1. Extracting and Assessing the Public Values of Science and Innovation Policies Or: Moving from Outputs to Outcomes in SIP Assessment Daniel Sarewitz Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes Arizona State University

2. Corn Productivity Output

3. Outcome

4. Given all the complexity, for any program(me) we can still ask: What public values are sought? Are the strategies for linking institutions, network actors, and individuals viable? Is the causal logic sound? Are the human and institutional resources in place? Source: Bozeman, 2002

5. Increase quality and years of healthy life. Eliminate health disparities. (US Health and Human Services Department) Ensure a safe and affordable food supply. (US Agriculture Department) Foster a reliable energy system that is environmentally and economically sustainable. (US Energy Department) Public Values in SIPs: Broadly Shared Values that Justify Public Investments in S&T and Express the Implicit Links Between Those Investments and Desired Social Outcomes

6. Perceived Risks: 2007 Scientist and Public Opinion Surveys (Corley and Scheufele) Public Values Do Not Equal Scientists’ Values

7. Method: Public Value Mapping Traditional Science Policy Logic Model Research Activities, Institutions, and Translation Policy Analysis using Standard Market-based Assessment or Output Assessment Approach “And then a miracle occurs” Societal Impact Enhanced Science Policy Logic Model Adds PVM to Avoid Public Values Failure Assertions of Public Value Priorities and Societal Benefits, Risk, and Impacts Public Value Mapping (Non-Economic Analysis) Case Study Approach Summarize case background and identify stakeholders Secure stakeholder documents including policy statements, plans, memos, web pages Public value statement scan Value chain analysis (links and hierarchies) Assessment of institutional capacities Identify potential values failures (individual value failures and chain failures) Retrospective or Prospective Analysis of Capacities to Achieve Stipulated Public Values

8. Public Failure CriterionFailure DefinitionExample 1. Mechanism for values articulation and aggregation Political process and social cohesion insufficient Peer review 2. Imperfect monopoliesPrivate provision permitted yet government monopoly in the public interest Clinical trials 3. Scarcity of providersRecognition of public value and agreement on public provision but unavailability of providers Landsat 4. Short time horizonsLonger term view shows short term actions counter to public value Energy R&D 5. Substitutability vs. conservation of resources No satisfactory substituteWetlands protection or sale of human organs 6. Benefit hoardingCommodities or service captured, limiting distribution to the population Terminator gene Public Value Mapping: Public Failure Criteria

9. PUBLIC VALUES IN CLIMATE SCIENCE (R. MEYER, 2011) Useful Information High Quality Science Coordination and Collaboration Transparency and Communication Stakeholder Participation

10. Case: U.S. climate change research (Meyer 2011) Public Failure CriterionExplanation 1. Mechanism for values articulation and aggregation CCSP criteria for prioritization are too broad and vague; no connection between priorities, outcomes or values. Stakeholders widely or ambiguously defined 2. Imperfect monopolies 3. Scarcity of providers Priorities tend to favor natural science over social science, and science-driven research over needs-oriented research despite recognized needs 4. Short time horizons 5. Substitutability vs. conservation of resources 6. Benefit hoarding

11. Case: university patenting (Valdivia 2011) Public Failure CriterionExplanation 1. Mechanism for values articulation and aggregation Opposition to Bayh-Dole was neutralized by ill-designed safeguards that were easily defused and struck down 2. Imperfect monopolies Failure to enforce march-in rights for controlling excess of monopolistic pricing Failure to support universities balancing organizational needs and the public interest 3. Scarcity of providers 4. Short time horizons 5. Substitutability vs. conservation of resources 6. Benefit hoarding

12. Case: nanomedicine (Slade 2011) Public Failure CriterionExplanation 1. Mechanism for values articulation and aggregation No consistent or effective policy/strategy to increase minority participation in clinical trials. 2. Imperfect monopolies 3. Scarcity of providers Only 3% to 4% of board-certified minority physicians participate in clinical trials. 4. Short time horizons 5. Substitutability vs. conservation of resources 6. Benefit hoarding Lack of diversity in study populations results in inequitable distribution of clinical trials’ (often life-saving) resources. Most trials limit co-morbid conditions prevalent in minority populations.

13. Public Success Public Failure Market Failure Market Success AIDS Research Earthquake Research SIP Policies Matter for Public Values

14. Public Value Mapping: Watch the Video!! http://www.cspo.org/scisip/movies/ as Public Values As The Market Failure Model Starring

15. Collaborators and Co-Conspirators: Barry Bozeman, University of Georgia Cathy Slade, University of Georgia Ryan Meyer, California Ocean Science Trust Genevieve Maricle, USAID Nat Logar, Harvard Walter Valdivia, Brookings Institute Erik Fisher, ASU See: Minerva 2011, v. 49 (1).