I once viewed science policy as an omnipresent and omnipotent but unseen force that guides via research funding. From my perspective there was little organization and no master plan, as research grants seemingly were awarded or denied at random. As a young chemistry graduate student, I learned the diversity of funding agencies, but their master plans and planners eluded me. Who made the big decisions? How did they decide what projects to fund? What was their master plan? These questions were pertinent to my research but I had no answers.
My growing interest in energy policy brought this mysterious policy world to the forefront along with a drive to find the answers to my questions. When, in January 2009, the opportunity arose to attend the 2-day Student Forum on Science and Technology Policy at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, D.C., I felt obligated to go, but had no idea what to expect.
A reception the night before the Forum began provided me with a chance to see whether science policy graduate students are the same around the country. The diversity astounded me, from MBAs to young physicists. The students had a range of experience from the neophyte to those with policy internship experience in D.C. It was shocking to find a significant percentage of graduate students in a situation like my own: obtaining a doctorate in the physical sciences and also studying science policy. It was these wide differences that gave the less experienced an outlet for simple questions. I, personally, needed a knowledgeable individual to constantly translate acronyms for me. Meeting students before the Forum began also broke the ice and made conversations much easier to initiate throughout the Forum.
Kevin Finneran, the editor of Issues in Science and Technology magazine of the National Academies, founded the Forum in 2008 as a way for science policy students from all academic backgrounds to meet and learn more about the field. Over a two day period, an assortment of speakers from the federal government, non-governmental organizations and academia discussed their roles in the policy process. Some had direct and powerful influence on future policy, such as Tom Kalil of President Obama’s science and technology transition team. Some worked at government agencies, some were policy advocates, and some focused on the academics of science policy. All provided different perspectives and insights.
A series of Q&A panels on various subjects allowed a motley crew of speakers to discuss and arbitrate a policy topic, usually to no consensus. Initially thinking that argumentation might be a common personality trait among the group, I later came to the conclusion that there never seems to be a defined answer to any policy question. The details of the discussion, however lacking in consensus, were likely more insightful than if the group agreed completely on the topic.
Answers to some of my questions came out of these discussions. During the first panel discussion on energy policy, the ideas of funding directives, master plans and master planners were raised. In a rare blatant answer to a question, Samuel Baldwin, a member of the Board of Directors for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy, gave his personal description of current policy: There are no goals of energy strategies or final goal of energy policy. While shocking, his statement reminded me that a large bureaucracy must be pointed in a single direction if anything is to be accomplished. The master planner of the Department of Energy is the president, and as other speakers noted, the former master planner did not portray a clear direction in this area. With a clear plan, agencies should be able to disseminate their funding as a pathway to reach the policy goals; and so we will soon see what the new master planner’s ideas are for energy and other major topics.
The Forum’s keynote speakers shared their experiences and how they rose to their current positions. Since science policy training did not exist until relatively recently, many of the speakers took circuitous paths. Now, with the formation of formalized education on the subject, the pathways for the Forum students might look much different. Whether or not our more focused education improves our chances for success in the science policy world is up for debate. With experiences such as the Forum, however, we can see the breadth of careers that await us.
The experience was enlightening on many levels, and definitely served its purpose to expose the world of science policy. I learned many introductory lessons about bureaucracy, how policy is made, and the complexity of science and innovation policy. With the multitude of topics discussed, one theme encompassed the Forum: Though the ideologies and backgrounds of the panelists and students were quite diverse, there was a collective sense of excitement about the new administration’s openness to science. It seems that we scientists have won the election too.
Dept. of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Arizona State University
