The Science of Science Policy

A Handbook
Edited by Kaye Husbands Fealing, Julia l. Lane,
John H. Marburger lll, and Stephanie S. Shipp

STANFORD BUSINESS BOOKS

An lmprint of Stanford University Press
Stanford, California

2 tl

ir'r:i
'':

I'

j.:., . .

Editsrs' lntroduction
H' Marburger lll,
Kaye Husbands Fealing, Julia l' Lane, John
and StePhanie S. SnP

1.

lntroduction

Federally funded basic and applied scientific research has had an enormous

impact on innovation, economic growth, and social well-being-but some

Determining which federally funded research projects yield results

has not.

and which do not would seem to be a subject ofhigh national interest, par-

ticularly since the government invests more than $140 billion annually in
basic and applied research. Yet science policy debates are typically dominated not by a thoughtful, evidence-based analysis of the likeiy merits of
different investments but by advocates for particular scientific fields or missions, Policy decisions are strongly influenced by past practice or data trends

that may be out of date or have limited relevance to the current situation, In
the absence of a deeper understanding of the changing framework in which

innovation occurs, policymakers do not have the capacity to predict how

best to make and manage investments to exploit the most promising and

important opportunities.
This lack ofanalytical capacity in science policy sits in sharp contrast to
other policy fields, such as workforce, healih, and education. Debate ,in
these fields is informed by the rich availability of data, high-quality analysis

of the relative impact of different interyentions, and often computational

models that allow for prospective analyses, The results have been impres-

polic the evaluation of the impact of education and training programs has been transformed by careful attention to
sive. For example, in workforce

issues such as selection bias and the development

ofappropriate counterfac-

tuals. The analysis ofdata about geographic dfferences in health care costs
and health care outcomes has featured prominently in guidinghealth policy
debates. And education policy has moved from a "spend more money" and

"launch

thousand pilot projects" imperative to a more systematic analysis

of programs that work and that could promote local and national reform
efforts.

Husbands Fealing, Lane, Marburger, ana

ilrpp

Each ofthose efforts, however, has benefited from an understanding of

the systems that are being analyzed. In the case ofscience polic no such agreement currently exists. Past efforts to analyze the innovation system and the

effect that federal research has on

it

have typically focused on institutions

(federal agencies, universities, companies, etc,) and/or outputs (bibliometrics'

patents, funding levels, production of PhDs, etc.). Absent is a systemsJevel

construct that those institutions and outputs function within and a failure to
understand that science and technology innovations are created not by institutions but by people, often working in complex social networks. This social

dynamic, as well as the complex systemlevel interactions that result, is the

subject of increasing academic scrutiny. Science magazine recently devoted a
special section to "complex systems and networks" and referenced studies

that examined omplex socioeconomic systems, meta-network analysis, scalefree networks, and other analytical techniques that could be used to understand the innovation system.l
There is no fundamental reason why it is impossible to develop a science

policy infrastructure that is similarly grounded in evidence and analysis as

the workforce, health, and education domains, It is true that it is difficultr the
institutional and political environment is complex, and the scientific discovery
process is noisy and uncertain, Yet scientists should be excitecl, not deterred,

by interesting but hard problems. And the history ofthe scientific advancement of other policy fields, with their studies of equally complex, nois and
uncertain prgcesses, is evidence that such efforts can suCceed. Indeed, an interdisciplinary and international community of practice is emerging to advance
the scientific basis of science policy through the development of data collection, theoretical frameworks, models, and tools. Its advocates envision that
they can make future policy decisions based on empiricaly validated hypotheses

and informed judgment.

There are fundamental reasons why it is becoming criticai to develop such

an evidence basis, One is that the White House is requiring agencies to do

so: the joint office of Management ancl Budget (oMB)/office of science and
Technology Policy (OSTP) R&D Priorities lnemo issued in preparation for the
FY2011 budget asks agencies to "develop outcome-oriented goals for their
science 4nd technology activities, establish procedures and timelines for eval-

uating the performance of these activities, and target investnents toward

high-performing programs. .Agencies should develop 'science of science policy'
tools that can improve mangement of their research and development Portfolios and better

assess

the impact of their science anci technology investments.

Sound science shouid inform policy decisions, and agencies should invest in
relevant science and technology as appropriate."2

Editors: lntroducton

Another is the looming imperative to document the impact of the

neaily $20 billion in R&D investments embodied in the 2009 American
(ARRA)' As Kei Koizumi points out in his
Recovery and Reinvestment Act
chapter:
Policymakers and evaluators can demonstrate easily the short-term economic
efiects

of highway proiects, of which there are billions of dollars worth in

the Recovery Act; miles ofasphalt poured, construction jobs created, and dol-

lars introduced into local economies are well developed and easily produced
measures for these investments. But what are the sirnilar indicators for R&D
investments?

Finall

the federal budget environment is likely to be extremely competi-

tive for the foreseeable future. For a case to be made that investments in science have value relative to investments

in education, health, or the workforce,

an analytical and empirical link has to be made between those investments

and policy-relevant outcomes, It is likely that that link will need to be made at

multiple levels, since the macro link between R&D investments and economic

growth is less convincing given the international evidence provided by the

Japanese and Swedish experience,3
The federal agencies have begun to respond in two ways, One is to advance

the theoretical and empirical research frontier through investigator-initiated

research and new data collection. The second is to develop a federal commu-

nity ofpractice among the seventeen science agencies involved in funding and
administering science research.
In the former

case,

Science of Science

by mid-2010, the National Science Foundation's (NSF)

& Innovation Policy (SciSIP) prograrn has made

over

ninety awards to social scientists and domain scientists. Ten of these are ex-

plicitly to use the ARRA. stimulus as a way to examine the impact of

science

investments. The SciSIP program, through the Division of Science Resources

Statistics, is also investing in the development and collection ofnew surveys
to better inform the biennial Science and Engineering Indicators that are the
basis for many

policy decisions, This includes the new Business R&D Innova-

tion Surve which involves

as

complete redesign of the collection of R&D data,

well as the coilection of innovation data,

In the second case, the National

Science and Technology Council (NSTC)

established, under the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences Subcommittee

of the Committee on Science, a federal interagency task group on the Science of

Science Policy interagency task group (SOSP ITG).

lhis

task group produced

road map for federal investmentsa and held a major international conference to

highlight the findings in that road map.

Husbands Fealng, Lane, Marburger' and Shipp

Both the scislP program and the sosP subcommittee have worked to
foster a community of practice in a number of ways. The interagency group has
organized major annual workshops on the implementation of science poiicy'
A flourishing Listservfor the exchange ofideas and information has been established. And a new sosP ITG/ScisIP website has been developed,s which has
begun to provide an institutional basis for the development of a community
ofpractice.
Of course, SOSP will not solve all science policy problems' It is intended to
provide an intellectual framework upon which to make decisions, Indeed, as
Goldston notes in his chaPter:
will never be definitive, and Congress certainly
always would and should draw on more than social science results in makilrg its
decisions. But there is plenty of room to improve the current state of affairs' In

Science ofscience Policy research

other areas of policy-macroeconomics, health care, environmental Protection,

to nme a few-there is at least a semblance of an ability to project the outputs
that will result from a given set gf inputs, aud a range of studies to draw on in
discussing what has worked and what has failed, Reaching a similar level of understancling for science policy would be

welcome change, if hardly a panacea.

2, What the Science of Science Policy Entails

One of the aims of recent science of science policy activities is to deveiop the
evidentiary basis for decisin making by poiicy practitioners. There is also an
organic development or reshaping of frameworks that pushes the boundaries
of discovery in several fields and disciplines. While some debate whether the
science of science policy is itself a discipline, there is wide agreement that
there is a coalescing community of practice, which Feller, in his chapter, describes as a distributed association ofpolicymakers (public and private) and
variety of fields and disciplines. This community s interdisciplinary and includes economics, engineering, the history of science, operations
research, physics, political science, psycholog and sociology-and this list is
researchers in

not exhaustive.6
Fecleral science investments are dfiven by a political context, so the insights

provided by political scieirtists are critical, Sapolsky and Taylor argue in their
chapter that
governments supPort the advancement of science and technology (S&T) mostly

through their support of specific missions such as defense or health, and it is the
politics of these missions, and the many contextual goals of governmetrt, that de'
termines the rate and direction of its research and development investrnents.

Editors' lntroducton

Governments can also affect fhe supply and demand conditions for science and

tech'ology outside the buclgetary process via regulatory regimes, anti-trust, taxes,
standards, etc.

Understanding the institutional and sociological environment is also

critical, which is why sociologists make an important contribution, Powell,
Owen-Smith, and Smith-Doerr indcate in their chapter that the "sociological
science

of science policy will theorize the link betweeu the origins and later

trajectories of social systems that will provide guidance for policymakers eager
to intervene."
The economics of science policy is evolving beyond the initial constructs
of maooecoromic linkages of inputs and

productivity outcomes. Recent models

utilize network anais, bibliometric tools, and behavioral models to unover

latent relationships between the levels and rates ofnew scientific discoveries
and the nancial, human capital, organizational, and infrastructural inputs.

While these models have historically made important contributions to policy

decisions, Feller, |affe, and Freeman each caution in this volume that there is

need to understancl the limitations of incentive structures and the require-

ment for careful empirical analysis to understand the system of scientific

knowledge creation. Morgan, in his chapter, describes several systems model-

ing approaches, some of whith originate outside of the social sciences. This
migration and synthesis of ideas is precisely what creates a dynamic community
ofpractice.
One area of the science of science policy that is often overlooked is that
conceptualization of scientific development at the cognitive level. This very

micro-examination of science policy is an emerging field, with coliaboration

between psychologists and engineers. Both disciplines are eager to understand the elements of the creative process, Gero describes frameworks that are
used to understand creative cognitive processes, which may lead to new ideas

that are marketable-innovation.

And, of course, science investments are ultimately predicated on contributing to innovation, Gault's chapter connects the work on the understanding
of the science system to the need for work on delivering value to the market

in

the form of new goods and services and contributing to economic growth and
social welfare,

3, The Need for the Handbook

Our review of the science policy curricula and syllabi in major research programs suggests that the emerging field lacks a cornerstone document that

Husbands Feating, Lane, Marburger' and Shipp

and an academic
describes the current state ofthe art from both a practitioner

point of view.

Thishandbookisintendedtofillthisgapbyprovidingin-depth,scholarly
essays authored by leading scientists and

policy practitioners' We recognize

thatthefieldhasmultipledimensions,andassuch,thisbookisdividedinto
policy in pracsections: theoretical issues, data and measurement, and
three

aspect ofthe
tice. Each author has been asked to provide a survey ofa different
the plausible founfield, based on his or her domain expertise, which explores

The interdisciplindations of an evidence-based platform for science policy.

questions asked
ary nature ofsuch a platform is evident from the nature ofthe
and innovation'
by the authors: What are the essential elements of creativity
to policy?
and how can they be defined to serve a truly scientific approach

Howcanthetechnicalworkforcebequantifiedandmodeied_whatisits
could be tarlikely future, and how does it respond to the multiple forces that

getsofpolicy?Whatistheimpactofglobalizationoncreativityandproducof
tivity in the science and engineering fields? What are the optimal roles
different outgovernment and private investments in R&D, and how do their
the
contributors
such,
comes influence R&D and innovative activities? As

psycholog and
span a variety of disciplines, including economics, sociolog
political science.
It is wor.th noting that this handbook focuses on the science of science
we feel is aD understudied and underresearched area, There has
polic although'
been a great deal more research on the science of innovation
some of that research is alluded to in different chapters. In adcli-

polic which

inevitabl
tion,thefocusisonU.S.federalsciencepolicy,Werecognizethatthereare

investvibrant and important research areas that study both business R&D
of
managers
while
And
policies.
ments and regional science and innovation
face substanlarge research enterprises, such as Microsoft, and state agencies
are fundadecisions
tial resource allocation decisions, our sense is that these

the
mentally clifferent from those in the federal science arena, And, aithough
internaon
the
science of science policy has garnered important attention
international stage, it is impossible to do full justice to the complexity of the

tional issues-that deserves another volume in its own right

4. Goncluding Goals
we hope that this handbook will contribute to the overarching goal for science
polic namel the development of "comtnon, high-quaiity data resources and
policy methinterpretive framewol'ks, a corps of professionals trained in science
discussion
ods and issues, and a network of high-quality communication and

science policy stakeholders"'7 s such' the purpose of

irat .un encomPass all

-,il,uoot

is to Provide

of the science of science policy

an overview of the current state

l.

kev

soc"

in four

scienee areas: economics, sociology, political science, and

psychologY;

2.

colrlnuaperspective from the broader social and behavioral science

emging field;

3,
4,

review of the empirical-measurement and data-challeqrges inherent in describing and assessing the scientific enterprise; and
a perspective from the federal science and policy cornmunity on the
a

critical science policy questions that create the demand for

a science

of

science PolicY.

Notes
L

Science,l,'tb 24,2tA9, pp' 405-432'

2. M-0g-27, Memorandum for the Heads of Bxecutive Department$ and Agencies, ugust 4 2009.
3. Iulia Laqe, "Assessing the Impact of science Fun{lng,' Scienee 5 (Tune 2009),
vol. 324, no, 5932, pp. 12 a275, DAk 10.1126/science'1175335.
4. ,.The Science of science Poliry: A Fedeal Research Roadmap," November 2008.

5.

See

http://scienceofsciencepolicnet'

6. For example, all of these aieii are represented arnong the SciSlP awardeesi
wwwscienceofsciencepolicy,net/scisipmernbers.aspx,
7.

See

ldarburger, Chap. 2, in this book.

Soe

Topical Guide to This Handbook

Chapter

Topic

Based Models and Decision AnaI

Culture of Science and Institutions

and Knowledge Creation

conomic Models
and the Environment

valuation Studies
and Incentive Structures

Fundi
Histo

ofScience Polic
X

Innovation

fnstitutional Networks, Including lnter- and

Intramural
Intenational Part
Orsanizations

Pospective and Retrospective

Quantitative Methods
Science

dministration and

lovers and Clusters

Sustainable Growth, Including Wealth Creation

Technology Cornmercialization/Diffrrsion,
Includine Bridging the "Valley of Death"

Triple Helix-Partnerships Between Academic,

Industry and Covernlnent Entities

Visual Analytics

fi

The Theory of Science PolicY

Editors' Overview

The foundations

pAffiT #rwffi

ofthe evidence-based platform ofscience policy span several

ofeconomics, socidisciplines. For decades, the core social scienie disciplines

that
attempt to explain
olog and political science have given us frameworks
the dynamics

!f

science and innovation activities. Together their methodolo'

provide a(understanding ofthe stocks and flows ofinputs and outputs in

the systerg,rhl institutional structures that promote or impede scientifrc
progress, lnd the power relationships that determiDe distributioral outcomes,
gies

Recent calls for a social science of science policy have provided the impetus
for a resurgence of researchers collaborating across disciplinary boundaries

in search of a systems approach to answering age-old science policy questions.

necEngaged in this process as well are psychologists, whose frameworks add
essary dimensions to developing an understanding of the creativity Process

leading to scientifrc discoveries and downstream innovations. complexity

theorists and modelers have also expanded our view of the science and innovation enterprise, with architectural frameworks that provide scaffolding for
policy sirnuiations, Such empirical exercises complement those that are developed in the core social science disciplines. The following chapters synthesize
the theoretical knowledge bases from which the science of science policy
emerges and for which there is call for an engaged

community of practice'

The politics of distribution related to scientific and technological endeavors is the focus of the Harvey M, Sapolsky and Mark Zachary Taylor chapter.

While economists evoke the public good rational for government funding of
R&D (see Richard B. Freeman's chapter), sapolsky and Taylor describe a different concept of sciencer the public good. They argue that "science and
technology create winners and losers, especially in the long run." In their
paradigm, the "losers" are endowed with assets such as skills, capital, land,
and other resources. Distributive innovation hurts them because it changes
the status quo. Ifthe potential "lpsers" are also power holders, then they have

an incentive to create institutions and to exercise policy mechanisms that

The Theory of Science Policy: Editors' Overview

24

enable them to retain power. Sapolsky and Taylor conclude that this potential

for redistribution of wealth and power could slow technological change-but

not in every case. Interestingly, political leaders who couple the technological
enterprise with national security concerns or to nationalistic economic competitiveness races are able to forestall the drag on technological progress by
stakeholders who stand to lose ground

in

a new tecirnological equilibrium.

The evolutionary nature ofscience and technological innovation necessarily

means realignment of power, Understanding these dynamics is critical to our

understanding of the ecological system of innovation

Sapolsky and Taylor avoid reference to the traditional parlance of"national
innovation system." Instead, they discuss the role of government in a globalizing world. They posit two different scenarios for deveioping and developed
countries, Governments in developing countries, they argue, must be strategic
in their capital investments (including human capital). with far-flung functions of corporations, policymakers in developing countries should move away
from targeting entire industries to targeting specific functions within a given
industry. In the developed country context-presumed to be lead innovating
nations-the authors argue for the importance of technological rnodularity
and interoperability with global technical infrastructures. Globalization, therefore, requires technological and managerial flexibility within industry and government, Science and technologypolicy decisions will foliow paths quite different from those in the mid-twentieth century.

Institutions are the focus of the chapter by Walter W. Powell' Jason OwenSmith, and Laurel Smith-Doerr, 'Ihis chapter focuses on the importance of
social systems to the study ofscience and innovation policy. Identiable linkages between inputs and outcomes in the science and innovation system
channel through ethical, politicai, environmental, and other social constructs,

Even

if

a causal

link is empirically

established between, sa human capital

inputs and productivity in an industry, in a specific region, at a certain point

in time, it would not be necessarily true that the same results would be obtained if any of the structural factors were changed.
Ethical, power, and network relationships critically determine outcomes'
Powell, Owen-Smith, and Smith-Doerr give specific examples to make their
point. In the case ofstem cell research, the authors show how changes in presi-

dential administrations affected the methods that researchers could use to

extract, store, and use embryonic stem celis in laboratory experiments, Federal funding of research in this area aliows politics (a derivative of social ethics and power) to affect lab science practices, The authors take this argument
even farther. Since institutions vary by nation, international competition in

Science Policy: Editors' Overview

fhe Theory of

is appreciably affected by established institutions and

science and innovation
change. This is an important dimension to the science of science

institutional
use a benchmark rate of 3 percent of GDP for R&D
policy. Many countries
structures of these countries var it is not
iunding. Since the institutional
rule should apply. The authors also use this realikely that a one-size-fits-al1
to explain why technology clusters form in some cities and not in
soning

others'
power relationships, institutional contexts, and network structures, thereimpact behavior in fields ofresearch. The authors discuss the importance
fore,

at funding
of this triad on the balance of basic and translational research
Additionall they highagencies, such as the National Institutes of Health.
translight the debate about the need for interdisciplinary research to achieve
gento
interdisciplinarity
on
work
formative outcomes. l,astl they link the
determine
der and racial diversity in the sciences, The institutional frameworks
a variety
differences in access and, therefore, contribution ofindividuals from
(as Martin Weitzman
of backgrounds. If increased variety is super-additive

journal article "on Diversity"r), then institutional barriers to diversity in science and innovation networks could reduce the efficacy of R&D
shows

in

hi's

funding.
The economics ofscience policy has several contributing fields and areas.
Feeman's chapter focuses on the market for labor-the supply and dernand

for scientists and engineers, particularly under uncertainty. In an effort to

atrswer the cluestion of how to facilitate a market for scientific output, Freeman turns to a fundamental neoclassical tool-incentive structure' Pecuniary

and nonpecuniary incentives can be used to encourage welfare-improving

redistributions of human capital inputs into various scientic elds' Incen.
tives can also be used to encourage various types of research initiatives' including the balancing of incremental and potentially transformative projects.

Here Freeman embraces the sociology literature, acknowledging that the

incentive structure must be cognizant of social networks. Networks can be
intradisciplinary and interdisciplinar as weli as intramural and extramural
(e.g., linkages between

the academy and industry)' One obvious question is

whether the tournament nature of competition for scientists and engineers

affects ail demographic groups the same way. Freeman addresses this question

with respect to women and immigrant scientists'

Government expenditures on scientic and technological development
affect outcomes directly and indirectly. Awards and grants are direct dispensations to scientists and engineers at universities and other research institutions,

while inyestment tax credits and other R&D subsidies may increase yields

The Theory of Science Policy: Editors' Overview

suggests that
through businesses (crowding out notwithstanding)' Freeman

govefnment,sdemandforscienceshouldcompriseadiversifiedportfolio.More
impact that
importantl government funding institutions must recognize the
in their
uncertainty has on their decision making, but also that fluctuations
of R&D infrastructure,
decisions have measurable efiects on the development
social goals'
on the supply of human capital, and on the achievement of

decisions-the unFreeman highlights a critical aspect of science funding

for policy
certainty of outcomes. He draws on frnance-based analytical tools
traditionally
guidance. options models and other portfolio allocation tools
applications
powerful
used to develop private-sector frnancial strategies have
at large fedin the context of the science of science policy. Research portfolios
for
such moderal R&D labs or at academic institutions are likely test beds
of scientists and
els. Freeman asserts that modeling the supply and demand
a sysengineers-and the incentive structures that close the loop-requires

making under untems approach with options modeling to capture decision

The knotty probcertainty. Measuring causai outcomes is not an exact science.

lemishowtomeasureR&Dspillovers_theexternalitiesnotonlytosociety
from new discoveries and innovations, but also to other scientific endeavors'.
the economic
Establishing metrics on these linkages is critical to weighing
that makes
returns to R&D, but it is precisely the uncertainty in the system
measuremet difficult yet highly sought after'
focused on
The economics, sociolog and political science chapters have

or maclo
understanding the science and technology enterprise at. a mezzo
micro levellevel. john s. Gero's chapter focuses instead on the extreme
innovahuman cognition and innovation, He distinguishes creativity from
tion, in much the same way other social scientists writing in this section
while
done. creativity is the process that yields new and useful ideas,
have

proinnovation is the process that turns creative ideas into products or

The exploration of innovation and innovation policy is a relatively
gives an
recent area of exploration in neuroscience, As such, this chapter
from tradioverview of the emerging eld, including a thorough mapping
cesses,z

tional literature and nomenclature on cognition to the application of technological innovation.

of
There is a clear theoretical iink to the other chapters in this section
the science of science policy handbook, Gero directly links the cognitive

definition of innovation to Schumpeter's concept of "creative destruction,"

.ivhere innovation displaces existing products or processes. In his rubric,
and
there are three types ofinnovation: "augmentation, partial substitution,
This
displacement through total substitution," The latter is schumpeterian'

:l:,.;jt.'.'.'.i

lt.

Editors' overview
of scienco Policy:
r'nu nneory

il

..''..-...'.

'..'.:iru,po*erful connection' Using

.,,;;;.

computational sociology technique' cog-

and
the behavioral interaction between innovators
scientists can test
not only the development of neural networks
of innovation' This is

adoPters
pro.,,irn. evolution of social net\dorks in the creativity-cum-innovation

'

the impetus for change is the science of innovaIn these experiments'

resPonses io poiicy decisions is criticai to
i"'n"t" y' nalyzilgbehavioral
science and innovation
'i"jt"tng linkages and the dynamics within

ess,

sYstens'

models
Morgan's chapter outlines a wide range of analytical
M. Granger
-science
is that
policy arena' The main emphasis of his chapter
or.U ,n the
Policy problems-particularly science
policy tools are not one-size-fits-all'

andtechnologypolicyconundrums_requireexpertiseintechniquesthatare
in operations research, decision analysis, technology
more commony utilized
analysis.
options modeling, benefit-cost analysis, and life-cycle
assessment,

Morganintroducesthereadertothecanonicalliteratureintheseafeasand
and environmental policy' This
draws liberally on examples from energy
purPoses'
chapter is particularly useful for pedagogical

It

atso

highlights the

agenciesandthinktanksthatareleadersinthedevelopmentanduseofsys.
tems modeling aPProaches'

the new
Irwin Feller introduces the theoretical paradigms of

science of

sciencepolicdeflningthescience,(andart)ofsciencepoliccautioningthe

',

buildersandusersoftheenterpriseaboutthelimitationsofmodels,tools,and
and policymakers to
dur. that currently exist, and encouraging researchers

cultivateadynamiccommunityofpractice.Fellerdrawslinkagesbetween
disciplinesandacrossgenerationsthatcontributetotheunderstandingof
howprioritiesshouldbesetasorganizationsfundscientificdiscoveryand
technologicalinnovation.Theprimaryutilityofthischapter,therefore,isthe
by thought leaders
collection of works and the relationships among the works
on evidence-based science policy'

Predictabitityisoftendemandedbydecisionmakers'Purveyorsofscience
estimates under
policy models and tools are required to suPply the best

va-

retyofconditions,includinguncertainty'Felleraddressestheprecarious
dance between knowns and

unknowns' highlighting what has been shown to

bemosteffectivebutcautioningagainstignoringthepossibilityofT}peIor
in an era ofincreased
Type II errors. This is an important point' particularly
chapter'
on empirically driven decision making' Noted in this
dependency

science and engineering enterhowever, is the need for concurrent data on the

prise,particularlydatathatareconsistentacrosscountries.Fellerrecognizes

therecenteffortsattheNationalscienceFoundationtomeasureR&Dand

The Thoory of Scionc Policy: Editors' Overviow

innovation separatel but he notes that measurements of the related inputs

and outcomes require new and distributed vantage points'
Feller cautions researchers not to refine their models and tools af to develop new data sets in a vacuum, A community of practice, where researchers
practitioners engage in periodic discourse about new pardigms and

and

not to
outcomes, should minimize, as Feller puts it, "buyer's remorse," This is
Pasteur's
in
Quadrant, But
say that all social science of science policy belongs
such
researchers and practitioners alike may increase respective utilities from
that
acknowiedges
engagement. Referring to Bozeman and Sarewitz, Feller
these activities ale not merely to achieve increased economic efficiencies but

to enhance social value,

Fred Gaultt chapter provides a history of how innovation is measured and
the components of innovation strategies (markets, people, activities, and public and international institutions), Gault identifies how innovation strategies

inform policymaking

as

well

as actions

that can be taken to advance innova-

tion. International organizations, such as the organization for Economic cooperation and Development (OECD), United Nations Educational, scientific,
and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and New Partnership for Africa's
Developmenr (NEPAD) (all described in this chapter), faciiitate this coordination and evaluation, which involves multiple dimensions such as the characteristics ofthe population, the history ofthe country, and the type ofpolicy
to be undertaken. Involving stakeholders at each stage ofpolicymaking ensures the implementation of policies relevant to country or a group of coun-

tries. International organizations provide assistance with coordination and

evaluation, including the creation and analysis ofsurvey data and case studies,
the dissemination of these frndings, and the formulation and review of policies'
The ultimate goal r:f this support is to build a country's capacity "to

identif

find, acquire, adapt, and adopt" knowledge and to incorporate this knowledge
as an "indispensable component" to create and implement a science and technology innovation strategy'
of these chapters have some mention of a system of science and innovation activities. Morgan's chapter describes the use of operations research
tools for policy analysis. This is au important addition to the benefrt-cost mocl-

All

els and options lnodels described

in

Freeman's chapte the social network

model alluded to in the chapter by Powell, owen-smith, and smith-Doerr, the

stakeholder analysis discussed in Sapolsky and Taylor's chapter, and the com-

putational sociology rrrodel mentioned by Gero. Felier and Gault dene the
spaces of the science of science policy and the science of innovation polic
respectiveiy, Taken together, these chapters outline the critical questions and

' l, Martin Weitzman, "On Divelsiry"

no.2 0992): 363-405'

vol' l0Z
Quatteily loutnal of Econonnics'

is typically included in the definition

2. Business model innovation

a's

well'