Photo by Rodolfo Clix from Pexels
Journal of Science Policy & Governance | Volume 18, Issue 03 | August 30, 2021

Policy Position Paper Competition Third Place Winner

Policy Position Paper: Ensuring Social Impact at Every Stage of Technology Research & Development

Jeremy Pesner

​Carnegie Mellon University, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Corresponding author: [email protected]
Download PDF
https://doi.org/10.38126/JSPG180305
Keywords: broader impacts; collective impact; commercialization; development; equity; impact assessment; multistakeholder; participatory technology assessment; responsible research; social impact; technology; technology transfer
Executive Summary: Although the United States national innovation system has produced many technologies, their benefits are not evenly distributed across the country’s population. This stands in direct contrast to the aims of government, which frequently funds science research for the purpose of social benefit. This paper first undertakes a deep reconsideration of the US national innovation system, and then reframes it as a collective impact initiative in order to coordinate every one of its contributors around this goal. It begins by tracing the origins of the longstanding tensions between science undertaken for the sakes of science inquiry versus societal benefit. It then discusses the inadequacies of practices meant to bridge science outcomes and societal needs like the broader impacts and technology transfer. It concludes by proposing a significant expansion of the stakeholders that evaluate the proposals and outcomes of federally funded research. This integrates diverse public participation into the proposal selection process, research discussions, and technology transfer to ensure that universal social impact is routinely considered.
The benefits of science and technology remain unevenly distributed across racial, gender, economic, and geographic lines. How can we ensure that Americans of all backgrounds are drawn into both the creation and the rewards of science and technology? How can we ensure that science and technology hubs flourish in every part of the country, driving economic development in every American hometown?
- President Biden’s letter to incoming Office of Science and Technology Policy director Eric Lander (January 20, 2021)
 
Scientists alone can establish the objectives of their research, but society, in extending support to science, must take account of its own needs.
- President Kennedy’s address to the National Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1963)

-Read the full article through download.-
Download PDF

References

  1. Alakent, Ekin, M. Sinan Goktan, and Theodore A. Khoury. 2020. “Is Venture Capital Socially Responsible? Exploring the Imprinting Effect of VC Funding on CSR Practices.” Journal of Business Venturing 35 (3): 106005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2020.106005.
  2. Ambrose, Mitch. 2021. “Science Committee Makes Counterproposal to Endless Frontier Act.” American Institute of Physics, March 26, 2021. https://www.aip.org/fyi/2021/science-committee-makes-counterproposal-endless-frontier-act. 
  3. Bozeman, Barry. 2020. “Public Value Science.” Issues in Science and Technology 36 (4). https://issues.org/public-value-science-innovation-equity-bozeman.
  4. Bozeman, Barry, and Craig Boardman. 2009. “Broad Impacts and Narrow Perspectives: Passing the Buck on Science and Social Impacts.” Social Epistemology 23 (3–4): 183–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691720903364019.
  5. Bush, Vannevar. 1945. “Science, The Endless Frontier.” Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 48 (3): 231. https://doi.org/10.2307/3625196.
  6. Chalk, Rosemary. 1974. “Public Participation and Technology Assessment: A Survey of the Legislative History of the Office of Technology Assessment.” Congressional Research Service. https://ota.fas.org/reports/0086.pdf.
  7. Clauser, Michael, and Sarah Skaluba. 2020. “It’s Time the Civilian Sector Had Its Own DARPA.” Access Partnership (blog). July 7, 2020. https://www.accesspartnership.com/its-time-the-civilian-sector-had-its-own-darpa.
  8. Dance, Amber. 2013. “Impact: Pack a Punch.” Nature 502 (7471): 397–98. https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7471-397a.
  9. Godin, Benoît, and Christian Doré. 2005. “Measuring the Impacts of Science: Beyond the Economic Dimension.” http://www.csiic.ca/PDF/Godin_Dore_Impacts.pdf.
  10. Green, Richard J., and Wil Lepkowski. 2006. “A Forgotten Model for Purposeful Science.” Issues in Science and Technology 22 (2). https://issues.org/green-2.
  11. Gregory, Robin, Baruch Fischhoff, and Tim McDaniels. 2005. “Acceptable Input: Using Decision Analysis to Guide Public Policy Deliberations.” Decision Analysis 2 (1): 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1287/deca.1050.0035.
  12. Hahn, Robert W. 2021. “Equity in Cost-Benefit Analysis.” Science 372 (6541): 439–439. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abg9534.
  13. Heleta, Savo. 2017. “Academics Can Change the World – If They Stop Talking Only to Their Peers.” The Conversation, March 31, 2017. https://theconversation.com/academics-can-change-the-world-if-they-stop-talking-only-to-their-peers-55713.
  14. Holbrook, J. Britt. 2017. “The Future of the Impact Agenda Depends on the Revaluation of Academic Freedom.” Palgrave Communications 3 (1): 39. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-017-0041-0.
  15. Holbrook, J. Britt. 2019. “Designing Responsible Research and Innovation to Encourage Serendipity Could Enhance the Broader Societal Impacts of Research.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 6 (1): 84–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2017.1410326.
  16. Holbrook, J. Britt, and Robert Frodeman. 2011. “Peer Review and the Ex Ante Assessment of Societal Impacts.” Research Evaluation 20 (3): 239–46. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820211X12941371876788. 
  17. Ioannidis, John P. A., Kevin W. Boyack, Henry Small, Aaron A. Sorensen, and Richard Klavans. 2014. “Bibliometrics: Is Your Most Cited Work Your Best?” Nature 514 (7524): 561–62. https://doi.org/10.1038/514561a.
  18. Joss, Simon, and John Durant, eds. 1995. Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe. London.
  19. Kania, John, and Mark Kramer. 2011. “Collective Impact.” Stanford Social Innovation Review, 2011. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/collective_impact.
  20. Kevles, Daniel J. 1977. “The National Science Foundation and the Debate over Postwar Research Policy, 1942-1945: A Political Interpretation of Science, The Endless Frontier.” Isis 68 (1): 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1086/351711.
  21. Langfeldt, Liv, and Lisa Scordato. 2015. “Assessing the Broader Impacts of Research: A Review of Methods and Practices.” Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education. https://www.nifu.no/en/publications/1239706.
  22. Leeming, Jack. 2018. “How Researchers Are Ensuring That Their Work Has an Impact.” Nature 556 (7699): 139–41. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-03925-8.
  23. Loise, Vicki, and Ashley J. Stevens. 2010. “The Bayh-Dole Act Turns 30.” Science Translational Medicine 2 (52): 52cm27-52cm27. https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.3001481.
  24. Lok, Corie. 2010. “Science for the Masses.” Nature 465 (7297): 416–18. https://doi.org/10.1038/465416a.
  25. Lopez, German. 2021. “How Congress Wrecked Its Own Science Bill, Explained in 600 Words.” Vox, June 4, 2021. https://www.vox.com/2021/6/4/22518923/endless-frontier-act-innovation-competition-act-china-congress.
  26. MacFadden, Bruce J. 2019. Broader Impacts of Science on Society. 1st ed. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108377577.
  27. Mazuzan, George T. 1994. “The National Science Foundation: A Brief History.” July 15, 1994. https://www.nsf.gov/about/history/nsf50/nsf8816.jsp.
  28. McCarthy, Ian P., Bruno S. Silvestre, Andrew von Nordenflycht, and Shiri M. Breznitz. 2018. “A Typology of University Research Park Strategies: What Parks Do and Why It Matters.” Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 47 (January): 110–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2018.01.004.
  29. McKinnon, John D. 2021. “House Passes Bipartisan Bill to Boost Scientific Competitiveness, Following Senate.” Wall Street Journal, June 29, 2021, sec. Politics. https://www.wsj.com/articles/house-passes-bipartisan-bill-to-boost-scientific-competitiveness-following-senate-11624941848.
  30. Mottur, Ellis R. 1970. “Technology Assessment and Citizen Action.” 10. Program of Policy Studies in Science and Technology. Washington, D.C.: George Washington University. https://ota.fas.org/reports/0645.pdf.
  31. Myers, Kyle. 2020. “The Elasticity of Science.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 12 (4): 103–34. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20180518.
  32. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. n.d. “About Spinoff.” About Spinoff. https://spinoff.nasa.gov.
  33. National Science Foundation. 2015. “Perspectives on Broader Impacts.” https://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/publications/Broader_Impacts.pdf.
  34. National Science Foundation. n.d. “About the National Science Foundation - Who We Are.” Accessed June 2, 2021.  https://www.nsf.gov/about.
  35. Nightingale, Paul, and Alister Scott. 2007. “Peer Review and the Relevance Gap: Ten Suggestions for Policy-Makers.” Science and Public Policy 34 (8): 543–53. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234207X254396.
  36. Page, Scott E. 2007. “Making the Difference: Applying a Logic of Diversity.” Academy of Management Perspectives 21 (4): 6–20. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2007.27895335.
  37. Peckham, James. 2018. “What Is Responsible Innovation, and Why Should Tech Giants Take It Seriously?” TechRadar, August 27, 2018. https://www.techradar.com/news/what-is-responsible-innovation-and-why-should-tech-giants-take-it-seriously.
  38. Pielke, Roger A. 2010. “In Retrospect: Science, The Endless Frontier.” Nature 466 (7309): 922–23. https://doi.org/10.1038/466922a.
  39. Pielke, Roger A., and Radford Byerly. 1998. “Beyond Basic and Applied.” Physics Today 51 (2): 42–46. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.882141.
  40. Prabhakar, Arati. 2020. “In the Realm of the Barely Feasible.” Issues in Science and Technology 37 (1). https://issues.org/realm-of-the-barely-feasible-innovation-darpa-prabhakar.
  41. Redelfs, Manfred, and Michael Stanke. 1987. “Citizen Participation in Technology Assessment: Practice at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment.” Washington, D.C.: George Washington University. https://ota.fas.org/reports/0881.pdf.
  42. Ribeiro, Barbara, Lars Bengtsson, Paul Benneworth, Susanne Bührer, Elena Castro-Martínez, Meiken Hansen, Katharina Jarmai, et al. 2018. “Introducing the Dilemma of Societal Alignment for Inclusive and Responsible Research and Innovation.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 5 (3): 316–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2018.1495033.
  43. Rowe, Gene, and Lynn J. Frewer. 2000. “Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 25 (1): 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390002500101.
  44. Sarewitz, Daniel. 2011. “The Dubious Benefits of Broader Impact.” Nature 475 (7355): 141–141. https://doi.org/10.1038/475141a.
  45. Sarewitz, Daniel. 2016. “Saving Science.” The New Atlantis 49. https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/saving-science.
  46. Sarewitz, Daniel. 2021. “Inside Science Politics.” Issues in Science and Technology 37 (3). https://issues.org/inside-science-politics-editors-journal-sarewitz.
  47. Schikowitz, Andrea. 2020. “Creating Relevant Knowledge in Transdisciplinary Research Projects - Coping with Inherent Tensions.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 7 (2): 217–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2019.1653154.
  48. Schillo, R. Sandra, and Ryan M. Robinson. 2017. “Inclusive Innovation in Developed Countries: The Who, What, Why, and How.” Technology Innovation Management Review 7 (7): 34–46. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1089.
  49. Sclove, Richard. 2010. “Reinventing Technology Assessment: A 21st Century Model,.” Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/reinventing-technology-assessment-for-the-21st-century.
  50. Shneiderman, Benjamin. 2013. “Toward an Ecological Model of Research and Development.” The Atlantic. April 23, 2013. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/04/toward-an-ecological-model-of-research-and-development/275187.​
  51. Smallman, Melanie. 2018. “Citizen Science and Responsible Research and Innovation.” In Citzen Science: Innovation in Open Science, Society and Policy, edited by Susanne Hecker, Muki Haklay, Anne Bowser, Zen Makuch, Johannes Vogel, and Aletta Bonn, 241–53. UCL Press. https://doi.org/10.14324/111.9781787352339.
  52. Smith, Gary N., and Jeffrey Funk. 2021. “Why We Need to Stop Relying On Patents to Measure Innovation.” ProMarket (blog). March 19, 2021. https://promarket.org/2021/03/19/patents-bad-measure-innovation-new-metric.
  53. Stevens, Ashley J. 2004. “The Enactment of Bayh–Dole.” The Journal of Technology Transfer 29 (1): 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOTT.0000011183.40867.52.
  54. Stokes, Donald E. 1997. Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press.
  55. Trager, Rebecca. 2015. “Battle over Science Funding Gets Fiercer in U.S. Congress.” Scientific American, March 23, 2015. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/battle-over-science-funding-gets-fiercer-in-u-s-congress.
  56. Van Norman, Gail A., and Roï Eisenkot. 2017. “Technology Transfer: From the Research Bench to Commercialization.” JACC: Basic to Translational Science 2 (2): 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacbts.2017.03.004.
  57. Wang, Jessica. 1995. “Liberals, the Progressive Left, and the Political Economy of Postwar American Science: The National Science Foundation Debate Revisited.” Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 26 (1): 139–66. https://doi.org/10.2307/27757758.
  58. Weller, Nicholas, Michelle Sullivan Govani, and Mahmud Farooque. 2020. “Supporting Federal Decision Making through Participatory Technology Assessment.” Day One Project. https://www.dayoneproject.org/post/supporting-federal-decision-making-through-participatory-technology-assessment.
  59. Wilson, John Todd. 1983. Academic Science, Higher Education, and the Federal Government, 1950-1983: John T. Wilson. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jeremy Pesner is a Ph.D. student in Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University, where he focuses on policy issues of information and communication technologies, telecommunications, technology innovation and futurism. He earned his BS in Computer Science at Dickinson College and his MA in Communication, Culture & Technology from Georgetown University. He is a member of the Association for Computing Machinery, the Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Science Policy Network. He has helped organize the STGlobal Conference on Science and Society and has presented at venues including the World Future Society, Hackers on Planet Earth, TEDx Herndon and ComSciCon.
 
Acknowledgments
I am deeply indebted to Professor Zachary Taylor for his support and guidance in this idea’s formation. I am very grateful for his patience as I struggled through the initial process of refining and organizing my ideas, and with his help soon turned my unrefined arguments into concrete narratives. Professor Phillip Shapira also contributed a good deal of insight and direction in this paper’s early stages. I also wish to extend my gratitude to Sky Gross, Eileen Oni, Avery Sen, several of Carnegie Mellon’s communication support tutors and my JSPG editors Jason Albert and Benjamin Wolfson for their helpful comments on my paper drafts.
 
Disclaimer
I declare no conflicts of interest.
DISCLAIMER: The findings and conclusions published herein are solely attributed to the author and not necessarily endorsed or adopted by the Journal of Science Policy and Governance. Articles are distributed in compliance with copyright and trademark agreements.

ISSN 2372-2193
© 2022 Journal of Science Policy & Governance, Inc. All rights reserved. The opinions, findings and conclusions from JSPG publications, additional article commentaries and related events do not necessarily reflect the views of the journal.