Transcript State R&D Based Economic Development Programs: Georgia

The New Science Policy:
Linking Research to
Societal Outcomes
Michael Crow
Chair, Center for Science, Policy, and Outcomes, and
Professor, School of International and Public Affairs,
and Executive Vice Provost, Columbia University
May 1, 2001
Foundations of Science
Policy
Current
Enhanced
Republic of Science
Democratic Science
Market Failure
Model
Sociotechnical
Outcomes Model
Unpredictability
Prediction
with Uncertainty
Current (Linear) Approach to
Science Policy
Inputs
Processes
Products
Outcomes
Input-driven process assumes:
All societal outcomes will be positive
Linear model of innovation and societal benefit
Linking Scientific Research and
Science Policy to Societal
Outcomes
Genetically-Modified Organisms (GMOs)
Science is a Principal
Driver of Change
Social
change
Health and Medical
change
Internet
Science- Biotechnology
based
economy
Environmental
National
change
security change
Climate
Weapons of mass
destruction
A New Science Policy
Framework: Outcome-Driven
Integrated
Informed
Self-correcting
Recognizes and responds to the inextricable
links between science and technology and
societal evolution
Perspectives
Daniel Sarewitz: How does the science that
we do affect the social choices we make?
Barry Bozeman: How do the S&T programs
we implement affect the distribution and
equity of outcomes?
Global Climate
Change and Societal
Outcomes
Daniel Sarewitz
Senior Research Scholar
Center for Science, Policy, and Outcomes
Columbia University
May 1, 2001
How does the science that
we do affect the social
choices we make?
Social
Systems
Research
Components of
Environmental
Science
Biological
Systems
Research
Technological
Systems
Research
Geophysical Systems
Research
“Our
special report
explores the hard
scientific
evidence of the
greenhouse effect
and the White
House stand
against a treaty
intended to keep
things cool.”
Time Magazine
April 9, 2001
Standard (Linear) Model of
Science for Decision Making
Fundamental
Research
Predictive
Models
Policy
Decisions
Societal
Benefits
(Warming)
Climate change
scenarios:
We cannot
dictate global
socioeconomic
paths
Source: S. Smith, PNL/Battelle
Local land use
affects climate
at every scale
Source: C. Ziegler, NOAA
60
Major
Disasters
> 100 killed
> 1% of population affected
>1% nat’l GDP
40
20
0
1900
1920
Source: OFDA/CRED International Disaster Data Base
1940
1960
1980
2000
Source: R. Pielke Jr.
Hurricane Mitch, October 22 - November 5, 1998
Human Impacts
Deaths
>10,000
People affected 1.7 million
Source: NOAA/OGP
Economic Impacts
Country
Losses
% of GDP
Nicaragua
Honduras
US$2 billion
US$4 billion
50%
100%
Source: The Economist 11/14/98; slide courtesy of R. Pielke Jr.
1998 Estimated Deaths from Historical Central
American and Caribbean Hurricanes
Name
Date
Country
UNNAMED
1-6 Sep 1930
Dom. Rep.
UNNAMED
4-8 Jun 1934
FIFI
El Salvador
Honduras
30 Sep–8 Oct 1963 Haiti
Cuba
14-19 Sep 1974
Honduras
MITCH
27-29 Oct 1998
FLORA
Estimated
Projected deaths
deaths in year in 1998
of hurricane
4,700
23,000
2,250
9,500
7,400
11,000
6,200
15,000
Honduras
10,000
Nicaragua
El Salvador
Guatemala
Notes: Average of losses reported in Rappaport et al. 1995.
(Sources: IFRCRCS 1999; Rappaport et al. 1995; NCC 1975, 1979, 1980)
Source: Pielke, Rubiera, Landsea, and Klein 2000
60
Major
Disasters
> 100 killed
> 1% of population affected
>1% nat’l GDP
40
20
0
1900
1920
Source: OFDA/CRED International Disaster Data Base
1940
1960
1980
2000
Sensitivity Analysis of 2XCO2 Worldwide Global Tropical
Cyclone Loss Estimates for 2050
Society Changes,
Climate Constant
SRES A1
SRES B1
SRES B2
SRES A2
Climate Changes,
Society Constant
Tol
Fankhauser
Cline
0%
100%
200%
300%
% Increase in Losses 2000-2050
Source: Pielke Jr., Kline, and Sarewitz, 2000.
400%
500%
Life and Death in
the Promised
Land, July 2000
(Manila,
Philippines)
Not Control But Navigation
Because the pathway to
sustainability cannot be
charted in advance, it will
have to be navigated through
trial and error and conscious
experimentation.
National Research Council, 2000 Our Common
Journey
How does the
science that
we do affect
the social
choices we
make?
Science and Technology
Policy in the States:
Economic Development for
Whom?
Barry Bozeman
Regents Professor, School of Public Policy, Georgia Tech
and Distinguished Scholar, Center for Science, Policy,
and Outcomes, Columbia University
May 1, 2001
How do the S&T programs
we implement affect the
distribution and equity of
outcomes?
New “Laboratories of
Democracy”
University-Industry “Centers of
Excellence”
Research Parks
Business Incubators
Technology Development Centers
Manufacturing Assistance Programs
The Linear Theory of Innovation:
State Government Version
Stimulate
science and
technology
Build new
businesses
Create
wealth in
the state
Societal
Benefits
Income transfer from middle income taxpayer to the wealthy
Why are problems of
employment and distribution of
income S&T Issues?
S&T and social issues critically
interdependent
Technology strategy drives government
spending and its social outcomes
Linear thinking in technology policy is
linear thinking in social outcomes
A Case Study: Georgia
Top five in spending for S&T Programs
FY2000: $51 million
Universities highly effective technology
transfer sites
Strong Hi-Tech base in Metro Atlanta
But…Booming and Busting at the Same
Time
The Georgia
Economy is Hot
Unemployment rate below 5% since 1995
State revenues doubled between 1990
and 1999
New corporations per month doubled
between 1985 and 1999
15,000 jobs unfilled right now
But…Booming AND
Busting
Median income for:
Whites in Metro Atlanta: $51,000
African-Americans: $18,000
Rural Georgia families: $27,000
Atlanta among leaders in creating new
millionaires and in percentages of children
below poverty level
Average SAT’s:
Georgia Tech: 1319
Georgia high schools: 874
Georgia has the
worst high school
graduation rate in
the nation
TABLE ONE. Budget: R&D Based
Economic Development Programs of
State of Georgia.
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Traditional
Industries
Initiatives
.
2,200
5,172
5,915
7,615
6,160
7,150
Georgia
Advanced Technology
Research
Development
Total
Alliance (GRA)
Center (ATDC)
($ in thousands)
15,050
1,555
16,605
22,000
1,581
25,781
44,625
1,886
51,683
29,744
1,979
37,638
40,129
2,282
50,026
38,925
2,388
47,473
42,400
2,178
51,728
Source: Budget Report 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996 State of Georgia
Georgia Research Alliance
Mission: “to foster economic development within
Georgia by developing and leveraging the
research capabilities of research universities
within the state and to assist and develop
scientific and technology-based industry.”
Georgia Research Alliance:
Research Centers
Georgia Center for Advanced
Telecommunications Technology (GCATT)
Georgia Biotechnology Center (GBC)
Georgia Environmental Technology
Consortium (GETC)
Alliance Technology Ventures
Georgia Research
Alliance: Impact
GRA Sponsored Research Programs:
$700 M in 1996.
Intellectual Property: licenses increased
from 22 in 1990 to almost 50 in 1996.
Industry-University Collaboration
Start-Ups Research Partnerships
Is Georgia S&T Policy
a “Success”?
Yes: Creates jobs, creates wealth, does a
lot with a little
No: Exacerbates wage gaps, promotes
uneven development, contributes to
suburban rim sprawl
Is the Georgia
Economic Case
Representative?
Poorest 20% of U.S. population had
declining real income 1977-1999
Number of full-time workers with poverty
level incomes increased by 459,000 in
1998
Running in Place,
Running Ahead:
The median
wage earner
has advanced
only 8% in
income growth
during past
two decades
The Dual Agenda:
Science and Social Equity
The Challenge: to develop science and
technology policy that reaches the
significant proportion of each state’s
working poor who have been bypassed by
the economic boom...
Why a Dual Agenda?
Public program
Fairness
Raw self interest
Outcomes Challenge
Quality of Life
Cooperative Technology Education
Re-focused Centers of Excellence
Programs
How do the S&T programs
we implement affect the
distribution and equity of
outcomes?
Science Policy Research
Needs
New science policy indicators
New tools of evaluation
New vision for what science can bring to our
future
Education of scientists and politicians
Replace Cold War paradigm as outmoded
Linking Scientific Research to
Societal Outcomes: New Models
Education
New skills
Societal
Outcomes
Economic
Outcomes
New social
structures
POLICY
New industries
New institutions
S&T
Outcomes
Conduct
of Science
Partnerships
Knowledge transfer
Tech transfer
Morality and Science
What is the collective good that we want
inquiry to promote?
Philip Kitcher, Professor of Philosophy
in Science, Truth and Democracy, to be published, 2001