An official website of the United States government
US national expert advisory bodies related to science, technology, and innovation (STI) policy have a wide range of missions, governing structures, operational practices, cultures, and impact on federal policymaking. This paper offers an analytical framework for assessing the autonomy, function, and influence of of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), a federal advisory committee consisting of 30 elite scientists, engineers, and industry leaders appointed by and advising the president. We demonstrate that PCAST carries both a strong instrumental advisory role, providing substantive advice to White House STI policy development, and a significant symbolic advisory role, offering visible public support to presidential decisions and initiatives related to STI. However, we find that the council's engagement with either or both roles has shifted depending on its available resources, the policy agenda of the administration it serves, the level of presidential attention, and the priorities of council leadership. The paper concludes with recommendations to guide future PCASTs in fulfilling their mission and appropriately influencing US national STI policy.
more »
« less
Representing science: diversity on the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
Abstract Federal advisory committees related to science and technology are important mechanisms for connecting policy-makers with independent experts and the broader public. The balance of represented expertise and viewpoints shapes a committee’s intended advisory role, consensus building processes, and the quality and impact of its policy recommendations. This paper presents the first historical analysis of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) and examines its changing balance of social and professional perspectives from 1990 to 2023. We demonstrate that PCAST’s balance has shifted to be more inclusive of different social groups and professional backgrounds over time, particularly under President Biden. We conclude with recommendations for future White House science policy advisory bodies to ensure they are adequately representative of the diversity of perspectives in the US research enterprise and the overall US population.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1854055
- PAR ID:
- 10511868
- Publisher / Repository:
- Oxford University Press
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Science and Public Policy
- Volume:
- 51
- Issue:
- 5
- ISSN:
- 0302-3427
- Format(s):
- Medium: X Size: p. 895-909
- Size(s):
- p. 895-909
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract Researchers and city practitioners are paramount stakeholders in creating urban resilience but have diverse and potentially competing views. To understand varying stakeholder perspectives, we conducted a systematic literature content analysis on green infrastructure (GI) and reflective pavement (RP). The analysis shows a United States (US)-based science-practice disconnect in written communication, potentially hindering holistic decision-making. We identified 191 GI and 93 RP impacts, categorized into co-benefits, trade-offs, disservices, or neutral. Impacts were further classified as environmental, social, or economic. The analysis demonstrates that US city practitioners emphasize social and economic co-benefits that may not be fully represented in the scientific discourse. Scientists communicate a broader range of impacts, including trade-offs and disservices, highlighting a nuanced understanding of the potential consequences. Identifying contrasting perspectives and integrating knowledge from various agents is critical in urban climate governance. Our findings facilitate bridging the science-policy disconnect in the US heat mitigation literature.more » « less
-
Abstract Early-stage science-based ventures (SBVs) require a wide range of intellectual resources and practical know-how to successfully commercialize their technologies. Often SBV founders actively gain this knowledge through advisory relationships providing business and technology guidance. We explore the effects of both business and technology advisors in combination with the founder’s entrepreneurial and technology experience. We measure early-stage success in an SBV using application readiness, a novel concept that encompasses progress in both technology discovery and validation as well as market identification and application. Using hand-collected longitudinal data from 112 emerging science-based ventures associated with American universities, we find that business advisors have a positive impact on application readiness, while technology advisors delay it; and these effects are moderated by the founder’s experience. Remarkably, a small number of advisors can have the same impact as decades of experience. Our article unpacks underexplored mechanisms through which advisors—an often-used policy tool supporting entrepreneurship—are implemented in emerging science-based ventures and makes academic contributions to the literatures on technology commercialization, advisors and human capital.more » « less
-
Abstract In transdisciplinary fields such as science policy, research agendas do not evolve organically from within disciplines but instead require stakeholders to engage in active co-creation. ‘Big questions’ exercises fulfill this need but simultaneously introduce new challenges in their subjectivity and potential bias. By applying Q methodology to an exercise in developing an international collaborative research agenda for legislative science advice (LSA), we demonstrate a technique to illustrate stakeholder perspectives. While the LSA international respondents—academics, practitioners, and policymakers—demonstrated no difference in their research priorities across advisory system roles, the analysis by developing and developed nation status revealed both common interests in institutional- and systems-level research and distinct preferences. Stakeholders in developing nations prioritized the design of advisory systems, especially in low- and middle-income countries, while those in developed countries emphasized policymaker evidence use. These differences illustrate unique regional research needs that should be met through an international agenda for LSA.more » « less
-
Abstract Scientific evidence regularly guides policy decisions1, with behavioural science increasingly part of this process2. In April 2020, an influential paper3proposed 19 policy recommendations (‘claims’) detailing how evidence from behavioural science could contribute to efforts to reduce impacts and end the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we assess 747 pandemic-related research articles that empirically investigated those claims. We report the scale of evidence and whether evidence supports them to indicate applicability for policymaking. Two independent teams, involving 72 reviewers, found evidence for 18 of 19 claims, with both teams finding evidence supporting 16 (89%) of those 18 claims. The strongest evidence supported claims that anticipated culture, polarization and misinformation would be associated with policy effectiveness. Claims suggesting trusted leaders and positive social norms increased adherence to behavioural interventions also had strong empirical support, as did appealing to social consensus or bipartisan agreement. Targeted language in messaging yielded mixed effects and there were no effects for highlighting individual benefits or protecting others. No available evidence existed to assess any distinct differences in effects between using the terms ‘physical distancing’ and ‘social distancing’. Analysis of 463 papers containing data showed generally large samples; 418 involved human participants with a mean of 16,848 (median of 1,699). That statistical power underscored improved suitability of behavioural science research for informing policy decisions. Furthermore, by implementing a standardized approach to evidence selection and synthesis, we amplify broader implications for advancing scientific evidence in policy formulation and prioritization.more » « less
