Science and Technology Policy

This article will focus on the United States science and technology policy. It will provide a summary and analysis of science and technology policy as well as a brief discussion of its history and current role in US government. Examples of science and technology policy in the fields of nanotechnology and networking and information technology will be described. This article will conclude with a discussion of the issues related to the finance and governance of scientific and technological innovation.

Keywords Information Technology; Nanotechnology; Networking; Science and Technology Policy; Technological Innovation

Business & Public Policy > Science & Technology Policy

Overview

In the United States, science and technology policy is a concern and focus of both the private and public sectors. Science and technology policy—which refers to the guidelines and parameters used to establish research and development priorities, methods, ethics, and deployment strategies in science and technology fields—influences the nation’s economy, security, and it’s citizens’ quality of life. Scientific and technological innovations flow between government agencies and laboratories, individual firms and industries, and universities.

In the private business sector, science and technology policy may refer to firm- or industry-specific decisions about the use of science and technology in the business lifecycle. Firm-based technology policy refers to a set of organizational decisions concerning technological posture, automation and process innovation, and new product development:

• Technological posture: A firm's propensity to use technology proactively in positioning itself in the marketplace.
• Automation and process innovation: The level of automation of plants and facilities, the adoption of the latest technology in production, and capital allocations for new equipment and machinery for use in the production process.
• New product development: The intensity of a firm's product development activities and initiatives (Zahra & Covin, 1993).

There is an established relationship between business strategy, technology policy, and company performance. Science and technology influence economic success and market share in increasingly competitive global markets. In response to new technology-driven global markets, companies have increased their use of advanced technologies and their development of technologically sophisticated products (Zahra & Covin, 1993).

In the public governmental sector, science and technology policy involves developing, managing, and supporting the scientific and technological capabilities of countries to advance and apply knowledge to strengthen the well-being of society and the economy. National science and technology policy often involves public investment of resources into the private sector. This public investment in science and technology has a direct and indirect effect on economic development.

The relationship between the private sector, public sector, and science and technology policy may be characterized as a science-technology-economy nexus. Ultimately, science and technology policy influences innovation in the private sector “through the creation of a stable macroeconomic environment, tax regimes, monetary policy, trade policy, regulatory frameworks and standards, and intellectual property rights” (de la Mothe & Dufour, 1995).

The following sections provide an overview of the history of science and technology policy in the United States and the current organizational framework that creates, supports, and guides the American government's science and technology policy. This overview will serve as a foundation for discussion of the applications of science and technology policy in the fields of nanotechnology and networking and information technology. In addition, the pressing issues of finance and governance of science and technology innovation will be addressed.

History of Science & Technology Policy in the United States

The relationship between science, technology, and the government became very close during the Cold War from the 1940s until the early 1990s. After World War II and during the Cold War era, publicly-funded science and technology research grew for three main reasons:

• Science and technology research was fueled by the perceived need for strong national defense technologies.
• Science and technology research was fueled by the belief that scientific research, which had delivered nuclear weapons, antibiotics, and jet aircraft, would produce other innovations of national interest.
• Science and technology research was fueled by the belief that a large national science system was perceived by other countries to be representative of national prestige and cultural achievement.

Cold War era science and technology policy, motivated by concerns for national defense more than economic growth, produced many of the university research and laboratory programs, government laboratories, and other technical institutes such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The United States, along with other countries such as Canada, Australia, Great Britain, France, and Switzerland, invested in significant national scientific infrastructures during the Cold War years (de la Mothe & Dufour, 1995). Cold War era science and technology policy was loosely coordinated and designed to further the missions of individual federal agencies. This Cold War-era defense-related policy spending resulted in the development of such high-technology industries as semiconductors, computers, and commercial aircraft.

During the 1980s and 1990s, private sector science and technology development and innovation grew, and defense-related military research and development slowed. In contrast to the pattern of the previous five decades, technological developments began to flow from civilian to military applications. In 2000, the Clinton administration reduced the role of defense-related research and design funding in US technology policy. Instead, the administration focused resources and policies on commercial technology development, procurement, and adoption.

The Clinton administration made two policy choices that continue to structure the government's science and technology policy program. First, it prioritized dual-use technology development programs. Dual-use technology development programs, which are an example of the administration's effort to support civilian, private sector technology and adoption, are cost and risk sharing initiatives between a government agency and an industry partner designed to produce a product that meet both government and commercial needs. Dual-use technology development programs are cost sharing agreements that combine the resources of both partners to potentially eliminate additional rework, time, and funding. Under the Clinton administration, the Commerce Department became a key agency in the management of jointly funded technology development and adoption programs with private firms. One of the most successful dual-use technology development programs was the flat-panel display initiative. This project supported the development of US technological and manufacturing capabilities for products embodying flat-panel technologies for civilian and military markets. Second, the Clinton administration prioritized the support of advanced technologies by providing strong monetary and policy support for the development and adoption of advanced technologies (Ham, 1995).

US Government's Science & Technology Policy Program

The US government's current science and technology policy program and infrastructure is comprised of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the National Science and Technology Council, and the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST).

In the United States, the Office of Science and Technology Policy oversees science and technology policy. The Office of Science and Technology Policy was established in 1976 by Congress to advise the president and other policy makers on the effects of science and technology on domestic and international affairs. The National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-282) authorizes the Office of Science and Technology Policy to accomplish the following tasks:

• The Office of Science and Technology Policy will serve as a source of scientific and technological analysis and judgment for the president with respect to major policies, plans, and programs of the federal government.
• The Office of Science and Technology Policy will lead an interagency effort to develop and implement sound science and technology policies and budgets.
• The Office of Science and Technology Policy will work with the private sector to ensure federal investments in science and technology contribute to economic prosperity, environmental quality, and national security.
• The Office of Science and Technology Policy will build strong partnerships among federal, state, and local governments, other countries, and the scientific community.
• The Office of Science and Technology Policy will evaluate the scale, quality, and effectiveness of the Federal effort in science and technology (Office of Science and Technology Policy, 2013).

In 1993, Executive Order 12881 established the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) as the principal agency within the executive branch to coordinate science and technology policy across the diverse entities that make up the federal research and development efforts. The National Science and Technology Council is comprised of the president, the vice president, the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and cabinet secretaries. The National Science and Technology Council is organized under four primary committees including Science, Technology, Environment and Natural Resources, and Homeland and National Security. The National Science and Technology Council's main objective and responsibility is to develop national goals for federal science and technology investments in a wide range of areas representing all the mission areas of the executive branch.

In 2009, President Obama announced the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), which would advice him and the Executive Office of the President and would make policy recommendations with the intent of strengthening the country’s economy through an understanding of science, technology, and innovation. The PCAST was established in 2001 through Executive Order 13226, reestablished in 2011 with Executive Order 13596. The PCAST also allows the president to receive advice from the private sector and academic community on technology, scientific research priorities, and math and science education. In 2013, the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology included twenty members from industry, education, research institutions, and other nongovernmental organizations. During 2012 and 2013, the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology discussed and heard reports on a wide range of issues such as cyber security, global climate change, nanotechnology, vaccines to guard against contracting influenza, and preparing STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) education in grades K–12.

Ultimately, the federal government's current approach to science and technology initiatives and policies is based on the belief in the benefits of interagency efforts. During the height of the Cold War era, science and technology policy development and initiatives were individual agency projects. Today, due to the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976, which empowered the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the following agencies are actively involved in interagency science and technology policy initiatives: the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Institute of Standards & Technology, the National Institutes of Health, the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Security Agency (NSA), the National Technology Transfer Center (NTTC), the National Telecommunications Information Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the Patent & Trademark Office, the Smithsonian Institution, and the US Geological Survey.

Applications

Nanotechnology, Networking, and Information Technology

The US government supports research and development in numerous science and technology fields. Two of the newest and largest areas of support include nanotechnology and networking and information technology. These two technology fields, believed by science, government, and industry to be crucial to the future of civilian and military well-being, have large policy initiatives supporting government and private sector research and development.

Nanotechnology

According to the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), nanotechnology is “the understanding and control of matter at dimensions between approximately 1 and 100 nanometers, where unique phenomena enable novel applications. Encompassing nanoscale science, engineering, and technology, nanotechnology involves imaging, measuring, modeling, and manipulating matter at this length scale.” Nanotechnology received its first major public government support in 2003. In 2003, Public Law 108-153, 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, authorized appropriations for nanoscience, nanoengineering, and nanotechnology research. This represented the first coordinated federal program for nanotechnology research and design.

In 2007, the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), a federal research and design program established to coordinate the multiagency efforts in nanoscale science, engineering, and technology, was established. The NNI includes twenty-six federal agencies half of which have targeted funds for nanotechnology research and development. The main goals of the NNI include the following:

• NNI will maintain a world-class research and development program aimed at realizing the full potential of nanotechnology.
• NNI will facilitate transfer of new technologies into products for economic growth, jobs, and other public benefit.
• NNI will develop educational resources, a skilled workforce, and the supporting infrastructure and tools to advance nanotechnology.
• NNI will support responsible development of nanotechnology (National Nanotechnology Initiative, 2013).

The NNI finds numerous private sector nanotechnology research and development opportunities. For example, NNI along with the trans-NIH Bioengineering Consortium (BECON) on behalf of the participating Institutes and Centers supports a Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grant for private sector projects which develop and apply nanotechnology to biomedicine. In 2012, the PCAST released its fourth assessment of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (Office of Science and Technology, 2012).

Networking & Information Technology

The federal government is equally, if not more so, committed to supporting research and development for networking and information technology as it is for nanotechnology. The scope of current US government networking and information technology policies and programs is determined by the parameters established and resources allocated in two public laws from the 1990s: the High Performance Computing Act of 1991 and the Next Generation Internet Research Act of 1998.

In 1991, the High Performance Computing Act (Public Law 102-194) established the following agencies and initiatives:

• The High Performance Computing Act implements the National High-Performance Computing Program and establishes an advisory committee on high-performance computing.
• The High Performance Computing Act requires each federal agency and department participating in the program to identify program elements in the annual budget requests.
• The High Performance Computing Act requires participating agencies to support the establishment of the National Research and Education Network, to link research and educational institutions, government, and industry in every state.
• The High Performance Computing Act sets forth network requirements for the public and private sectors including fostering and maintaining competition and private sector investment in high-speed data networking within the telecommunications industry and promoting the development of commercial data communications and telecommunications standards.
• The High Performance Computing Act requires the Department of Defense, through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, to support research and development of advanced fiber optics technology, switches, and protocols for the network.
• The High Performance Computing Act establishes the National Coordination Office for Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program.

In 1998, the Next Generation Internet Research Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-305) accomplished two main goals. First, the Next Generation Internet Research Act authorized research programs related to high-end computing and computation, human-centered systems, high confidence systems, and education, training, and human resources. Second, the Next Generation Internet Research Act provided for the development and coordination of a comprehensive and integrated US research program which focuses on a computer network infrastructure that promotes interoperability among advanced federal computer networks, high-speed data access that is economical and that does not impose a geographic penalty, and flexible and extensible networking technology.

The High Performance Computing Act of 1991 and the Next Generation Internet Research Act of 1998, which created large interagency programs and standards, direct nearly all of the government's efforts in digital, network, and computer fields (NITRD, 2013).

Issues

Finance and Management of Technology and Innovation

The growth and increasing importance, both economic and social, of science and technology research and development raises numerous questions about the finance, governance, and appropriate role of public-private research partnerships. There are at least three basic questions that need to be asked and answered about current public sector science and technology policy:

• Should public support of applied research and design go to individual firms or to industries collectively, and how should publicly-funded research and design programs be governed?
• How should industry-focused basic research programs be structured?
• Should the results, outcomes, and innovations from publicly supported programs be proprietary or public?

The economic costs of science and technology development are extremely high. As a result, national laboratories and private firms often work together. Public monies and public resources become enmeshed with private firms. The US government, the main source of funds for long-term basic research, is currently debating the issues related to public funding of research that benefits an individual company rather than an industry. Government favoritism, real or imagined, is a common outcome of government support for private sector research. Ultimately, the favoritism issues must be resolved as the responsibility for long-term basic research rests on the government. Individual firms and industries often cannot or will not afford the expense of long-run basic scientific and technological research (Nelson, 1995).

The finance, research, development, and management of scientific innovations, such as nanotechnology, networking, and information technology, are major challenges for business, government, and society. Emerging governance issues trouble the relationship between government and business. The choices each group makes about the applications of innovations are mediated by values, profit, ethics, available technology needs, and the potential for risk and harm. One of the major challenges of managing technological innovations has to do with questions of ownership: Who financed the technological innovations? Who owns the technological innovations? Who patented it? Who uses and needs the technological innovations? Who has advertised and promoted the technological innovations? Who turned the technological innovations into a commercial product? Ultimately, while government and society mediate how scientific innovations are to be used, the pace of rapid technological change in areas leaves little time to adequately discuss the relationship between ethics, budgets, science, and power (Rand, 2001).

Conclusion

In the final analysis, science and technology research has benefited significantly from the US government’s creation of multiple interagency initiatives for research and development over many decades. The scope of government influence and support in science and technology development has grown so large and enmeshed with private sector interests, that debates about finance, management, and governance are inevitable. Ultimately, science and technology policy is challenged by shifts in the nature of research and its socio-political-economic context. The nature of science is changing, the nature of economic activity is changing, the management of science and technology is changing, and, in response, the public and private sectors are developing new and adaptive forms of science and technology policy (de la Mothe & Dufour, 1995).

Terms & Concepts

Automation and Process Innovation: The level of automation of plants and facilities, the adoption of the latest technology in production, and capital allocations for new equipment and machinery.

Cold War: The period of conflict, tension, and competition between the United States and the Soviet Union and their allies from mid-1940s to the early 1990s.

Dual-Use Technology Development Programs: Cost and risk sharing initiatives between a government agency and an industry partner designed to produce a product that meet both government and commercial needs.

Federal Government: A form of government in which a group of states recognizes the sovereignty and leadership of a central authority while retaining certain powers of government.

Information Technology: The development, installation, and implementation of computer systems and applications.

Nanotechnology: The understanding and control of matter at dimensions between approximately 1 and 100 nanometers, where unique phenomena enable novel applications. Encompassing nanoscale science, engineering, and technology, nanotechnology involves imaging, measuring, modeling, and manipulating matter at this length scale.

New Product Development: The intensity of a firm's product development activities.

Office of Science and Technology Policy: A federal agency established in 1976 by Congress to advise the president and other policy-makers within the Executive Office of the President on the effects of science and technology on domestic and international affairs.

Science and Technology Policy: The guidelines and parameters used to establish research and development priorities, methods, ethics, and deployment strategies in science and technology fields; influences the economy, quality of life, and national security.

Technological Posture: The firm's preference for or propensity to use technology proactively in positioning itself.

Bibliography

Adamson, David M. & Rippen, Helga. (2004). Analytic perspectives on the science and technology issues facing the nation. Science and Technology Policy Institute: A Report to the President. November 21, 2013, from http://www.rand.org/pubs/corporatepubs/CP478.html

Bigwood, M. (2004). Managing the new technology exploitation process. Research Technology Management, 47, 38-42. Retrieved April 27, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=14935409&site=ehost-live

de la Mothe, J. & Dufour, P. (1995). Techno-globalism and the challenges to science and technology policy. Daedalus, 124, 219-237.

Ham, R., & Mowery, D. (1995). Enduring dilemmas in U.S. technology policy. California Management Review, 37, 4-107. Retrieved April 27, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9510031720&site=ehost-live

Hanson, D. J. (2011). Innovation Policy Urged For U.S. Chemical & Engineering News (00092347), 89, 30–31. Retrieved November 21, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=60877397

Metcalfe, J. (1997). Science policy and technology policy in a competitive economy. International Journal of Social Economics, 24(7/8), 723. Retrieved April 27, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9709115291&site=ehost-live

National Nanotechnology Initiative. (2013) Retrieved November 21, 2013, from http://www.nano.gov/

Nelson, R. (1995). Why should managers be thinking about technology policy? Strategic Management Journal, 16, 581-588. Retrieved April 27, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=12492900&site=ehost-live

NITRD (2013). High-performance computing act of 1991. The Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program.. Retrieved November 21, 2013, from http://www.nitrd.gov/Congressional/Laws/pl102-194.aspx

Office of Science and Technology Policy. (2013). Science, technology and innovation. Retrieved November 21, 2013, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp

Office of Science and Technology Policy. (2012). PCAST documents and reports. Retrieved November 21, 2013, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/pcast/docsreports

Panelists Debate Spectrum Sharing Terms Outlined in PCAST Report. (2012). Telecommunications Reports, 78, 16–17.Retrieved November 21, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=90161122

Ryan, T., & Mothibi, J. (2000). Towards a systemic framework for understanding science and technology policy formulation problems for developing countries. Systems Research & Behavioral Science, 17, 375-381. Retrieved April 27, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=17071385&site=ehost-live

Widener, A. (2012). Restoring Respect for Research. Chemical & Engineering News (00092347), 90, 30–31.Retrieved November 21, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=83287177

Zahra, S., & Covin, J. (1993). Business strategy, technology policy and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 451-478. Retrieved April 27, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=5207188&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Guston, D. (1997). Critical appraisal in science and technology policy analysis. Policy Sciences, 30, 233-255. Retrieved April 27, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=336859&site=ehost-live

Jamison, A. (2001). Science, technology and the quest for sustainable development. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 13, 9-22. Retrieved April 27, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=4168987&site=ehost-live

Roth, J., & Küppers, G. (2002). Democratizing European science and technology policies. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Sciences, 15, 307-324. Retrieved April 27, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=8909817&site=ehost-live

Schwartz, M., Lee, M., & Woolls, B. (2013). Administration takes action on access to research. Library Journal, 138, 13. Retrieved November 21, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=86027776

Widener, A. (2012). Guiding science education. Chemical & Engineering News (00092347), 90, 32–33. Retrieved November 21, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=73953473