Democratizing Science

Democratizing Science

Democratizing science can involve increased upstream participation of the general public and benefit policy makers by avoiding market rejection of technology and other misappropriations of resources. The nature of politics in the US however is a fickle beast and upstream visibility ensures that no matter how beneficial your proposed solution, it will draw enemies and resistance in public policy, if for no other reason, than it may take resources away from some other priority. The shift in policy modulation to starting with a governance mindset can also draw in the networks of actors required to make a system more attractive to policy makers. In our class discussion on this topic we examined the European model, where networks of resources from differing countries and diverse backgrounds were awarded projects and grants to aide in the distribution of scientific capability and ensure equitable distribution of R&D euros. The US could take lessons from this policy for basic research and increase project funding from the principal investigator model to the project team model more frequently. This may already be happening in basic science circles, and certainly happens frequently in large technology development programs.

Centers and consortium in the university and foundation space seem to be learning to bid projects more collaboratively, but are still tied to the principal investigator or co-investigator awarded the grant. This provides a good control point to ensure efficient distribution of funds and monitor the projects for midstream, adjustments. In large industry, federal agencies have learned to distribute effort throughout several states in order to keep a critical mass of members of congress on board. This is sometimes referred to as “keeping the program sold”. If there is not a core group of interested parties in place to defend a program, it may not survive any political attacks during budget appropriations. The public dissatisfaction with the direction of R&D is always a source of contention in America, our argumentative system often requires us to give equal credence to both sides of an argument, even when one side may not be as scientifically or technically accurate. Fear mongering in the press can also help sink basic research on the premise of worst case scenarios or low probability events that the public weighs as equally likely with higher probability actions. The risk of upstream engagement is the exclusion of science with unclear future results. This risk must be managed to ensure that good science still gets the resources it deserves to flourish.