With an idea of innovation that was easy to understand and therefore simple to explain to lawmakers to gain political buy-in, Bush was adept at working at the interface of science and policy. In his idea of linear innovation, the federal government would fund research, which then once mature, would move to the private sector where it can be commercialized in the marketplace. One could argue that his idea developed from the high-tech partnerships MIT had with the government in WWII. You can watch the free documentary MIT: REGRESSIONS for more on the link between MIT and the defense sector from the 1940s onward.

Bush proposed his straightforward plan in his famous essay, Science, the Endless Frontier, and it laid the groundwork for the federally-funded research enterprise by which the US scientific establishment operates today. 

In “The Next 75 Years of Science Policy,” scholars and experts in the fields of science, technology, policy, education, sociology, and more chime in to comment on what the next few decades of science should look like – what challenges are most paramount – and how to achieve national and global science policy objectives to advance humankind.

I definitely recommend checking out the essays yourself, but below I’ve summarized some of the key takeaways from the first section, “Competing in the 21st Century.” You can view the essays online or download the whole collection as a PDF.

Competing in the global science and technology ecosystem in the 21st century

At the end of World War II, the US was responsible for most of the world’s research & development (R&D) endeavors. In today’s globalized world, that is no longer the case – and the challenges, while still pressing, are much different. Bush built the US R&D infrastructure from scratch, and luckily, 21st century science policy professionals don’t have to do that…but that doesn’t mean that there are no challenges anymore. The US must remain vigilant and adaptable, boosting science and technology worldwide, solving national and global challenges, and ensuring US economic success through strategic global partnerships.

Long gone are the days of just throwing money at US R&D to achieve science and technology superiority in the world, the essayists argue – a more strategic approach is needed. Being the first to discover something in a globalized world is a good idea, but in practice, just fuels the competitiveness fire. Countries such as China have caught up with the US in terms of research dollars invested, and Chinese researchers outnumber those in the US. 

Innovation-based economic security is one part of the future-thinking R&D framework of the essayists in this collection. The government can blend domestic R&D investments with cross-border collaborations, since US-based studies and innovations will reverberate worldwide anyway. So, essayists suggest, why not collaborate in a way that ensures US economic interests? Additionally, science and technology should be a priority in all US government international agreements – in other words, emphasizing science diplomacy and strategic scientific partnerships among academia, industry, and governments.

The secret to maintaining US economic competitiveness as related to science and technology, say the expert essayists, is to develop an economic strategy to capitalize on global advances in science and technology, and create a research ecosystem which can piggyback onto global advances to help maintain US technological prowess. Also part of the equation is considering diversity and inclusion to ensure that scientific advances benefit everyone and that our science workforce is a reflection of all people in the US.

New approaches to United States R&D

L. Rafael Reif, MIT’s 17th president, discusses the importance of establishing an NSF Directorate of Innovation, and recaps efforts by federal policymakers to establish such an office. He names two problems in our current research ecosystem that the Directorate of Innovation could tackle.

The first problem Reif mentions in the current R&D climate is the lack of “use-inspired basic research” that pursue questions targeted at needed breakthroughs, with most advances stemming from curiosity. Basic research at Bell Labs, Reif writes, led to the development of the transistor and semiconductor, which are found in all high-tech devices we rely on today. An example of a use-inspired basic research area Reif names is the development of algorithms that require less data to be trained. A young person learning about the world does not need to hear a thousand meows to be able to learn what a cat is, Reif argues, and computer models in artificial intelligence could benefit from trying to learn more like humans in that regard. Instead, Reif says, federal agencies that fund most US science research focus on basic research that is driven by curiosity, not by seeking to solve problems and boost the US’s R&D competitiveness globally.

Writes Reif, “Bush envisioned science as a kind of wild garden: individuals seeding ideas based on their intellectual interests with no overall design. We also need to see science as a kind of farm, where people work together to cultivate and advance selected ideas to address human needs.”

The second problem Reif names in the current science and tech R&D ecosystem is getting “tough tech” ideas to market. Tough tech refers to technology, whether hardware or software, developed with the goal of solving problems. The challenge of tough tech is finding dedicated investors. Because it is risky and takes too long to develop, tough tech doesn’t gain attention from angel investors, venture capitalists, and others with deep pockets and money to throw at technology R&D. At the same time, tough tech research rarely qualifies for government funds because it is too far along the R&D path. Instead, Reif explains, “Sometimes these companies instead get either financed by foreign investors or finally get developed and manufactured overseas (or both)—or they simply fold.”

A dedicated directorate for innovation could address both issues, and Reif recounts legislation towards the goal of establishing one. A few months after this essay was initially published, The CHIPS and Science Act established an NSF Innovation Directorate. President Biden signed the CHIPS and Science bill into law on August 9, 2022. Many of the essays in this collection were published in 2021, so they do not have the most up-to-date analysis on federal legislative science policy priorities and accomplishments, but they provide a good overview of pressing challenges – and pave the way for solutions to take shape.

While Vannevar Bush was concerned with the overall structure of science, Reif takes a more sociocultural approach. He talks about the importance of representation and equity in science as well: “The US will never be as strong and prosperous as it should be without drawing on all segments of our society.” Additionally, Reif argues for improving the geographic distribution of science research: “The United States cannot reach its full potential if research and the resulting economic activity are confined largely to the coasts. Such uneven distribution also limits opportunities for many Americans. The question then is how to increase capability around the nation without diluting the focus on excellence and the concentration of resources that have enabled the creation of Silicon Valley in California, Kendall Square in Massachusetts, and other success stories.” Finally, he talks about the role of national security in setting science policies.

Reif concludes that we should US science and technology competitiveness with the same “quiet confidence in US potential” that Bush had, choosing optimism over fearmongering. “Rivalry can spur innovation, but fear is paralyzing.”

Preparing the next generation of STEM workers

A skilled workforce is key to a competitive economy, and sustained investments in training and education of workers can help the US adapt to shifting needs, challenges, and priorities.

Labor force trends are key to understanding socioeconomic phenomena such as racial wage gaps and gender pay inequality, states economist Rebecca Blank, who served in the Clinton and Obama administrations. She writes that understanding the labor force and its needs is a large part of science and technology policy: “there can be no science policy – or science – without workers.” 

As technology advances and automation becomes more widespread in the workforce, the need for highly skilled, innovative workers has increased. Quality education that is affordable remains a challenge of creating a STEM-literate workforce for the 21st century.

Workforce challenges related to availability of workers are influenced by three main trends: Baby Boomers aging out of the workforce, as well as women’s decreasing participation in the labor force, weading to an overall reduction in workers; and a decrease in immigrants entering the US, limiting workforce growth.

At the same time, the demand for educated workers has grown, while demand for less skilled workers has fallen, especially in the manufacturing sector, which used to be a high-paying sector for less-skilled workers, but now requires less workers due to automation. Jobs are also being shifted overseas due to evolving trade patterns and globalization of the commercial sphere; US’s most productive scientists are offered jobs from universities not only in the US but also abroad.

Read “The Next 75 Years of Science Policy”

The whole collection of essays is over 400 pages and a wonderful read for anyone interested in the intersection between science, the economy, education, society, and policy. To read all the essays, check out Issues in Science and Technology’s “The Next 75 Years of Science Policy,” which you can view online or download as a PDF. 

Ways Fancy Comma, LLC Can Help You With Science Policy

If you’re interested in science policy and the interface between science, technology, society, and SciComm, you may also be interested in our science policy and SciComm resources, science policy blogs and our newsletter here at Fancy Comma. If you have thoughts on science policy that you’d like to share on our blog, feel free to pitch us. Finally, if you are working on a science policy project that requires writing, editing, messaging, digital marketing, or other aspects of communications, get in touch – we’d love to help.