Interesting Talk by Dr. Marburger

Metrics of  Pasteurs Quadrant and quantitative science policy studies

Clicking here will download the text of a Policy Forum Keynote Address on April 21 at a AAAS S&T Policy Forum given by John Marburger, Director  of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The first part of the talk refutes the sometimes claim that the Bush administration has underinvested in R&D. You can make your own judgement on the merits of his arguments. The part of the talk I found most interesting and relevant to the “CLEAR” theme is towards the end and I have highlighted it in yellow in the pdf file.

This section begins by noting a recent NRC Report entitled Measuring Research and Development Expenditures in the U.S. Economy. On page 1 of this report the authors write "The NSF research and development expenditure data are often ill-suited for the purposes to which they have been employed.  They attempt to quantify three traditional pieces of the R&D enterprise – basic research, applied research and development – when much of the engine of innovation stems from the intersection of these components, or in the details of each.

Earlier in the talk Marburger references an early NRC report chaired by Frank Press  and includes the following quote from it: "The committee's definition of FS&T deliberately blurs any distinction between basic and applied science or between science and technology.  A complex relationship has evolved between basic and applied science and technology.  In most instances, the linear sequential view of innovation is simplistic and misleading.  Basic and applied science and technology are treated here as one inter-related enterprise, as they are conducted in the science and engineering schools of our universities and in federal laboratories."  Jack Marberger (JM) then adds, “ten years later the "complex relationship" has evolved to significantly new modes of research that are even more difficult to sort out among the old categories.”

This part of the talk is to my mind acknowledging the emergence of a more sophisticated and blended view of research and development than the Vannevar Bush linear model used in establishing the NSF. JM is essentially recognizing the Pasteur Quadrant model of R&D as developed by Donald Stokes in this essay published as a a small book. In my opinion. 1) a Pasteur Quadrant approach is required for the R&D to create and apply cyberinfrastructure (CI), and 2)  CI-applications can eventually facilitate the conduct of Pasteur Quadrant type activities in and between many disciplines.

The second noteworthy part of the talk is a call for a new interdisciplinary field of quantitative science policy studies.  This section includes the following suggestion:

“I am suggesting that the nascent field of the social science of science policy needs to grow up, and quickly, to provide a basis for understanding the enormously complex dynamic of today's global, technology-based society.  We need models that can give us insight into the likely futures of the technical workforce and its response to different possible stimuli.  We need models for the impact of globalization on technical work, for the impact of yet further revolutions in information technology on the work of scientists and engineers, for the effect on federal programs of the inexorable proliferation of research centers, institutes, and laboratories and their voracious appetite for federal funds, for the effect of huge fluctuations in state support for public universities.  These are not items that you can just go out and buy, because research is necessary even to frame an approach.  This is a task for a new interdisciplinary field of quantitative science policy studies.”

The last couple pages are well worth a quick read and further discussion.

Comments

[Michael Cohen]

It's one thing to say that some research lies in Pasteur's Quadrant, when an individual or group wants to do such research, and another thing to say that all research should be understood or regulated without using distinctions like fundamental/applied.
There really isn't anything applied about the core reasons for chasing the Higgs' Boson, even if one claims in justifying the expense that the quest in conceptually momentous and there could be spinoffs from the technology required.
So while I want the P's Q. idea to be understood and credited, I'm not sure I want the fundamental/applied distinction to be abandoned, despite its ambiguities. I suspect doing so will make it harder to see whether NSF is further shortening its time horizon.

[Dan Atkins]

Yes, thanks for raising this. I really do need to clarify that I do not mean that all activies of discovery need to be in the Pasteur Quadrant.. the Bohr and Edison quandrants need to exist too. Maybe we need three (or perhaps) 4 classifications...

[Yan Chen]

I googled "science policy" and the first two pages did not contain any leading research universities. At least part of the reason for the lack of researh in social sciences on science policy might be due to the social scientists' lack of (or limited) knowledge of science and technology. SI, however, should be able to lead in this area, because of our in-house mix of social and computer scientists and the existing contacts and cumulative knowledge from CREW research.