# **Science Policy Leaders in the United States:**

# **Attitudes, activities, and information needs**

# 

**William Valdez**

**Director**

**Office of Planning and Analysis**

**Office of Science**

**U.S. Department of Energy**

**Washington, DC 20585**

**Jon D. Miller**

**Professor and Director**

**Center for Biomedical Communication**

**Feinberg School of Medicine**

**Northwestern University**

**Chicago, Illinois 60611**

**A paper presented to the annual meeting of the**

**American Association for the Advancement of Science,**

**Denver, Colorado**

**February 18, 2003**

# **Science Policy Leaders in the United States:**

# **Attitudes, activities, and information needs**

# 

The purpose of this paper is to describe the attitudes, activities, and
information needs of science policy leaders in the United States. As the
scope and depth of the symposia presented at this annual meeting of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science illustrate, science
policy today deals with a wide range of issues, ranging from the very
definition of health and illness to the long-term prognosis for life on
this planet. It is important to fully understand who the leaders of
science policy in the United States are, where they come from, what they
believe about science and the world, where they get the information that
they use in formulating their views on science policy issues, and what
-- if any -- unmet information needs that they may have.

This report is built on the conceptualization of policy leadership
presented by Jon Miller in the preceding paper (Miller, 1983, 1988).
There can be little doubt that we live in an era of political and issue
specialization and that specialized communities such as the scientific
community play a special role in the formulation of public policy
involving its own areas of expertise (Price, 1954, 1965). This is not to
say that other communities will not have an interest in some of the
policy decisions that are important to the scientific community, as the
current debates over global warming and the use of stem cells in
biomedical research illustrate. But even in policy debates involving
other interest groups, it is important to fully understand how science
policy is formulated and the role of science policy leaders in this
process (Barke, 1986; Miller, 1983, 1985, 1988).

One of the identifying traits of the scientific community is its
reliance upon and use of information. This trait manifests itself in the
free and open distribution of information among scientists as part of
the general scientific discovery process, but also results in a free
exchange of ideas that shape science policy. Members of the scientific
community are extraordinarily active in time-intensive activities, such
as participation in scientific advisory committees and journal review
committees, that help shape science policy and influence the formulation
of major new scientific initiatives, such as the construction of the
Large Hadron Collider in Europe and the emergence of nanoscience as a
new national scientific area of study.

This reliance upon free and open discussion can be both a help and
hindrance to anyone interested in helping to shape the attitudes of the
scientific community. On the one hand, the general assumption is that
the science community's views are shaped more by the technical and
specialty press that they read than by more popular media outlets, such
as national newspapers and television news casts. Thus a reliance on a
general communications strategy might not be the best approach with the
scientific community.

The opportunity exists, however, to develop highly targeted
communication strategies that have a good probability of success. Since
the scientific community tends to rely on media that has a high
scientific content and is produced specifically for the scientific
community, anyone interested in communicating to this audience would do
well to rely on non-traditional ways to communicate with the scientific
community. In particular, the emergence of the Internet holds enormous
promise given the affinity that the scientific community has with
technology in general, and the World Wide Web, in particular. It was the
physics community, after all, which invented the World Wide Web as a
specialty communications tool because they needed a mechanism to share
scientific results across international borders.

Identifying high impact communication tools that can reach science
policy leaders is a goal that is of increasing importance and urgency.
Science and technology policy has a direct impact on funding decisions
at the Federal government level that reach to the tens of billions of
dollars each year and affect the lives of virtually every taxpayer on
some level. Given the rapid pace of change in science and technology and
the extraordinary complexity of the scientific issues that are being
addressed (climate change, genomics, nanoscience), the need for clear
and effective communication with science policy leaders is more
compelling than ever before.

**THE 2002 STUDY OF SCIENCE POLICY LEADERS**

To study the membership, activities, communication practices, and
information needs of science policy leaders, a population listing was
constructed in the Summer and Fall of 2002. Building on the definitions
originally developed for national leadership studies in the 1980's
(Miller and Prewitt, 1982; Miller, 1985, 1986, 1988), all of the members
of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of
Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine were included, as were all
Nobel Laureates. The original list of scientific, mathematical, and
engineering societies was constructed by looking at the federated
associations that comprise the American Association for the Advancement
of Science (AAAS). Some additional societies and associations were added
when it was found that they were frequently involved in testifying
before congressional committees. Full-time science journalists were
identified by pruning an original list of the membership of the National
Association of Science Writers (NASW) to eliminate part-time writers and
journalists without national exposure. Additional journalists were added
by examining major science and technology stories published in 2000 and
2001, using the Lexus-Nexus and similar indices. A list of
science-related corporations was developed by pruning the Fortune 500
list of corporations with minimal involvement with science or technology
and then using various online indices to locate the names and addresses
of the officers and board members of each qualifying corporation. A
total of 8,820 science policy leadership positions were identified.

A similar procedure was used to construct a population list of energy
policy leaders, following the definition outlined above. A total of
3,700 energy policy leadership positions were identified. It is useful
to note that none of the previous leadership studies conducted in the
1980's defined a separate population of energy policy leaders, although
one study included a national sample of utility industry leaders.

Some individuals qualified as a science policy leader and as an energy
policy leader. To select a sample for the 2002 study, three separate
population lists were constructed: (1) positions occupied by individuals
who qualified as a science policy leader only, (2) positions occupied by
individuals were qualified as an energy policy leader only, and (3)
positions occupied by individuals who qualified as a science policy
leader and a energy policy leader. Within each list of these three lists
of positions, a systematic sample was selected, using a random entry
point and a systematic sampling interval thereafter. As a result of this
sampling procedure, an initial sample of 633 science policy leaders was
selected (see Table 1).

The original population of leaders was constructed from a wide array of
published sources and online listings. A smaller sample was selected and
each individual received a letter describing the study and asking for
his or her cooperation. The original mailing included an introductory
letter from Professor Miller, a printed questionnaire, a reprint of an
earlier article about science policy leaders, and a postage-paid return
envelope. The letter indicated that the individual could complete and
return the printed questionnaire, do the same questionnaire online (a
password was provided), or request a telephone interview that would ask
the same set of questions. Individuals who did not respond within three
weeks received a second mailing and a series of follow-up e-mail and
telephone messages.

In the process of trying to contact the individuals selected for the
sample, it was found that 110 respondents were ill, no longer active, or
deceased. The sample size was adjusted to 523 eligible respondents. A
total of 331 science policy leaders completed a questionnaire on paper,
online, or in a telephone interview, producing a cooperation rate of 63
percent (see Table 1). Approximately a third of science policy leaders
refused to complete a questionnaire or failed to return it by the end of
February, 2003, the closing date for the study.

The cooperation rate is slightly lower than the 80 percent cooperation
rate obtained by Miller in his science policy leadership studies in the
mid-1980's (Miller, 1985, 1988). The studies conducted in the 1980's
relied exclusively on telephone interviews scheduled after an original
letter describing the project and requesting assistance. Numerous calls
were required to find a time a telephone interview with many science
policy leaders. In the 2002 study, each science policy leader was
offered the choice of a printed questionnaire, an online questionnaire,
or a telephone interview. Only five leaders requested a telephone
interview, and more than 90 percent completed a printed questionnaire
and returned it by mail or fax. It does not appear that the method was
responsible for the lower cooperation rate, since each respondent was
able to select the method of his or her choice.

It is tempting to suggest that science policy leaders may be busier at
the beginning of the 21^st^ century than in the mid-1980's, but there is
no solid evidence for this view. We conclude that it is likely that the
growing volume of requests for survey participation has reduced the time
available for this activity and the willing to participate in any
survey.

**Table 1: Science Policy Leadership Sample and Response Rate, 2002.**

  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------
                                                  Science Policy Leaders

  Number of positions                             8,820

  Number of individuals                           7,946

  Original sample of individuals                  633

  Ineligible due to death or retirement           49

  Ineligible due to change of position            30

  Ineligible due to incorrect inclusion           22

  Ineligible due to illness                       9

  Adjusted sample                                 523

  Number of refusals                              192

  Number of individuals participating             331

  Cooperation rate                                63.3%
  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------

**A PROFILE OF SCIENCE POLICY LEADERS**

Science policy leaders are predominately males, aged 60 or more, with a
doctorate in science, engineering, or social science field (see Table
2). Over the last two decades, the proportion of science policy leaders
over the age of 60 has increased from 27 percent to 49 percent. This is
a substantial shift in the age profile of science policy leaders,
reflecting perhaps the power of biomedical science for those individuals
who are aware of its potential and who have access to quality services.

The proportion of women in the science policy leadership group has
increased significantly over the last 20 years, growing from 11 percent
in 1981 to 19 percent in 2002. It is likely that the proportion of women
included in the science policy leadership will continue to grow.

**Table 2: Demographic Profile of Science Policy Leaders, 1981, 1984,
1986, 2002.**

  ------------------------------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
                                 Science                          
                                 Policy                           
                                 Leaders                          

                                 1981       1984       1986       2002

  Age                                                             

  Less than 50                   42%        41%        36%        17%

  50 to 59 years                 31         30         30         34

  60 to 69 years                 22         24         28         29

  70 years or more               5          5          6          20

  Gender                                                          

  Female                         11         12         NA         19

  Male                           89         88         NA         81

  Educational Attainment                                          

  Baccalaureate                  10         9          7          8

  Masters                        14         13         14         12

  Law                            10         7          7          1

  M.D.                                                            3

  Ph.D.                          66         71         72         75

  Discipline                                                      

  Biological Sciences (including 16         16         23         26
  M.D.)                                                           

  Physical Sciences              25         29         32         30

  Social Sciences                19         17         15         8

  Engineering and related        21         23         17         27
  professional                                                    

  Other (including education and 17         15         13         9
  law)                                                            

  Number of respondents          287        630        508        333
  ------------------------------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

Over the last two decades, the percentage of leaders from the biological
sciences grew from 16 percent to 26 percent. There were smaller
increases in the percentage of science policy leaders from the physical
science and from engineering, and there was a substantial decrease in
the percentage of science policy leaders from the social sciences (see
Table 2).

There is a broad consensus among science policy leaders that a nation's
level of investment in basic scientific research is closely tied to its
national economic health (see Table 3). Fifty-eight percent of science
policy leaders indicated that the think that the level of national
economic growth is "largely determined by it level of basic scientific
research," and an additional 42 percent of science policy leaders
expressed the view that a nation's rate of economic growth is "only
somewhat determined by its level of basic scientific research." Less
that one percent of science policy leaders thought that a nation's rate
of economic growth is "unrelated" to its level of basic scientific
research.

The basic commitment to this conception of the economic benefits of
basic scientific research is held by science policy leaders from all
disciplinary backgrounds. Approximately two-thirds of science policy
leaders with a background in the biological sciences or engineering
indicated that the economic growth of a national is "largely determined
by" its level of basic scientific research, compared to half of science
policy leaders with a background in the physical sciences.

Science policy leaders believe that the public is receiving full or
substantial benefit from the basic scientific research for which it pays
(see Table 4). Over 80 percent of science policy leaders indicate that
the public receives "the full benefit" or a "substantial benefit" from
the basic scientific research for which it pays through taxes. Only 17
percent of science policy leaders feel that the public receives "a
partial benefit" from tax-supported basic scientific research, and only
one percent of science policy leaders conclude that the public receives
"little benefit" from public-funded basic scientific research.

This belief that the benefits of basic scientific research are flowing
to the public is broadly held across disciplines, with the highest
levels of agreement expressed by life scientists and physical
scientists. The lowest level of acceptance of this view is reported by
science policy leaders who do not hold a degree in a science or
engineering field (see Table 4).

**Table 3: Attitude toward Scientific Research and Economic Growth,
2002.**

+-----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
|                       | The      |          |          | Number   |
|                       | economic |          |          |          |
|                       | growth   |          |          | of       |
|                       | of a     |          |          |          |
|                       | nation   |          |          | Leaders  |
|                       | is ...   |          |          |          |
|                       | its      |          |          |          |
|                       |          |          |          |          |
|                       | level of |          |          |          |
|                       | basic    |          |          |          |
|                       | sc       |          |          |          |
|                       | ientific |          |          |          |
|                       | r        |          |          |          |
|                       | esearch. |          |          |          |
+-----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
|                       | largely  | only     | u        |          |
|                       | de       | somewhat | nrelated |          |
|                       | termined | de       | to       |          |
|                       | by       | termined |          |          |
|                       |          | by       |          |          |
+-----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| All science policy    | 58%      | 42%      | \<1%     | 333      |
| leaders               |          |          |          |          |
+-----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Discipline            |          |          |          |          |
+-----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Biological sciences   | 67       | 33       | 0        | 87       |
+-----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Physical sciences     | 50       | 50       | 0        | 99       |
+-----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Social sciences       | 44       | 56       | 0        | 27       |
+-----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Engineering           | 64       | 36       | 0        | 88       |
+-----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Other                 | 50       | 45       | 5        | 20       |
+-----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+

The leadership of the scientific community continues to accept and
advance Vannevar Bush's basic conception of the mutually beneficial
relationship between science, technology, and economic prosperity (Bush,
1945). There is a broad consensus in American society -- reaching from
the electorate to the Congress -- that science and technology have
produced a high standard of life for this country, and this belief is
now solidly rooted in the American culture (Price, 1954; Miller, 1983,
1992, 1995; Miller, Pardo, Niwa, 1997; Miller and Kimmel, 2001; Smith,
1990; Wolfe, 1989). It would be surprising if the leadership of the
scientific community did not mirror this view.

**The Identification of Major Science Policy Issues**

One of the primary roles that policy leaders play is the identification
of issues that are important and need attention. There are often more
possible issues or demands on the policy system that can be addressed
within any given period of time, thus policy leaders are the individuals
who select and promote certain science policy issues over others. In
some cases, an issue may arise from outside the scientific community and
rise quickly to a major policy area -- an epidemic of an infectious
disease, for example -- and its impact on society makes it a *de facto*
policy issue. More often, policy issues develop more slowly and the rise
of an issue is a reflection of a collective -- although not unanimous --
conclusion that the matter is important. The emergence of the issue of
global warming is a good example of this slower process.

Today's science policy leaders identify an interesting set of issues as
important. When asked in an open-ended format to identify the "most
important public policy issue today that involves science and
technology," 17 percent of science policy leaders mentioned global
warming and climate change and 15 percent mentioned genetic modification
issues related to humans and health (see Table 5). Twelve percent
thought that the long-term supply of energy is an important issue, and
12 percent placed high priority on issues involving national security
and terrorism -- both nuclear and biological -- and on environmental
issues other than global warming or climate change. Only one percent of
science policy leaders thought that the genetic modification of foods
was an important issue.

**Table 4: Assessment of the Public Benefit from Scientific Research,
2002.**

+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|                       | In the |        |        |        | Number |
|                       | United |        |        |        |        |
|                       | S      |        |        |        | of     |
|                       | tates, |        |        |        |        |
|                       | the    |        |        |        | L      |
|                       | public |        |        |        | eaders |
|                       | is     |        |        |        |        |
|                       | g      |        |        |        |        |
|                       | etting |        |        |        |        |
|                       | ...    |        |        |        |        |
|                       | from   |        |        |        |        |
|                       |        |        |        |        |        |
|                       | the    |        |        |        |        |
|                       | basic  |        |        |        |        |
|                       | scie   |        |        |        |        |
|                       | ntific |        |        |        |        |
|                       | re     |        |        |        |        |
|                       | search |        |        |        |        |
|                       | it     |        |        |        |        |
|                       | pays   |        |        |        |        |
|                       | for.   |        |        |        |        |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|                       | full   | subst  | p      | little |        |
|                       |        | antial | artial |        |        |
|                       | b      |        |        | b      |        |
|                       | enefit | b      | b      | enefit |        |
|                       |        | enefit | enefit |        |        |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| All science policy    | 12     | 70     | 17     | 1      | 333    |
| leaders               |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Discipline            |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Biological sciences   | 14     | 70     | 16     | 0      | 87     |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Physical sciences     | 13     | 75     | 11     | 1      | 98     |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Social sciences       | 11     | 68     | 21     | 0      | 28     |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Engineering           | 12     | 66     | 21     | 1      | 89     |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Other                 | 0      | 75     | 25     | 0      | 20     |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

Each science policy leader was asked to identify "the second most
important" public policy issue involving science and technology. When
these responses are combined, the resulting list of issues identified
reflect global warming, environmental issues other than global warming,
genetic modification, energy supply and use, national defense against
terrorism, and funding of scientific research -- in that order.

Although the open-ended approach is very useful in identifying the set
of issues that come to mind first, it is also useful to ask policy
leaders to assess the importance of a larger set of issues and to make a
judgment about the relatively importance of each issue area. When asked
to assess a list of five possible science policy issues, two-thirds of
science policy leaders agreed that the long-term supply of energy,
global warming and climate change, the low level of scientific literacy
in the United States, and the spread of viruses and infectious diseases
were all "major" problems (see Table 6). Only 37 percent of science
policy leaders were willing to characterize "the conduct of experiments
involving genetic modification" as a major problem, but 53 percent of
science policy leaders were willing to identify this area as a "minor"
problem.

How should we interpret these somewhat different views of biotechnology
and genetic research? We conclude that the open-ended responses were
generally offered in a supportive and encouraging manner, indicating
that work in this area should be funded and advanced. The wording of the
closed-ended question introduced the term "problem," and it appears that
fewer leaders were willing to characterize genetic modification research
as a "major problem." In this case, it appears that the word "problem"
was taken by some leaders as a criticism of this research (not intended
by the survey authors) and this perception influenced their responses.

**Table 5: Open-ended Identification of Most Important Science Policy
Issue, 2002.**

+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|                                  | Most      | Second    | Combined  |
|                                  |           | Most      |           |
|                                  | Important |           | Mentions  |
|                                  |           | Important |           |
|                                  | Issue     |           |           |
|                                  |           | Issue     |           |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Global warming and climate       | 17%       | 11%       | 28%       |
| change                           |           |           |           |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Environmental issues,            | 13        | 15        | 28        |
| biodiversity                     |           |           |           |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Genetic modification, stem cell  | 15        | 10        | 25        |
| use, cloning                     |           |           |           |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Energy supply and use            | 12        | 11        | 23        |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| National security, terrorism,    | 12        | 10        | 22        |
| and defense                      |           |           |           |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Research funding                 | 7         | 8         | 15        |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Scientific literacy, education,  | 8         | 6         | 14        |
| and support                      |           |           |           |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Research resources and           | 3         | 5         | 8         |
| regulation                       |           |           |           |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Health care and related services | 3         | 4         | 7         |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| AIDS, infectious diseases,       | 1         | 3         | 4         |
| antibiotic resistance            |           |           |           |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Genetically modified foods       | 1         | 2         | 3         |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Number of leaders = 333          |           |           |           |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

**Table 6: Perceived Importance of Selected Science Policy Issues,
2002.**

+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|                                           | Major  | Minor  | Not a  |
|                                           |        |        |        |
|                                           | p      | p      | P      |
|                                           | roblem | roblem | roblem |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| The long-term supply of energy in the     | 86%    | 12%    | 2%     |
| U.S.                                      |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| The low level of scientific literacy in   | 74     | 25     | 1      |
| the U.S.                                  |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Global warming and climate change.        | 71     | 26     | 3      |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| The spread of viruses and infectious      | 65     | 33     | 2      |
| diseases.                                 |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| The conduct of experiments involving      | 37     | 53     | 10     |
| genetic modification.                     |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Number of leaders = 333                   |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+

**Attitudes on Selected Science Policy Issues**

Beyond the identification of a policy agenda, a second important role
for science policy leaders is to develop and advance solutions to
issues. Decision-makers often receive policy advice from numerous
sources, but one important source of input is science policy leaders. It
is useful to explore their current views on several contemporary issues.

There is nearly universal agreement among science policy leaders that
the quality of science and mathematics education in the United States is
inadequate (see Table 7), with 90 percent of science policy leaders
concurring with that position. Only six percent of science policy
leaders disagreed with this view.

There is a strong belief in the value of genetic modification of plants
for the purpose of increasing food supplies, especially in developing
countries. Eighty-six percent of science policy leaders agreed that "the
development of genetically-improved plants will substantially increase
the world's food supply in the next 20 years." Only five percent of
science policy leaders disagreed with the statement.

There is broad agreement that continued fossil fuel use will cause
long-term environmental damage, with 75 percent of science policy
leaders expressing this view. Sixty-four percent of science policy
leaders believe that the United States should ratify the Kyoto Protocol,
compared to 20 percent who oppose ratification.

There is clear recognition among science policy leaders that some
negative or undesirable outcomes may occur. Seventy-four percent of
science policy leaders agreed that "it is very likely that sometime in
the next 20 years the United States will experience a major biological
terrorist attack." Only six percent of science policy leaders dissented
from this view. At the same time, only 28 percent of science policy
leaders expect another nuclear power plant accident like Three Mile
Island in the next 20 years, and 52 percent of science policy leaders
disagree that such an accident is likely.

Science policy leaders do not hold a belief in a "technological fix" for
anything that may go wrong. Only 39 percent of science policy leaders
agreed that "new inventions will always be found to counteract any
harmful consequences of technological development," and 42 percent
disagreed with that view. One in five science policy leaders was
undecided on this issue.

This short set of policy attitudes illustrates the complexity and
sophistication of thinking among science policy leaders. Few science
policy leaders are universal cheerleaders for all things scientific and
few are generally opposed to or wary about new scientific and
technological developments. Most science policy leaders bring their
experience and expertise to each issue and try to understand the
problems and opportunities involved in each matter.

**Table 7: Attitudes on Selected Science Policy Issues, 2002.**

+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                                  | St   | A    | Not  | Disa | St   |
|                                  | rong | gree |      | gree | rong |
|                                  |      |      | Sure |      |      |
|                                  | A    |      |      |      | Disa |
|                                  | gree |      |      |      | gree |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| The quality of science and       | 54%  | 36%  | 4%   | 5%   | 1%   |
| mathematics education in the     |      |      |      |      |      |
| United States is inadequate.     |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| The development of               | 33   | 53   | 9    | 5    | 0    |
| genetically-improved plants will |      |      |      |      |      |
| substantially increase the       |      |      |      |      |      |
| world's food supply in the next  |      |      |      |      |      |
| 20 years.                        |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| If the present rate of fossil    | 35   | 40   | 10   | 14   | 1    |
| fuel use continues, serious      |      |      |      |      |      |
| long-term environmental damage   |      |      |      |      |      |
| will occur.                      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| It is very likely that sometime  | 22   | 52   | 20   | 5    | 1    |
| in the next 20 years, the United |      |      |      |      |      |
| States will experience a major   |      |      |      |      |      |
| biological terrorist attack.     |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| The United States should ratify  | 37   | 27   | 16   | 11   | 9    |
| the Kyoto Protocol.              |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| New inventions will always be    | 5    | 34   | 19   | 29   | 13   |
| found to counteract any harmful  |      |      |      |      |      |
| consequences of technological    |      |      |      |      |      |
| development.                     |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| It is very likely that sometime  | 4    | 24   | 20   | 45   | 7    |
| in the next 20 years, the United |      |      |      |      |      |
| States will experience another   |      |      |      |      |      |
| nuclear power plants accident    |      |      |      |      |      |
| like Three Mile Island.          |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of Leaders = 333          |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Statements are listed in order   |      |      |      |      |      |
| to percent of total agreement    |      |      |      |      |      |
| (strong + regular).              |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

## 

##  

## INFORMATION NEEDS

In the context of the roles discussed above, it is useful to look at the
information needs of science policy leaders. Although 80 percent of
science policy leaders have a doctorate or other advanced degree, many
of these degrees were earned two or three decades ago and many of the
leaders have focused their professional work on a limited range of
research topics. Within the specialized political system described
previously, many individuals rise to levels of leadership because of
their achievements in a specialized area of science -- election to the
National Academy of Sciences or the National Academy of Engineering, for
example -- but the prestige associated with that position is generally
viewed more broadly than the area of technical expertise. Similarly,
individuals elected to positions such at the President of the American
Chemical Society or the American Physical Society are expected to be
broadly knowledgeable about the needs of the profession, but not
necessarily competent in every area of chemistry or physics. In some
cases, an individual who has had a distinguished scientific career may
turn in his or her later years to leadership roles in a university,
corporation, or research center and may not be actively engaged in the
field of science for which they earned their original reputation.

In all of these examples, individuals who hold leadership positions are
continually confronted by the need to stay informed about emerging and
current science policy issues. To improve our understanding of this
process, the 2002 National Science Policy Leadership Study asked each
individual who participated in the study to assess his or her own level
of knowledge about the same set of five issues that they had previously
assessed in terms of importance. The results show that a minority of
science policy leaders indicated that they were "very well informed" on
any particular issue, although 48 percent of science policy leaders
thought that they were very well informed about the level of scientific
literacy in the United States (see Table 8). This has been a concern of
science policy leaders since the launch of Sputnik in 1957 and remains a
central concern.

One in five science policy leaders reported that he or she was "not well
informed" about with issues involving genetic modification research, and
one in five indicated that he or she was "not well informed" about the
issues involved in the spread of viruses and infectious diseases.
Recalling the proportion of science policy leaders above the age of 60,
this result is not surprising. A good deal of the biology on which
current conceptions are based was developed after the period of formal
schooling for many of the leaders. Undoubtedly, science policy leaders
with a primary interest in the biological sciences would not only remain
current in the field, but may well have contributed to the development

**Table 8: Perceived Adequacy of Knowledge about Selected Science Policy
Issues, 2002.**

+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|                                           | Very   | Mode   | Not    |
|                                           | well   | rately | well   |
|                                           |        |        |        |
|                                           | in     | In     | in     |
|                                           | formed | formed | formed |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| The low level of scientific literacy in   | 48%    | 42%    | 10%    |
| the U.S.                                  |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Global warming and climate change.        | 40     | 54     | 6      |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| The long-term supply of energy in the     | 39     | 52     | 9      |
| U.S.                                      |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| The conduct of experiments involving      | 27     | 51     | 22     |
| genetic modification.                     |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| The spread of viruses and infectious      | 22     | 52     | 26     |
| diseases.                                 |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Number of leaders = 333                   |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+

of the current advancement in the biomedical sciences. In contrast, a
physicist or engineer who does not normally work on problems related to
the life sciences may not have had an opportunity for structured
learning about these matters since his or her undergraduate or graduate
school days.

The report by approximately half of science policy leaders that they are
"moderately well informed" about issues such as genetic modification,
viruses, and global warming is undoubtedly a reflection of their
continuing acquisition and utilization of new information relevant to
these issues. Our colleague Damon Benedict will report in more detail on
the sources of current information used by science policy leaders.

To provide a more focused measure of the level of current understanding,
each science policy leader was asked to rate his or her own
understanding of nine basic scientific constructs that are relevant to
science policy issues discussed in recent years. Fifty-three percent of
science policy leaders reported that they had a clear understanding of
"the concept and causes of global warming or climate change" and an
additional 45 percent indicated that they have a "general sense" about
global warming (see Table 9). Only two percent of science policy readers
said that they were "less familiar" with the concept and causes of
global warming or climate change. More than 40 percent of science policy
leaders reported that they have a clear understanding of the function of
DNA in cells, the concept of plate tectonics, and the process of nuclear
fission. A third of science policy leaders indicated that they have a
clear understanding of the operation of a nuclear reactor, the process
of nuclear fusion, the origin and composition of a laser beam, and the
functions and uses of stem cells. Only 15 percent claimed a clear
understanding of the place of quarks in atomic theory -- admittedly a
more difficult item -- but one that would have been useful to understand
if one were trying to assess the need for a superconducting
super-collider.

**Table 9: Understanding of Scientific Constructs, 2002.**

+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|                                  | Clear     | General   | Less      |
|                                  |           |           |           |
|                                  | Unde      | Sense     | Familiar  |
|                                  | rstanding |           |           |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| The concept and causes of global | 53%       | 45%       | 2%        |
| warming or climate change.       |           |           |           |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| The function of DNA in cells.    | 46        | 44        | 10        |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| The concept of plate tectonics.  | 44        | 39        | 17        |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| The process of nuclear fission.  | 43        | 45        | 12        |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| The operation of a nuclear       | 39        | 50        | 11        |
| reactor.                         |           |           |           |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| The process of nuclear fusion.   | 36        | 46        | 18        |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| The origin and composition of a  | 35        | 44        | 21        |
| laser beam.                      |           |           |           |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| The functions and uses of stem   | 29        | 52        | 19        |
| cells.                           |           |           |           |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| The place of quarks in atomic    | 15        | 35        | 50        |
| theory.                          |           |           |           |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

A simple Index of Science Construct Understanding was created, giving
each leader one point for each of the nine constructs for which they
reported a clear understanding. The mean score for all science policy
leaders was 3.3 and the median score was three (see Table 10). Science
policy leaders with a background in the physical sciences scored higher
on the Index than other leaders, and leaders with a disciplinary
background in the social sciences recorded the lowest mean score. In
fairness to the life scientists, it should be noted that more of the
constructs included in the Index came from the physical sciences than
the biological sciences, but this mix of terms is a reflection of the
mix of science policy issues debated during the last decade.

These results indicate that many science policy leaders have -- and
recognize -- unmet information needs relative to the range of science
policy issues active in any period of time. This is not a criticism of
the backgrounds, education, or persistence of current science policy
leaders, but a recognition of the breadth and complexity of the science
policy agenda in the United States and the industrialized world. For any
given science policy issue, some science policy leaders will be fully
informed about the matter and may have fully developed views on the
issue, but other science policy leaders may need to obtain some
additional or updated information about that issue and may benefit from
an informed discussion of the issue.

Too often, this simple need for timely information has been ignored. As
the results of this study indicate, virtually all of the science policy
leaders who participated in the 2002 study were willing to report
candidly their level of issue and construct understanding, recognizing
both the constructs that they understand clearly and those that they do
not understand clearly.

**Table 10: Mean and Median Score on the Index of Science Construct
Understanding, 2002.**

+-----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
|                       | Index of |          |          | Number   |
|                       | Science  |          |          |          |
|                       | C        |          |          | of       |
|                       | onstruct |          |          |          |
|                       | Under    |          |          | Leaders  |
|                       | standing |          |          |          |
+-----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
|                       | Mean     | Standard | Median   |          |
|                       |          |          |          |          |
|                       |          | Error of |          |          |
|                       |          | Mean     |          |          |
+-----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| All science policy    | 3.3      | .13      | 3        | 333      |
| leaders               |          |          |          |          |
+-----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| **Discipline**        |          |          |          |          |
+-----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Biological sciences   | 2.9      | .19      | 3        | 88       |
+-----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Physical sciences     | 4.4      | .25      | 4        | 100      |
+-----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Social sciences       | 2.4      | .44      | 2        | 28       |
+-----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Engineering           | 2.9      | .24      | 2        | 90       |
+-----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Other                 | 3.3      | .70      | 2.5      | 20       |
+-----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+

**DISCUSSION**

The preceding analysis has described a group of science policy leaders
who come from a variety of academic, corporate, and governmental
backgrounds, but who are a high level of interest and competence in
science policy matters. As Jon Miller indicated in his presentation,
science policy leaders are active in acquiring information and
communicating policy preferences within the scientific community and to
policy makers in the legislative and executive branches of the federal
government.

Although the variety of disciplinary backgrounds and current
professional obligations of science policy leaders would suggest a wide
array of interests, there is a relatively high degree of consensus on a
science policy agenda. There is a parallel recognition of the need for
long-term energy supplies to sustain our economy and the long-term
consequences of global warming and climate change. As noted earlier, 87
percent of science policy leaders report that the long-term supply of
energy is a major science policy issue and 73 percent of science policy
leaders indicate that global warming and climate change is a major
science policy issue (see Table 6). It appears that science policy
leaders recognize the inherent tension between these two problems.

The structure of the responses of science policy leaders reflects
recognition of the complex nature of many current science policy issues.
Nearly 90 percent of science policy leaders expect genetically-modified
plants to substantially increase the world's food supply in the next 20
years. At the same time, 74 percent of science policy leaders think that
it is very likely that the United States will experience a "major
biological terrorist attack" in the next 20 years. There is clear
recognition of the two-edged nature of the scientific sword, and a high
degree of comfort that knowledge will prevail.

Consistent with their leadership role, most science policy leaders
report that they have a clear understanding of the concept and causes of
global warming and climate change, and 39 percent describe themselves as
being very well informed on this issue. An additional 55 percent said
that they were moderately well informed on the issue, and only six
percent indicated that they were not adequately informed about this
issue (see Tables 8 and 9). Given the age distribution of science policy
leaders, it is likely that few leaders studied global warming issues as
undergraduate or graduate students, but it is anther example of the need
of science policy leaders for current information about new and emerging
science policy issues.

It is important for scientific agencies and institutions to recognize
that science policy leaders have unmet information needs. Our colleague
Damon Benedict will talk about more specific strategies in the final
paper of this session, but it is important to recognize this information
need and to think creatively about how we might address it.

**REFERENCES**

Barke, R. 1986. *Science, Technology, and Public Policy*. Washington: CQ
Press.

Bush, v. 1945. *Science -- The Endless Frontier*. Washington: Government
Printing Office.

Miller, J. D. 1983. *The American People and Science Policy*. New York:
Pergamon Press.

Miller, J.D. 1985. The Attitudes of Religious, Environmental, and
Science Policy Leaders Toward Biotechnology**.** *Recombinant DNA
Technical Bulletin*, 8:4:141‑164.

Miller, J.D. 1986. *The Attitudes of Science Policy, Environmental, and
Utility Leaders toward Energy*. A Final Report to the Lawrence Livermore
National Laborato­ry.

Miller, J.D. 1988. The Attitudes of Science Policy, Environmental, and
Utility Leaders on U.S. Energy Issues and Fusion. *Journal of Fusion
Energy* 7:1:5-23.

Miller, J.D. 1992. From Town Meeting to Nuclear Power: the Changing
Nature of Citizenship and Democracy in the United States, in A.E.D.
Howard (Ed.), *The United States Constitution: Roots, Rights, and
Responsibilities*. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Pp.
327-338.

Miller, J.D. 1995. Scientific literacy for effective citizenship. In
Yager, R. E. (Ed.), *Science/*

> *Technology/Society as Reform in Science Education*. State University
> Press of New York, New York.

Miller, J.D., Pardo, R. & Niwa, F. 1997. *Public Perceptions of Science
and Technology: A Comparative Study of the European Union, the United
States, Japan, and Canada**.*** Madrid: BBV Foundation.

Miller, J.D. & Prewitt, K. 1982. *A National Survey of the
Non‑governmental Leadership of American Science and Technology*. A
Report to the National Science Foundation. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois
University, Public Opinion Laboratory.

Miller, J.D. & Kimmel, L.G. 2001. *Biomedical Communications: Purposes,
Audiences, and Strategies*. New York: Academic Press.

Price, D.K. 1954. *Government and Science*. New York: New York
University Press.

Price, D.K. 1965. *The Scientific Estate*. Cambridge, MA: Belnap Press
of Harvard University Press.

Smith, B.L.R. 1990. *American Science Policy since World War II*.
Washington: The Brookings Institution.

Wolfe, D. 1989. *Renewing a Scientific Society: The American Association
for the Advancement of Science from World War II to 1970*. Washington:
American Association for the Advancement of Science.

**2002 Science Policy Leadership Study Questionnaire**