# Space Policy Leaders and Science Policy Leaders

# in the United States

**Jon D. Miller**

**Professor and Director**

**Center for Biomedical Communication**

**Feinberg School of Medicine**

**Northwestern University**

**Chicago, Illinois 60611**

**A report submitted to the**

**National Aeronautical and Space Administration**

**August 9, 2004**

#  

**Executive Summary**

Today, space policy is a topic of serious discussion at the highest
levels of government and the scientific and technical communities in the
United States. The combination of the loss of two shuttles and
increasing uncertainty over the role of the International Space Station
has produced a major re-examination of space policy in the United
States. The Gehman Commission report pointed to some problems in the
space program and strongly recommended a new national commitment to a
program of space exploration.

The formulation of public policy in the United States in specialized
areas such as space policy is the result of a continuous interaction
between decision-makers at the federal level and groups of policy
leaders. In the case of space policy, the policy formulation process
relies heavily on a group of approximately 3,000 space policy leaders.
Because space policy is deeply intertwined with science, a parallel
group of science policy leaders also has substantial influence in the
formulation of space policy. Currently, slightly more than 8,000
individuals qualify as science policy leaders. Approximately 1,400
individuals qualify as both science policy and space policy leaders.

The purpose of this report is to describe the attitudes, activities, and
information needs of space policy and science policy leaders in the
United States, with special attention to their views and policy
preferences in regard to space exploration and the United States space
program.

**SPACE POLICY AS A LOW-SALIENCE ISSUE**

Despite the substantial impact of space exploration on American society,
there is no evidence that any congressional or senatorial election has
ever been determined by differences over a space policy issue. Why do
space policy issues rarely appear as political issues?

Issues that do not rise to the level of electoral issues are often
referred to as low-salience issues. Low-salience refers to the
visibility of an issue in public and political discourse and not to the
inherent importance of a specific issue or a general subject area. In
this context, space policy is a low-salience issue for most Americans.

There are three important reasons for the low political salience of
space policy issues. First, space policy issues are often complex and
require some level of scientific or technological literacy to understand
and participate in a policy debate. Second, because there is a
sufficient diversity of space policy views within each of the two major
parties in the United States, few space issues have found their way into
national party platforms or campaigns. Third, the primary scientific,
technological, and space interest groups in the United States have been
largely non-partisan, officially and in practice.

**THE FORMULATION OF PUBLIC POLICY ON LOW-SALIENCE ISSUES**

The study of the structure of decision-making on low salience issues
stems largely from Gabriel Almond's seminal work in regard to foreign
policy. Most American adults do not begin their day with a breakfast
table discussion of foreign policy, science policy, or space policy,
unless there is an immediate crisis in a specific area. In his original
analysis, Almond outlined a pyramidal structure to illustrate the
formulation of policy in low-salience issue areas (see Figure 1 in full
report). In this stratified model, policy-makers are at the pinnacle of
the system and represent those persons who have the power to make
binding decisions on a given policy matter.

The second level of the system is a network of non-governmental policy
leaders. In the case of space policy, this group of non-governmental
policy leaders would include leading scientists and engineers in
research universities and selected corporations; the leadership of major
universities, corporations, and organizations active in scientific or
space-related work; scientific, engineering, and other professional
societies relevant to space science and engineering; and the leadership
of relevant voluntary associations. Most space policy is formulated
through discussions and negotiations among decision-makers and
non-governmental space policy leaders. When there is a high level of
concurrence between the decision-makers and a policy leadership group,
policy is generally made, and there is no wider public participation in
the policy process.

The attentive public for a specific issue -- the third level of the
model -- is composed of those individuals who are very interested in a
given policy area, believe themselves to be very well informed about
that area, and demonstrate a pattern of continuing information
acquisition. In January, 2004, six percent of American adults were
attentive to space policy (approximately 12 million individuals).

**THE 2003 STUDY OF SPACE POLICY AND SCIENCE POLICY LEADERS**

To study the membership, activities, communication practices, and
information needs of space policy and science policy leaders, a listing
of positions relevant to space policy and science policy was constructed
following the definitions outlined above. A total of 3,162 space policy
leadership positions and 8,994 science policy leadership positions were
identified. Smaller samples of 989 space policy leaders and 1,056
science policy leaders were selected for the study.

The results from the 2003 study confirm a pattern of leadership
activities. Approximately 55 percent of space policy leaders and 80
percent of science policy leaders reported that they had given a talk or
speech to a scientific or technical group during the preceding year.
Most indicative, half of both space policy leaders and science policy
leaders indicated that they had made one or more contacts with a public
official -- legislative or executive -- on a space or science related
issue during the preceding year.

Space policy leaders and science policy leaders are predominately males
in their 50's or 60's. Overall, science policy leaders tend to be older
than space policy leaders, with fully 30 percent of science policy
leaders being age 70 or higher. Over 90 percent of both leadership
groups have one or more graduate degrees, but science policy leaders are
somewhat more likely to have a Ph.D. than are space policy leaders.

**POLICY ATTITUDES**

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 than can be addressed
within any given period of time, thus policy leaders are the individuals
who select and promote certain space or science policy issues over
others.

Today's space policy leaders identify an interesting set of issues as
important. When asked in an open-ended format to identify the "most
important" and "second most important" space policy issues, 37 percent
of space policy leaders mentioned manned flight, although it should be
noted that a substantial number of these responses referred to resolving
the tension between the best mix of manned and unmanned missions.
Twenty-two percent mentioned funding as one of the most important issues
facing NASA and the space program, and an additional 11 percent
mentioned issues concerning the clarification of costs and benefits.

To provide more focus on short-term and intermediate-term issues, each
space policy leader was asked to identify "the most important problem
facing NASA today." The need for increased public support for the space
program was the most frequently mentioned problem, with 17 percent of
space policy leaders citing this problem.

In an attempt to narrow the definition of issues and problems facing the
space program, each space policy leader was asked "What do you think
should be NASA's number one priority?" Although individual leaders
continued to mention numerous priorities, there was a clustering of
attitudes that provides a useful framework for understanding the policy
preferences of space policy leaders. Thirty-five percent of space policy
leaders indicated that they would like for NASA to place its top
priority on science-based programs, such as the space telescopes and the
monitoring and study of planet Earth.

Twenty-seven percent of space policy leaders indicated a strong
preference for activities designed to revive and expand the manned
exploration program. Approximately 21 percent of space policy leaders
thought that the number one priority was to continue the present program
of both manned and unmanned activities and to generate more public
support for the activity.

The crystallization of these three clusters of responses points to one
of the challenges for the leadership of NASA. It is clear that there is
a strong division between leaders who value major unmanned programs such
as the space telescopes and the Earth monitoring programs and leaders
who see the primary mission of NASA to be manned space exploration.

Each space policy leader was asked to indicate his or her agreement or
disagreement with a series of specific policy statements. More than 90
percent of space policy leaders and science policy leaders agree that
"current orbital technologies such as weather satellites and
communication satellites are essential economic resources and should be
continued and improved." Nearly 80 percent of space policy leaders would
like for the United States to make "the investments necessary to sustain
a vigorous program of human and robotic space exploration and space
sciences research." Only 49 percent of science policy leaders agreed
that the United States should make the investments necessary to sustain
a vigorous space program. Seventy-one percent of space policy leaders
think that it is "important for the United States to maintain
international leadership in human space exploration, but only 46 percent
of science policy leaders share that view.

On the decision to begin planning for a manned mission to Mars, there is
a substantial division between space policy leaders and science policy
leaders. Nearly half of space policy leaders favor the initiation of a
planning effort for a manned visit to Mars in the next 20 years, but
only 27 percent of science policy leaders support this activity. Space
policy leaders are divided on the issue of manned missions outside Earth
orbit. Forty-three percent of space policy leaders agree that NASA
should limit manned missions to Earth orbit and rely on unmanned
missions into the solar system or deep space, but this view is rejected
by 42 percent of space policy leaders.

Looking at the full spectrum of issues, these results suggest that there
is strong support among space policy leaders for a program of both
manned and robotic space exploration with a strong commitment to
advancing the space sciences. There is a division within the space
policy community on whether manned space flight should be limited to
Earth-orbit missions or encouraged to explore the solar system. Science
policy leaders share some enthusiasm for the broad objectives of space
exploration, but are cautious about making a long-term financial
investment in human space exploration and generally opposed to a manned
mission to Mars.

There is a high level of agreement between space policy leaders and
science policy leaders in terms of the relative budget priority that
they would assign to each of 14 major program areas. Space policy
leaders assigned the highest priority to basic research on the human
genome, perhaps reflecting deference to biomedical research. Science
policy leaders assigned their highest priority to the development of
fuel cells and other alternative energy sources. Both space policy
leaders and science policy leaders assigned a relatively high priority
to disease-oriented biomedical research beyond genomics, global climate
change research, the development of nanotechnology, and basic biological
research apart from disease applications. Using a zero-to-ten scale,
earth science research, including orbiter, oceanographic, and polar,
received a score of 7 by both leadership groups.

There are some differences between space policy leaders and science
policy leaders in regard to several space-related budget areas. The
development of a new generation of space telescopes and the continuation
of deep-space probes received a mean priority score of 6.7 by space
policy leaders. Science policy leaders assigned a priority score of 6.1
for the development of new space telescopes and 5.6 for the continuation
of deep space probes. Space policy leaders assigned a priority score of
6.1 for the development of a new generation of space vehicles, but
science policy leaders assigned a mean priority score of 4.7 for this
activity. Both space policy leaders and science policy leaders assigned
their lowest priority score to the conduct of scientific research on the
International Space Station.

**PERCEPTIONS OF NASA**

Each space policy leader was asked to assess NASA's current performance
compared to the job that the agency did 20 years ago. Forty-five percent
of space policy leaders think that NASA is doing a worse job today than
it did 20 years ago. A third of space policy leaders indicate that NASA
is doing about the same as it did 20 years ago, but only 17 percent of
space policy leaders think that NASA is doing a better job today than it
did 20 years ago.

To understand more about space policy leaders' assessment of specific
management areas, each space policy leader was asked to evaluate NASA's
performance in seven areas using a zero-to-10 scale, with zero meaning
that NASA is doing an awful job and 10 meaning that NASA is doing an
outstanding job. NASA received a relatively good score (6.1) for its
management of earth science research. The management of aeronautical
research received a mean score of 5.5 and the communication of
NASA-sponsored research to the public received a mean score of 5.1. For
its management of human flight programs and its overall budget
management, space policy leaders assigned a mean score of 5.1 -- a
middling performance. Space policy leaders assigned the lowest mean
performance score to NASA's management of research on the International
Space Station -- 4.8.

**THE INFORMATION NEEDS OF POLICY LEADERS**

Because of their critical role in the policy formulation process, it is
important for policy leaders to have regular access to current and
accurate information. One of the objectives of the 2003 Leadership Study
is to examine the processes by which space policy and science policy
leaders obtain timely information about space-related matters.

Scientific and technical communication is heavily dependent on the
recipient of information being able to understand the major concepts
employed in any given message or communication. To provide a general
measure of the level of current understanding, each space policy and
science policy leader was asked to rate his or her own understanding of
ten basic scientific constructs that are relevant to space policy
issues. The results indicate that many space policy and science policy
leaders have -- and recognize -- unmet information needs relative to the
range of space policy issues active in any period of time. This is not a
criticism of the backgrounds, education, or persistence of current space
policy and science policy leaders, but recognition of the breadth and
complexity of the space policy agenda. For any given space policy issue,
some policy leaders will be fully informed about the matter and may have
fully developed views on the issue, but other policy leaders may need to
obtain some additional or updated information about that issue and may
benefit from an informed discussion of the issue.

Space policy leaders and science policy leaders are voracious consumers
of information. Three-quarters of space and science policy leaders read
a newspaper everyday and an additional 14 percent read a newspaper most
days. Eighty-three percent of space policy leaders and 88 percent of
science policy leaders reported that they read one or more magazines
regularly to obtain science information. Thirty-nine percent of space
policy leaders and 58 percent of science policy leaders indicated that
they read one or more one or more books relevant to space or science
policy during the preceding year.

One approach to understanding information acquisition patterns is to ask
about recent information sources used in regard to a specific topic or
issue. In the 2003 Leadership Study, each space and science policy
leader was asked to identify two major policy issues and to report the
primary information sources that he or she had used in the last year to
obtain information about that topic. Space policy leaders and science
policy leaders reported primary reliance on a combination of Internet,
colleagues, and newspapers for policy-related information. Professional
journals were the major source for science policy leaders, but the
refereed literature was less important for space policy leaders. Space
policy leaders were somewhat more likely to report obtaining information
from a government agency -- especially NASA -- than science policy
leaders, and both groups indicated some use of information from
non-governmental groups, including professional societies and
corporations. There was little reported use of broadcast media.

The release of the report of the Gehman Commission about the causes of
the Columbia shuttle accident provides a case study in the acquisition
of policy-relevant information by space policy and science policy
leaders. Eighty-five percent of space policy leaders indicated that they
had read about the Gehman Report in newspapers or magazines, and 45
percent said that they had read portions of the report online.
Three-quarters of science policy leaders indicated that they had read
about the Gehman Report in the media, and 21 percent of science policy
leaders had read portions of the report online. Only 12 percent of
science policy leaders had read all or a significant portion of the
report, but nearly a third of science policy leaders had discussed the
report with colleagues and 26 percent had talked to one or more NASA
officials about the report. It is interesting to note that this is the
same as the proportion of space policy leaders who spoke to a NASA
officer about the report.

## ASSESSMENT OF SELECTED INFORMATION SOURCES

Space policy leaders and science policy leaders are surrounded by
information from a variety of sources. The 2003 Leadership Study asked
each policy leader to assess both the utility and the trustworthiness of
major information sources. The results show that policy leaders are
discriminating information consumers, rating some sources high in
usefulness and trust and others much lower.

Both space policy leaders and science policy leaders rated the Internet
as the most useful source for "keeping up with" science and space
issues. On a zero to 10 scale, space policy leaders gave the Internet a
mean rating of 7.5, and science policy leaders assigned a mean score of
8.1 to the Internet. The three major print media -- newspapers,
magazines, and books -- were rated as significantly less useful.

Each space policy and science policy leader was asked to assess the
level of confidence they would have in science information from a set of
major information sources. Space policy leaders and science policy
leaders expressed the highest level of confidence in a report from the
National Academies. On a zero to 10 scale, space policy leaders gave a
report from the National Academy of Sciences a mean score of 8.3 and
science policy leaders assigned a mean score of 8.7. An article in
*Science* or *Nature* was the second most trusted source by both
leadership groups.

Space policy leaders have a high regard for *Space News* and *Aviation
Week & Space Technology*, giving these publications a mean rating of 7.1
on a zero-to-10 scale. Space policy and science policy leaders both
awarded a high rating to "a report from a scientist from a major
university," with mean scores of 7.0 and 7.4 respectively. A report from
NASA received high marks from both space policy leaders and science
policy leaders, with mean scores of 6.9 and 6.6 respectively.

Space policy and science policy leaders express markedly less confidence
in information from the mass media. A story in *Time* or *Newsweek*
earned a mean score of about 5.0 from both leadership groups, and a
story on CNN received a mean score of about 4.6 from both leadership
groups. Space policy and science policy leaders awarded the lowest level
of trust to "a story on a network television news show."

## DISCUSSION

## 

## The results of the preceding analyses demonstrate that it is feasible to define space policy and science policy leadership and to develop a listing of positions that contribute, or have the opportunity to contribute, to the formulation of public policy related to space and science. This baseline definitional work allows the selection of samples of policy leaders for more intensive study and it provides a basis for comparative studies with other policy leadership groups. 

There is broad agreement among space policy leaders and science policy
leaders that the space program has been beneficial for American society
and that the United States should seek to maintain an international
leadership position in space. There are, however, serious divisions
among space and science policy leaders over the relative importance of
manned and unmanned programs. Even within the space policy community,
there are as many leaders who would limit manned flight to orbital
missions as there are leaders who would prefer manned exploration of
Mars and perhaps other parts of our solar system. The twin issues of the
replacement of the current shuttle fleet and the International Space
Station generate major divisions among space policy leaders and
substantial opposition from science policy leaders.

The recent initiative of the President to begin active planning to
return humans to the Moon and to use a lunar station as a base to launch
manned missions to Mars is likely to activate several of these divisions
within the space policy community and with the science policy community.
The decision to terminate service missions to the Hubble Space Telescope
is likely to generate additional opposition to the Administration's
plan. And, pressures to hold down the size of the federal deficit may
generate additional conflict within the space community and from the
scientific community.

Facing this kind of potential conflict at the beginning of a
Congressional review of space policy poses challenging policy and
communication issues. The map of policy preferences found in this
analysis can provide a useful framework for thinking about both
communication issues and possible policy strategies. The future shape of
NASA and the space program will be shaped largely by the policy
judgments of space and science policy leaders, working within federal
fiscal constraints and competing demands for other major scientific
investments. It is essential for the leadership of NASA to recognize the
structure of the decision-making process and to expand and improve its
dialogue with the space policy and science policy communities.

# Space Policy Leaders and Science Policy Leaders in the United States

# Space Policy Leaders and Science Policy Leaders in the United States

Today, space policy is a topic of serious discussion at the highest
levels of government and in the scientific and technical communities in
the United States. During the last four decades, the United States space
program has grown from a budding challenge to the Soviet Union to the
international leader in space science. Although the European and Russian
space programs have achieved notable results in several areas and the
Japanese and Chinese space programs have high aspirations, it is clear
that the United States presently holds a dominant position in the space
sciences and space exploration.

The combination of the loss of two shuttles and increasing uncertainty
over the role of the International Space Station has produced a major
re-examination of space policy in the United States. The Gehman
Commission report pointed to some problems in the space program and
strongly recommended a new national commitment to a program of space
exploration. President Bush has proposed a new initiative to establish a
permanent base on the Moon and the beginning of a decades- long process
of sending manned vehicles to Mars. The relevant committees in both
houses of the Congress have conducted hearings on the future of the
space program.

The formulation of public policy in the United States in specialized
areas such as space policy is the result of a continuous interaction
between decision-makers at the federal level and groups of policy
leaders. In the case of space policy, the policy formulation process
relies heavily on a group of approximately 3,000 space policy leaders,
who are the non-governmental leaders of space-related corporations,
universities involved in space-related research, professional societies
relevant to space sciences and space policy, and space-related interest
groups. Members of the National Academy of Sciences and the National
Academy of Engineering in space-relevant fields are also considered to
be space policy leaders.

Because space policy is deeply intertwined with science, a parallel
group of science policy leaders[^1] also has substantial influence in
the formulation of space policy. The relative influence of space policy
leaders and science policy leaders varies, depending on the specific
subject matter of a space policy decision. On matters of space vehicles
and systems, it is likely that space policy leaders would be the
dominant voice in policy discussions. In contrast, on matters such as
the value of space telescopes, it is likely that science policy leaders
would have an equal, if not slightly dominant, voice. Currently,
slightly more than 8,000 individuals qualify as science policy leaders.
Approximately 1,400 individuals qualify as both science policy leaders
and space policy leaders and are included in both of the total figures
cited above.

The purpose of this report is to describe the attitudes, activities, and
information needs of space policy and science policy leaders in the
United States, with special attention to their views and policy
preferences in regard to space exploration and the United States space
program. Other analyses will be reported in refereed journals.

This report is built on the conceptualization of policy leadership
presented by Miller in earlier work (Miller, 1983a, 1985, 1986a, 1988;
Miller & Prewitt, 1982). There can be little doubt that we live in an
era of political and issue specialization and that specialized policy
communities play an important role in the formulation of public policy
(Almond, 1950; Price, 1954, 1965; Rosenau, 1974). This is not to say
that other communities will not have an interest in some of the policy
decisions that are important to the space policy community, but even in
policy debates involving other interest groups, it is important to
understand how space policy is formulated and the role of space policy
leaders in this process (Barke, 1986; Miller, 1983a, 1985, 1986a, 1988).

**SPACE POLICY AS A LOW-SALIENCE ISSUE**

Despite the substantial impact of space exploration on American society,
there is no evidence that any congressional or senatorial election has
ever been determined by differences over a space policy issue. Why do
space policy issues rarely appear as political issues?

Issues that do not rise to the level of electoral issues are often
referred to as low-salience issues, or as politics between elections
(Rosenau, 1961, 1963, 1974). Low-salience refers to the visibility of an
issue in public and political discourse and not to the inherent
importance of a specific issue or a general subject area. In this
context, space policy is a low-salience issue for most Americans. For
similar reasons, the major subdivisions of science and technology policy
-- energy policy, biomedical policy, environmental policy -- are also
low-salience issues for most adults in the United States.

There are three important reasons for the low political salience of
space policy issues. First, space policy issues are often complex and
require some level of scientific or technological literacy to understand
and participate in a policy debate on a specific space policy issue.
Numerous studies have found that fewer than one in five American adults
have a sufficient level of civic scientific literacy to be able to read
the science section of the Tuesday *New York Times* or to follow policy
disputes on issues involving significant amounts of science or
technology (Miller, 1982, 1983a, 1983b, 1986b, 1987, 1992, 1995, 1998,
2004; Miller, Pardo & Niwa, 1997; Miller & Pardo, 1999; Miller & Kimmel,
2001).

Second, because there is a sufficient diversity of space policy views
within each of the two major parties in the United States, few space
issues have found their way into national party platforms or campaigns
(Price, 1954, 1965; Miller, 1983a; Barke, 1986; Smith, 1990). During the
years of competition to land a man on the Moon, both parties strongly
endorsed the effort. The evidence suggests that this original support
has continued at the leadership level, although Lanius (1994) has
recently shown that substantial segments of the general population held
some serious reservations about the space program throughout the Apollo
years.

Third, the primary scientific, technological, and space interest groups
in the United States have been largely non-partisan, officially and in
practice (Price, 1954; Greenberg, 1967; Barke, 1986; Wolfe, 1989; Smith,
1990). In the American political system, interest groups are powerful
organizers and interpreters of policy demands and needs, reflecting the
combination of a system of single-member districts and a two-party
system that seeks to build majority support. By remaining non-partisan,
science, technology, and space interest groups discourage the
introduction of space policy issues into political campaigns.

**THE FORMULATION OF PUBLIC POLICY ON LOW-SALIENCE ISSUES**

The study of the structure of decision-making on low salience issues
stems largely from Gabriel Almond's seminal work in regard to foreign
policy (Almond, 1950). Most American adults do not begin their day with
a breakfast table discussion of foreign policy, science policy, or space
policy, unless there is an immediate crisis in a specific area (Rosenau,
1961, 1963, 1974; Miller, 1982, 1983a, 1986b). If there are waiting
lines to buy gasoline or if American soldiers are engaged in foreign
combat, the salience of that issue becomes significantly greater and may
become a part of regular political discourse. Although Miller (1987)
found that the loss of the shuttle Challenger significantly increased
support for the space program in the months immediately after that
accident, support for the space program returned to a pre-accident level
within two years. For the reasons outlined above, these issues rarely
become electoral issues, but public policy is formulated through a
combination of legislative hearings, legislation, administrative rules,
and executive orders.

In his original analysis, Almond (1950) outlined a pyramidal structure
to illustrate the formulation of policy in low-salience issue areas (see
Figure 1). In this stratified model, decision-makers are at the pinnacle
of the system and represent those persons who have the power to make
binding decisions on a given policy matter. For the formulation of space
policy, decision-makers include the President, cabinet and senior
executive branch officers with responsibility in the specific policy
area, members of the House and Senate leadership, and members of House
and Senate committees and subcommittees with responsibility for policy
in a contested area. For most space policy issues, the number of
decision-makers will rarely exceed 100 and the distribution of power
within this group is not equal (Miller, 1983a, 1985, 1986a, 1988, 1995;
Miller and Prewitt, 1982).

![](media/image1.wmf){width="4.73125in" height="3.652083333333333in"}

**Figure 1: The Formulation of Public Policy in the United States on
Low-salience Issues.**

The second level of the system is a network of non-governmental policy
leaders. In the case of space policy, this group of non-governmental
policy leaders would include leading scientists and engineers in
research universities and selected corporations; the leadership of major
universities, corporations, and organizations active in scientific or
space-related work; scientific, engineering, and other professional
societies relevant to space science and engineering; and the leadership
of relevant voluntary associations. This leadership group interacts
regularly with decision-makers. Rosenau (1961, 1963, 1974) and others
have noted that there is some movement of policy leaders into
decision-making posts and of decision-makers into policy leadership
groups from time to time.

Most space policy is formulated through discussions and negotiations
among decision-makers and non-governmental space policy leaders. The
policy formulation process includes informal discussions in person or by
telephone, letters and position papers, formal testimony, participation
in seminars and joint meetings, and a wide array of personal and staff
interactions. Some of it is visible to the public and reported in the
press; other parts of the dialogue are outside the public view and
effectively off-the-record.

When there is a high level of concurrence between the decision-makers
and a policy leadership group, policy is generally made, and there is no
wider public partici­pation in the policy process. On occasion, there are
either (1) un-resolvable differences among decision-makers and the
non-governmental policy leaders, or (2) significant differences among
policy leaders themselves. When an issue cannot be resolved among the
decision-makers and the non-governmental policy leaders, separate (or
multiple) appeals are made by various policy leaders to those citizens
who have a strong continuing interest in the issue and who think of
themselves as being well informed about the issue.

The attentive public for a specific issue -- the third level of the
model -- is composed of those individuals who are very interested in a
given policy area, believe themselves to be very well informed about
that area, and demonstrate a pattern of continuing information
acquisition. The attentive public for space policy has been described
and discussed elsewhere, and that work will not be repeated in this
report (Miller, 1982, 1983a, 1986b, 1992, 1995; Miller, Pardo & Niwa,
1997; Miller & Pardo, 1999; Miller and Kimmel, 2001). It is useful to
note, however, that in January, 2004, six percent of American adults
were attentive to space policy (approximately 12 million individuals).

**IDENTIFICATION OF SPACE AND SCIENCE POLICY LEADERS**

It is within this context of political and issue specialization in the
American political system that policy leadership must be defined. Within
the Almond model of policy formulation, who are the individuals who
exercise -- or who have the opportunity to exercise -- influence on the
definition and formulation of space policy?

There are two basic approaches to the study of leadership. One tradition
utilizes a snow ball sampling procedure, which involves identifying a
core group of individuals known to be active in policy matters and
asking them to name other people with whom they confer on a set of
issues. This technique was developed in regard to studies of community
power structures, but has been applied to numerous other policy areas
(Hunter, 1953). A second approach seeks to identify the positions from
which influence might be exercised or specific activities involved in
influencing public policy and then identifying the individuals who
occupy those positions or engage in those activities (Miller, 1985,
1986a, 1988). This second approach was used in Miller's earlier studies
of science and technology policy leaders and is employed in the 2003
study on which this report is based.

Within the system described by Almond (1950) and Rosenau (1961, 1963,
1974) and operationalized by Miller (Miller & Prewitt, 1982; Miller,
1985, 1986a, 1988), the non-governmental leadership for space policy
includes:

-   Officers and board members of national scientific and engineering
    societies and associations with significant involvement in the space
    sciences or space engineering.

-   Members of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy
    of Engineering in fields relevant to space science or space
    engineering.

-   Officers and board members of major corporations involved in space
    science or engineering.

-   Officers of universities engaged in a significant level of space
    science or engineering research, including presidents, provosts,
    vice-presidents, and deans.

-   Members of NASA space science or policy advisory committees.

-   Individuals who testify before a congressional committee or
    subcommittee on a space policy issue.

In 2003, a total of 3,162 positions qualified as potentially influential
in the formulation of space policy. Because some individuals may hold
more than one position of influence, the list of positions reduces to
approximately 3,000 individuals. For example, an individual might hold
office in a national scientific association, be a member of the National
Academy of Sciences, and have testified before a congressional committee
three times in the previous two years, making a total of five
qualifications for being included on the list. Another individual may be
an officer in a national scientific society, but qualify in no other way
(Miller and Prewitt, 1982; Miller, 1985, 1986a, 1988).

Using the same conceptualization of policy leadership, the
non-governmental leadership for science policy includes:

-   Officers and board members of national scientific and engineering
    societies and associations.

-   Members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of
    Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.

-   Recipients of the Nobel Prize or the Fields Medal,

-   Officers and board members of major corporations involved in science
    or engineering.

-   Officers of universities engaged in a significant level of science
    or engineering research, including presidents, provosts,
    vice-presidents, and deans.

-   Members of Federal department-level or agency-level science advisory
    committees,

-   Individuals who testify before a congressional committee or
    subcommittee on a science policy issue.

In 2003, a total of 8,994 positions qualified as potentially influential
in the formulation of science policy. Because some individuals may hold
more than one position of influence, the list of positions reduces to
approximately 8,000 individuals.

The criteria used to define and identify space policy and science policy
leaders are policy neutral. Positions are identified for their policy
relevance without regard to the occupant, and then the current occupant
of each position is identified and listed in the population database.
For example, a member of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) who
favors the continuation and expansion of manned space exploration and an
NAS member who favors a primary emphasis on unmanned space telescopes
and robotic explorers would both be defined as a space policy leader and
be included in the population database. The experience of building
similar databases in the past indicates that the procedure of first
identifying positions and then identifying occupants produces a diverse
database of leaders that cuts across partisan and ideological lines
(Miller and Prewitt, 1982; Miller, 1985, 1986b, 1988).

**THE 2003 STUDY OF SPACE POLICY AND SCIENCE POLICY LEADERS**

To study the membership, activities, communication practices, and
information needs of space policy and science policy leaders, a listing
of positions relevant to space policy and science policy was constructed
following the definitions outlined above. A total of 3,162 space policy
leadership positions and 8,994 science policy leadership positions were
identified (see Table 1). Smaller samples of 989 space policy leaders
and 1,056 science policy leaders were selected for the study.

Each individual selected for the study 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 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 in the letter), 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. A total
of 312 members of the original space policy leadership sample and 328
members of the original science policy leadership sample were found to
be ill, no longer active, now in a position not relevant to space or
science policy, or deceased. The sample size was adjusted to 677
eligible space policy leaders and 728 science policy leaders. A total of
341 space policy leaders and 444 science policy leaders completed a
questionnaire on paper, online, or in a telephone interview, producing a
cooperation rate of 50 percent for space policy leaders and 61 percent
for science policy leaders (see Table 1).

The proportion of individuals in the original list who were found to be
ineligible is slightly higher than previous studies, but it reflects in
large part the aging of the leadership stratum in science and space
policy. The definition of potential leaders includes all of the members
of the National Academies, for example, and membership in the National
Academies is a life appointment. It would be inappropriate to exclude
National Academy members on the basis of some arbitrary cut-off age,
thus the sample design inherently overstates the number of individuals
who are active in space policy or science policy matters at any given
moment. In general, individuals selected for the sample who are no
longer active in policy relevant matters are willing to indicate that by
questionnaire or telephone.

**Table 1: Space Policy and Science Policy Leadership Sample and
Response Rate, 2003**

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

  Original number of positions           3,162            8,994

  Original sample of individuals         989              1,056

  Ineligible: retirement, new position,  312              328
  inactivity                                              

  Adjusted sample                        677              728

  Number of refusals                     336              284

  Number of individuals participating    341              444

  Cooperation rate                       50.4%            61.0%
  -------------------------------------- ---------------- ----------------

It is also worth noting that the refusal rate was higher among space
policy leaders than science policy leaders. It is important to recognize
that this is the first national study of space policy leaders and many
members of a corporate board for a company that is a supplier to the
space program did not think of themselves as a "space policy leader." In
some cases, an individual would call and explain that he or she served
on the board but that their role was limited to legal advice or
financial matters and that they had no knowledge about space policy. In
most of these instances, the individual was re-classified as ineligible
for the sample. In many other cases, an individual declined to complete
the questionnaire and said on the questionnaire or in response to a
telephone follow-up call that they were interested in making engine
parts and that they had no interest in "space policy." It is likely,
however, if a part of the space program in which they are involved were
to be cancelled, they would develop a stronger interested in the future
of the space program. For this reason, these respondents are classified
as refusals.

The sample frame for this study required the separation of the original
lists into three groups: individuals who qualified as space policy
leaders, individuals who qualified as science policy leaders, and
individuals who qualified as both space policy leaders and science
policy leaders. The proportion of leaders selected from each of these
three populations varied, with a small over-representation of
individuals who were leaders in both areas. To provide a more accurate
reflection of the population of space policy leaders and science policy
leaders, a weight was computed to reflect the population distribution of
individuals who are policy leaders in space or science and individuals
who are both space and science policy leaders. All tabulations included
in this report utilize the weighted data.

If the selection procedure outlined above is correct, the resulting
sample of individuals should report a set of recognizable leadership
activities. Although the population identification procedures assures
that the sampled individuals hold positions from which leadership might
be exercised, the individuals sampled should report other activities --
communicating with other space policy or science policy leaders,
communicating with public groups, contacting public officials, and
working within major educational and corporate structures.

The results from the 2003 study confirm a pattern of leadership
activities. Approximately 55 percent of space policy leaders and 80
percent of science policy leaders reported that they had given a talk or
speech to a scientific or technical group during the preceding year (see
Table 2). Thirteen percent of space policy leaders and 20 percent of
science policy leaders reported communicating with other scientists or
engineers during the preceding year by publishing an article in a
professional journal or by posting scientific or technical information
on the Web. Since more space policy leaders come from the corporate
world and more science policy leaders come from the academic world, this
is not a surprising result.

In regard to communicating with public groups, 60 percent of space
policy leaders and 68 percent of science policy leaders indicated that
they had given one or more speeches or talks to public groups in the
preceding year about space or science. Twenty-four percent of space
policy leaders and 37 percent of science policy leaders reported that
they had published one or more articles or posted one or more sets of
information for public audiences on the Web. The slightly lower rate of
outreach by space policy leaders may be a part of the corporate culture
of many firms and organizations.

Most indicative, half of both space policy leaders and science policy
leaders indicated that they had made one or more contacts with a public
official -- legislative or executive -- on a space or science related
issue during the preceding year. This high level of decision-maker
contact supports the conclusion that a substantial majority of the
individuals identified as space policy leaders or science policy leaders
are in fact active in seeking to influence space or science policy.

It is important to recognize that policy influence can be exercised
through a variety of channels. Speaking to public and professional
groups and making direct contact with public officials are the most
direct examples, but substantial influence can also be exercised through
various infrastructure roles with public and professional organizations.
The 2003 Leadership Study asked about several of these indirect roles --
serving on a corporate, foundation, university, and research center
governing board or on the editorial board of a scientific or technical
journal -- and found significant levels of activity in all of these
roles (see Table 2). Nineteen percent of space policy leaders and 40
percent of science policy leaders serve on one or more journal editorial
boards. Approximately one in four space policy leaders and science
policy leaders serve on the governing board of an independent scientific
or technical research center. Forty-four percent of space policy leaders
and 31 percent of science policy leaders serve on the board of directors
of one or more space-related or science-related corporations. Eighteen
percent of space policy leaders and 11 percent of science policy leaders
serve on the board of trustees of one or more colleges or universities.

To provide a summary measure of leadership involvement, an Index of
Policy Leadership was computed. One point was given for each of ten
potential leadership activities, producing a zero-to-10 scale. The mean
score was 2.2 for space policy leaders and 2.5 for science policy
leaders, but the median score for both leadership grounds was 2.0 (see
Table 2). These patterns indicate that there are numerous patterns of
leadership, with individual leaders being more active in some areas than
others.

**Table 2: Indicators of Policy Leadership, 2003.**

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

  Speech to science or technical audience in last   55%        80%
  year                                                         

  Article in professional/technical journal/post    13         20
  technical info on Web                                        

  Speech to public audience in last year            60         68

  Article, online post, radio or TV interview for   24         37
  general audience                                             

  Contacted decision-maker on policy issue in last  49         50
  year                                                         

  Editorial board member of scientific/technical    19         40
  journal                                                      

  Board of scientific/engineering corporation       44         31

  Governing board of scientific/technical research  24         22
  center                                                       

  Governing board of foundation that supports       15         19
  research                                                     

  Governing board of college or university          18         11

  Mean ~(se)~ score on Policy Leadership Index      2.2        2.5
  (0-10)                                            ~(.09)~    ~(.08)~

  Median core on Policy Leadership Index (0-10)     2          2

  Number of Respondents                             341        444
  ------------------------------------------------- ---------- ----------

**A PROFILE OF SPACE AND SCIENCE POLICY LEADERS**

Space policy leaders and science policy leaders are predominately males
in their 50's or 60's (see Table 3). Overall, science policy leaders
tend to be older than space policy leaders, with fully 30 percent of
science policy leaders being age 70 or higher. Over 90 percent of both
leadership groups have one or more graduate degrees, but science policy
leaders are somewhat more likely to have a Ph.D. than are space policy
leaders.

More than half of both space policy leaders and science policy leaders
are trained in the physical sciences or engineering, but the proportion
of policy leaders with a background in biology is significantly higher
among science policy leaders than space policy leaders. Eighteen percent
of space policy leaders are trained in business, law, or education,
compared to only five percent of science policy leaders.

**Table 3: Demographic Profile of Space and Science Policy Leaders,
2003.**

+---------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
|                                 | Space Policy    | Science Policy  |
|                                 | Leaders         | Leaders         |
+---------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| ### Age                         |                 |                 |
+---------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Less than 50                    | 19%             | 13%             |
+---------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 50 to 59 years                  | 37              | 28              |
+---------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 60 to 69 years                  | 35              | 27              |
+---------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 70 years or more                | 7               | 30              |
+---------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| ### Gender                      |                 |                 |
+---------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Female                          | 15              | 17              |
+---------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Male                            | 85              | 83              |
+---------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| ### Educational Attainment      |                 |                 |
+---------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Baccalaureate                   | 9               | 6               |
+---------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Masters                         | 20              | 9               |
+---------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Law or Medicine                 | 5               | 8               |
+---------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Ph.D.                           | 60              | 75              |
+---------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| ### Discipline                  |                 |                 |
+---------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Biological Sciences (including  | 12              | 29              |
| M.D.)                           |                 |                 |
+---------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Physical Sciences               | 27              | 25              |
+---------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Social Sciences                 | 7               | 6               |
+---------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Engineering and related         | 33              | 34              |
| professional                    |                 |                 |
+---------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Other (including education and  | 18              | 5               |
| law)                            |                 |                 |
+---------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **Number of respondents**       | 341             | 444             |
+---------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+

**POLICY ATTITUDES**

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 than can be addressed
within any given period of time, thus policy leaders are the individuals
who select and promote certain space or science policy issues over
others. In some cases, an issue may arise from outside the space policy
community and rise quickly to a major policy area -- the loss of a
shuttle, for example -- and its impact on the space program 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 among science policy leaders is a good
example of this slower process.

Today's space policy leaders identify an interesting set of issues as
important. When asked in an open-ended format to identify the "most
important" and "second most important" space policy issues, 37 percent
of space policy leaders mentioned manned flight, although it should be
noted that a substantial number of these responses referred to resolving
the tension between the best mix of manned and unmanned missions (see
Table 4). Twenty-two percent mentioned funding as one of the most
important issues facing NASA and the space program, and an additional 11
percent mentioned issues concerning the clarification of costs and
benefits.

**Table 4: Most Important and Second Most Important Space Policy Issues,
2003.**

+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
|                                        | Most    | Second  | C       |
|                                        |         |         | ombined |
|                                        | Im      | Most    |         |
|                                        | portant |         |         |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| Issues involving manned space flight   | 26%     | 11%     | 37%     |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| Funding for the space program          | 13      | 9       | 22      |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| Need for long term plan for space      | 11      | 4       | 15      |
| exploration                            |         |         |         |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| Issues of cost and benefit             | 8       | 3       | 11      |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| Defense-related issues                 | 5       | 6       | 11      |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| Science-related issues                 | 4       | 6       | 10      |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| International Space Station            | 4       | 4       | 8       |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| Safety issues related to manned flight | 2       | 6       | 8       |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| Shuttle                                | 3       | 4       | 7       |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| Issues involving unmanned missions     | 2       | 5       | 7       |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| General: continuation of the space     | 4       | 3       | 7       |
| program                                |         |         |         |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| Public understanding and support       | 3       | 4       | 7       |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| Commercialization                      | 1       | 3       | 4       |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| NASA leadership and management issues  | 1       | 2       | 3       |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| Launch vehicles                        | 2       | 1       | 3       |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| Other mission specific issues          | 1       | 1       | 2       |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| Environmental-related issues           | 1       | 1       | 2       |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| All other specific issues              | 2       | 6       | 8       |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| Number of respondents                  | 341     |         |         |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+

Fifteen percent of space policy leaders suggested that there is a need
for a clear long-term vision. It is important to note that President
Bush's recent statement about the future of the space program was made
after most of the leaders included in this study had already responded
to the 2003 Leadership Study. It is not clear whether this pattern of
response would have been the same if the President's proposal for the
future of the space program had been made prior to the study.

Approximately 10 percent of space policy leaders mentioned a
defense-related issue or a science-related issue as one of the most
important issues facing the space program. Fewer than ten percent
mentioned a variety of other specific issues, ranging from the
International Space Station to the need for more powerful launch
vehicles (see Table 4). This wide dispersion of open-ended responses
suggests that individual space policy leaders identify slightly
different sets of issues and problems, although the twin issues about
the balance between manned and unmanned missions and the general level
of funding appear to be the dominant concerns.

To provide more focus on short-term and intermediate-term issues, each
space policy leader was asked to identify "the most important problem
facing NASA today." The need for increased public support for the space
program was the most frequently mentioned problem, with 17 percent of
space policy leaders citing this problem (see Table 5). Essentially the
same proportion of space policy leaders mentioned the need for a
long-term agenda and a more focused mission definition. As noted above,
most of the responses to this study were collected prior to President
Bush's proposal to begin planning for a return to the Moon and for an
eventual manned mission to Mars, thus it is not clear whether the
absence of a clear long-term plan would have been cited as often if all
of the space policy leaders in this study had heard the President's
proposals prior to responding to this study.

**Table 5: Most Important Problem Facing NASA Today, 2003.**

  ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------
                                                             Percent

  The need for increased public support for and confidence   17
  in NASA                                                    

  Need for long term agenda and mission definition           16

  Excessive management and bureaucracy                       10

  Funding issues                                             10

  NASA leadership                                            7

  The issue of continuing the manned program                 5

  Reconciliation of numerous demands and limited resources   5

  The future of the shuttle program                          5

  The future and uses of the International Space Station     3

  The safety of manned flights                               3

  Aging workforce and need for competent technical staff     3

  The development of a larger scientific research program    2

  Other issues                                               2

  Number of respondents                                      341
  ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------

Approximately 10 percent of space policy leaders cited the need for more
funding for the space program and the same proportion cited excessive
bureaucracy and management problems within NASA as the most important
problem facing the agency. No other single problem was cited by 10
percent or more of space policy leaders, reflecting a continuing
dispersion of issue and problem identification.

In an attempt to narrow the definition of issues and problems facing the
space program, each space policy leader was asked "What do you think
should be NASA's number one priority?" The results show some
crystallization of policy attitudes.

Although individual leaders continued to mention numerous priorities,
there was a clustering of attitudes that provides a useful framework for
understanding the policy preferences of space policy leaders.
Thirty-five percent of space policy leaders indicated that they would
like for NASA to place its top priority on science-based programs, such
as the space telescopes and the monitoring and study of planet Earth
(see Table 6). Most of these responses focused on advancing space
science, promoting astrophysics tools, and specific unmanned
applications. These science-oriented responses included orbital systems
for Earth as well as probes within and beyond the solar system.

**Table 6: Recommendations for NASA's Number One Priority, 2003.**

  --------------------------------------------------- --------- ---------
                                                      Percent   

  General; continue manned and unmanned programs      7         21

  Define/clarify program objectives                   7         

  Increase public consensus and support               3         

  Improve management of existing programs and         4         
  resources                                                     

  Revive and expand manned exploration programs       7         27

  Fix shuttles and/or develop new space vehicles      15        

  Support missions to the Moon and Mars               5         

  Revitalize the International Space Station          1         

  Emphasize scientific and unmanned exploration       19        35
  programs                                                      

  Support deep-space exploration (unmanned)           5         

  Continue and expand space telescope programs        4         

  Focus on Earth sciences and monitoring programs     4         

  Continue and support communication                  1         
  satellites/technology                                         

  Other science and technology                        3         

  Commercialization                                   1         5

  Emphasize aeronautical research                     1         

  Other                                               3         

  Number of respondents                               341       
  --------------------------------------------------- --------- ---------

Twenty-seven percent of space policy leaders indicated a strong
preference for activities designed to revive and expand the manned
exploration program. These responses included recommendations to repair
the current fleet of shuttles to the development of new space
transportation vehicles to active planning for manned missions to the
Moon and Mars (see Table 6). It is clear that some of the leaders had
heard President Bush's message on the space program and were endorsing
it, while others had not heard it but were voicing support for the same
general objectives. Only one percent of space policy leaders
specifically mentioned maintaining and expanding the International Space
Station as a part of this manned exploration emphasis, although some of
the responses would clearly have encompassed the ISS within their scope.

Approximately 21 percent of space policy leaders thought that the number
one priority was to continue the present program of both manned and
unmanned activities and to generate more public support for the
activity. About four percent of this group focused on better management
of existing programs and resources, and it appeared that these responses
wanted the space program to continue in its present direction but more
efficiently.

The crystallization of these three clusters of responses points to one
of the challenges for the leadership of NASA. It is clear that there is
a strong division between leaders who value major unmanned programs such
as the space telescopes and the Earth monitoring programs and leaders
who see the primary mission of NASA to be manned space exploration.
Given current federal fiscal constraints, it may be difficult to advance
both goals simultaneously and retain the support of both groups of space
policy leaders.

Having used a series of open-ended questions to explore the policy
preferences of space policy leaders, each space policy leader included
in the 2003 Leadership Study was asked to indicate his or her agreement
or disagreement with a series of specific policy statements. These
statements were selected because they are often heard in the current
space policy debate and because they reflect a spectrum of policy
choices. In broad terms, the responses to these closed-ended policy
questions parallel the results described above, but provide a somewhat
greater precision in actual policy views.

At this point, it is important to look at the policy attitudes of
science policy leaders as well as space policy leaders. It is at the
point of policy level discussions between the Administration, the
Congress, the space community, and the scientific community that policy
level differences may emerge.

More than 90 percent of space policy leaders and science policy leaders
agree that "current orbital technologies such as weather satellites and
communication satellites are essential economic resources and should be
continued and improved" (see Table 7). No space policy leader disagreed
with this position and only two percent expressed any uncertainty about
this policy. Ninety-six percent of science policy leaders agreed with
this policy view. It is clear that some space-based technologies have
become an integral part of the economic life of modern society.

Nearly 80 percent of space policy leaders would like for the United
States to make "the investments necessary to sustain a vigorous program
of human and robotic space exploration and space sciences research."
Only 49 percent of science policy leaders agreed that the United States
should make the investments necessary to sustain a vigorous space
program (see Table 7). Although only 26 percent of science policy
leaders disagree with the need for a national investment in space
exploration, fully 25 percent of science policy leaders are not sure
about their views on this matter. A substantial number of science policy
leaders appear to have an open mind on the importance of a major
national investment in space, but they are not convinced at this point.

**Table 7: Attitudes of Space and Science Policy Leaders on Selected
Space Policy Issues, 2003.**

+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                                  | St   | A    | Not  | Disa | St   |
|                                  | rong | gree |      | gree | rong |
|                                  |      |      | Sure |      |      |
|                                  | A    |      |      |      | Disa |
|                                  | gree |      |      |      | gree |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Current orbital technologies     |      |      |      |      |      |
| such as weather satellites and   |      |      |      |      |      |
| communication satellites are     |      |      |      |      |      |
| essential economic resources and |      |      |      |      |      |
| should be continued and          |      |      |      |      |      |
| improved.                        |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Space Policy Leaders             | 81%  | 17%  | 2%   | 0%   | 0%   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Science Policy Leaders           | 73   | 23   | 3    | 1    | 0    |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| The United States should make    |      |      |      |      |      |
| the investments necessary to     |      |      |      |      |      |
| sustain a vigorous program of    |      |      |      |      |      |
| human and robotic space          |      |      |      |      |      |
| exploration and space sciences   |      |      |      |      |      |
| research.                        |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Space Policy Leaders             | 40   | 39   | 10   | 10   | 1    |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Science Policy Leaders           | 15   | 34   | 25   | 19   | 7    |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| It is important for the United   |      |      |      |      |      |
| States to maintain international |      |      |      |      |      |
| leadership in human space        |      |      |      |      |      |
| exploration.                     |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Space Policy Leaders             | 34   | 37   | 15   | 11   | 3    |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Science Policy Leaders           | 12   | 34   | 24   | 20   | 10   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| It is likely that there is       |      |      |      |      |      |
| intelligent life elsewhere in    |      |      |      |      |      |
| the universe.                    |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Space Policy Leaders             | 31   | 33   | 28   | 5    | 3    |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Science Policy Leaders           | 20   | 26   | 38   | 11   | 5    |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| The International Space Station  |      |      |      |      |      |
| is an important and promising    |      |      |      |      |      |
| laboratory for scientific        |      |      |      |      |      |
| research.                        |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Space Policy Leaders             | 12   | 39   | 16   | 18   | 15   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Science Policy Leaders           | 8    | 29   | 21   | 23   | 19   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| The United States should begin   |      |      |      |      |      |
| planning for a manned mission to |      |      |      |      |      |
| Mars in the next 20 years.       |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Space Policy Leaders             | 24   | 23   | 23   | 17   | 13   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Science Policy Leaders           | 10   | 17   | 24   | 28   | 21   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| NASA should limit human space    |      |      |      |      |      |
| exploration to Earth-orbit       |      |      |      |      |      |
| missions and use robotic         |      |      |      |      |      |
| missions for exploring in and    |      |      |      |      |      |
| beyond the solar system.         |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Space Policy Leaders             | 19   | 24   | 13   | 28   | 16   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| The developing Chinese space     |      |      |      |      |      |
| program is a threat to United    |      |      |      |      |      |
| States leadership in space.      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Space Policy Leaders             | 7    | 23   | 20   | 39   | 11   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Science Policy Leaders           | 5    | 13   | 25   | 44   | 13   |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of Space Policy Leaders = |      |      |      |      |      |
| 341; Number of Science Policy    |      |      |      |      |      |
| Leaders = 444                    |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Statements are listed in order   |      |      |      |      |      |
| of percent of total agreement    |      |      |      |      |      |
| among space policy leaders.      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

Seventy-one percent of space policy leaders think that it is "important
for the United States to maintain international leadership in human
space exploration," but only 46 percent of science policy leaders share
that view (see Table 7). Thirty percent of science policy leaders do not
think that American leadership in human space exploration is important,
and 24 percent are currently undecided on the issue. Neither space
policy leaders nor science policy leaders think that the developing
Chinese space program is a threat to United States leadership in space.

Two-thirds of space policy leaders believe that "there is intelligent
life elsewhere in the universe," as do 46 percent of science policy
leaders. Substantial proportions of both space policy leaders and
science policy leaders express uncertainty on this question.

On the decision to begin planning for a manned mission to Mars, there is
a substantial division between space policy leaders and science policy
leaders. Nearly half of space policy leaders favor the initiation of a
planning effort for a manned visit to Mars in the next 20 years, but
only 27 percent of science policy leaders support this activity (see
Table 7). Nearly half of science policy leaders disagree with the idea
of planning a manned mission to Mars, as do 30 percent of space policy
leaders. Nearly a quarter of both leadership groups are currently
undecided on the issue.

As noted in the earlier analysis of the open-ended responses, space
policy leaders are divided on the issue of manned missions outside Earth
orbit. Forty-three percent of space policy leaders agree that NASA
should limit manned missions to Earth orbit and rely on unmanned
missions into the solar system or deep space, but this view is rejected
by 44 percent of space policy leaders. Thirteen percent of space policy
leaders are currently undecided on this issue.

Looking at the full spectrum of issues, these results suggest that there
is strong support among space policy leaders for a program of both
manned and robotic space exploration with a strong commitment to
advancing the space sciences. There is a division within the space
policy community on whether manned space flight should be limited to
Earth-orbit missions or encouraged to explore the solar system. Science
policy leaders share some enthusiasm for the broad objectives of space
exploration, but are cautious about making a long-term financial
investment in human space exploration and generally opposed to a manned
mission to Mars.

These differences are likely to emerge in two forums in the near future.
When the Congress holds hearings on President Bush's proposals to begin
planning for a manned return to the Moon and an eventual manned trip to
Mars, there may be dissent from the scientific community.
Simultaneously, the appropriations committees of the Congress will have
to deal with these resource issues for years to come.

To understand the relative budget priorities of space policy leaders and
science policy leaders, the 2003 Leadership study asked each participant
to indicate the relative priority that he or she would assign to each of
several spending choices using a zero-to-10 scale, with zero meaning no
priority for a spending objective and 10 meaning the highest priority
for a spending area.

There is a high level of agreement between space policy leaders and
science policy leaders in terms of the relative priority that they would
assign to each of 14 major program areas (see Table 8). Space policy
leaders assigned the highest priority to basic research on the human
genome, perhaps reflecting deference to biomedical research. Science
policy leaders assigned their highest priority to the development of
fuel cells and other alternative energy sources. Both space policy
leaders and science policy leaders assigned a relatively high priority
to disease-oriented biomedical research beyond genomics, global climate
change research, the development of nanotechnology, and basic biological
research apart from disease applications.

Earth science research, including orbiter, oceanographic, and polar,
received a score of 7 out of a possible 10 by both leadership groups
(see Table 8). This research area appears to tap long-standing interests
in both the space community and the scientific community.

There are some differences between space policy leaders and science
policy leaders in regard to several space-related budget areas. The
development of a new generation of space telescopes and the continuation
of deep-space probes received a mean priority score of 6.7 by space
policy leaders. Science policy leaders assigned a priority score of 6.1
for the development of new space telescopes and 5.6 for the continuation
of deep space probes. Space policy leaders assigned a priority score of
6.1 for the development of a new generation of space vehicles, but
science policy leaders assigned a mean priority score of 4.7 for this
activity. Both space policy leaders and science policy leaders assigned
their lowest priority score to the conduct of scientific research on the
International Space Station.

These results indicate that science policy leaders are less supportive
of government spending for several major space-related activities,
including both manned flight (the development of new space vehicles and
the space stations) and unmanned missions (the development of new space
telescopes and the continuation of deep space probes). These differences
may become even more apparent in the context of a growing federal
deficit and looming budget restrictions for discretionary federal
spending.

**Table 8: Mean Priority Scores Assigned to Funding for Selected Areas,
2003.**

+------------------------------------------------------+-------+-------+
|                                                      | Space | Sc    |
|                                                      | P     | ience |
|                                                      | olicy | P     |
|                                                      | Le    | olicy |
|                                                      | aders | Le    |
|                                                      |       | aders |
+------------------------------------------------------+-------+-------+
| Basic research on the human genome and its           | 8.3   | 8.2   |
| relationship to health and disease                   | ~(    | ~(    |
|                                                      | .10)~ | .09)~ |
+------------------------------------------------------+-------+-------+
| The development and improvement of fuel cells and    | 8.1   | 8.3   |
| other alternative energy sources                     | ~(    | ~(    |
|                                                      | .10)~ | .08)~ |
+------------------------------------------------------+-------+-------+
| Disease-oriented biomedical research (apart from     | 8.1   | 8.1   |
| genomics)                                            | ~(    | ~(    |
|                                                      | .10)~ | .10)~ |
+------------------------------------------------------+-------+-------+
| Global climate change research                       | 7.5   | 7.4   |
|                                                      | ~(    | ~(    |
|                                                      | .12)~ | .11)~ |
+------------------------------------------------------+-------+-------+
| The development of nanotechnology                    | 7.4   | 7.2   |
|                                                      | ~(    | ~(    |
|                                                      | .11)~ | .10)~ |
+------------------------------------------------------+-------+-------+
| Basic biology research (apart from disease           | 7.3   | 7.6   |
| applications)                                        | ~(    | ~(    |
|                                                      | .10)~ | .09)~ |
+------------------------------------------------------+-------+-------+
| Earth science research, including oceanographic and  | 7.0   | 7.1   |
| polar research                                       | ~(    | ~(    |
|                                                      | .11)~ | .09)~ |
+------------------------------------------------------+-------+-------+
| The development of a new generation of space-based   | 6.7   | 6.1   |
| telescopes such as Hubble....                        | ~(    | ~(    |
|                                                      | .12)~ | .11)~ |
+------------------------------------------------------+-------+-------+
| The continuation of deep-space exploration           | 6.7   | 5.6   |
|                                                      | ~(    | ~(    |
|                                                      | .13)~ | .13)~ |
+------------------------------------------------------+-------+-------+
| Defense-related research and development             | 6.6   | 6.0   |
|                                                      | ~(    | ~(    |
|                                                      | .12)~ | .11)~ |
+------------------------------------------------------+-------+-------+
| Basic high energy physics such as the work at Fermi, | 6.4   | 6.4   |
| Brookhaven, or CERN                                  | ~(    | ~(    |
|                                                      | .12)~ | .10)~ |
+------------------------------------------------------+-------+-------+
| The development of a new generation of space         | 6.1   | 4.7   |
| vehicles                                             | ~(    | ~(    |
|                                                      | .13)~ | .12)~ |
+------------------------------------------------------+-------+-------+
| Agricultural research focused on the genetic         | 6.0   | 6.3   |
| modification of plants and animals                   | ~(    | ~(    |
|                                                      | .14)~ | .10)~ |
+------------------------------------------------------+-------+-------+
| The conduct of scientific research on the            | 4.4   | 3.9   |
| International Space Station                          | ~(    | ~(    |
|                                                      | .15)~ | .13)~ |
+------------------------------------------------------+-------+-------+
| Number of respondents                                | 341   | 444   |
+------------------------------------------------------+-------+-------+
| (.xx) = standard error of the mean                   |       |       |
|                                                      |       |       |
| Program areas are listed in order of mean score by   |       |       |
| space policy leaders.                                |       |       |
+------------------------------------------------------+-------+-------+

**PERCEPTIONS OF NASA**

NASA is the primary agency responsible for the development and
management of the United States space program. It is important to
understand how space policy leaders view the performance of NASA.

Each space policy leader was asked to assess NASA's current performance
compared to the job that the agency did 20 years ago. Forty-five percent
of space policy leaders think that NASA is doing a worse job today that
it did 20 years ago (see Table 9). A third of space policy leaders
indicate that NASA is doing about the same as it did 20 years ago, but
only 17 percent of space policy leaders think that NASA is doing a
better job today than it did 20 years ago.

**Table 9: Assessment of NASA's Overall Performance, 2003.**

  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------
                                                            Percent

  Better                                                    17%

  About the same                                            33

  Worse                                                     45

  No answer                                                 5

  N =                                                       341

  Compared with 20 years ago, would you say that NASA is    
  doing a better job today, a worse job, or about the same? 
  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------

To understand more about space policy leaders' assessment of specific
management areas, each space policy leader was asked to evaluate NASA's
performance in seven areas using a zero-to-10 scale, with zero meaning
that NASA is doing an awful job and 10 meaning that NASA is doing an
outstanding job. The results indicate that space policy leaders give
NASA high marks for its management of space science research, including
the space telescopes and the deep-space probes (see Table 10).

NASA received a relatively good score (6.1) for its management of earth
science research. The management of aeronautical research received a
mean score of 5.5 and the communication of NASA-sponsored research to
the public received a mean score of 5.4. For its management of human
flight programs and its overall budget management, space policy leaders
assigned a mean score of 5.1 -- a middling performance. In the
open-ended responses discussed earlier, there were numerous criticisms
of the management of manned flight programs and this score appears to
reflect that dissatisfaction.

Space policy leaders assigned the lowest mean performance score to
NASA's management of research on the International Space Station -- 4.8.
Criticism of the operation of the International Space Station was
frequent in the open-ended responses examined earlier, and this result
appears to be consistent with those individual judgments.

**Table 10: Leadership Assessment of NASA Performance in Specific Areas,
2003.**

+-----------------------------------------------------+-------+-------+
|                                                     | Mean  | M     |
|                                                     | ~     | edian |
|                                                     | (se)~ |       |
+-----------------------------------------------------+-------+-------+
| The management of space science research,           | 7.2   | 7     |
|                                                     | ~(    |       |
| including space telescopes and deep-space probes    | .09)~ |       |
+-----------------------------------------------------+-------+-------+
| The management of earth science research            | 6.1   | 6     |
|                                                     | ~(    |       |
|                                                     | .10)~ |       |
+-----------------------------------------------------+-------+-------+
| The management of aeronautical research and related | 5.5   | 6     |
| development                                         | ~(    |       |
|                                                     | .12)~ |       |
+-----------------------------------------------------+-------+-------+
| The communication of NASA-sponsored research to the | 5.4   | 5     |
| public                                              | ~(    |       |
|                                                     | .13)~ |       |
+-----------------------------------------------------+-------+-------+
| The overall management of its budget                | 5.1   | 5     |
|                                                     | ~(    |       |
|                                                     | .12)~ |       |
+-----------------------------------------------------+-------+-------+
| The management of human flight programs             | 5.1   | 5     |
|                                                     | ~(    |       |
|                                                     | .14)~ |       |
+-----------------------------------------------------+-------+-------+
| The management of scientific research on the        | 4.8   | 5     |
| International Space Station                         | ~(    |       |
|                                                     | .14)~ |       |
+-----------------------------------------------------+-------+-------+
| N =                                                 | 341   |       |
+-----------------------------------------------------+-------+-------+
| NASA is a large and complex agency that manages a   |       |       |
| wide array of space flight and scientific research  |       |       |
| programs. For each of the activities listed below,  |       |       |
| please evaluate the job that NASA is currently      |       |       |
| doing, using a zero-to-10 scale. If you think that  |       |       |
| NASA is doing an outstanding job in a specific      |       |       |
| area, give it a 10. If you think that NASA is doing |       |       |
| an awful job in an area, give it a zero. You may    |       |       |
| use the full range of values from zero to 10.       |       |       |
+-----------------------------------------------------+-------+-------+

In the context of these criticisms of current NASA management, it is
interesting to look at the perceptions of space policy leaders about
past NASA performance. When asked in the 2003 Leadership Study to name
"the high point in the history of the space program," two-thirds of
space policy leaders overwhelmingly cited the Apollo program and the
landing of the first person on the Moon. Six percent of space policy
leaders cited Hubble or other space telescopes, and five percent of

**Table 11: High Point in the Space Program, 2003.**

  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------
                                                            Percent

  Apollo program and the first lunar landing                63%

  Hubble and space astronomy                                6

  Deep-space missions                                       5

  Mars missions                                             3

  First manned space flight                                 3

  Apollo and Hubble -- equally                              2

  All other specific mentions                               5

  Unable or unwilling to select a single high point         13

  N =                                                       341
  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------

space policy leaders thought that Voyager or other deep-space probes
were the most important achievement of the space program (see Table 11).
From the verbatim comments, it is apparent that there is a great deal of
appreciation of the scientific value of more recent space activities,
but there is a strong emotional bond to the first lunar landing and
related Apollo missions.

**THE INFORMATION NEEDS OF POLICY LEADERS**

It is important to understand the information needs of space policy
leaders and science policy leaders. Because of their critical role in
the policy formulation process, it is important for policy leaders to
have regular access to current and accurate information. As interest
groups and professional societies and other interested parties have
discovered the role of policy leaders in the policy formulation process,
there has been a growing volume of focused communication directed to
these leaders.

One of the objectives of the 2003 Leadership Study is to examine the
processes by which space policy and science policy leaders obtain timely
information about space-related matters. In the context of the growing
use and influence of electronic communications, it is especially
important to monitor the sources of information used by policy leaders
and the level of trust that they hold in various kinds of information
resources.

It is broadly assumed that policy leaders in most areas are already
experts in their area and that they need little help in obtaining
relevant information. The core of this assumption is true, but policy
leaders often find themselves called upon to make relative judgments
that may require comparisons with fields in which they are either less
knowledgeable or less current. For example, an individual elected to the
board of a professional society such as the American Chemical Society or
the American Physical Society may have earned distinction in some
focused area of science, but may be expected in his or her board role to
engage in federal budget discussions that require some judgment among
competing areas -- as demonstrated by the questions that produced the
data for Table 8. No individual policy leader can be fully competent or
currently informed about the full array of policy issues likely to occur
in any given year. Fortunately, most policy leaders are experienced in
seeking new information and making sense of it in the context of current
demands.

The flow of information is built on sets of words and concepts.
Scientific and technical communication is heavily dependent on the
recipient of information being able to understand the major concepts
employed in any given message or communication. To provide a general
measure of the level of current understanding of a core set of
scientific constructs closely related to space policy decisions, each
space policy and science policy leader was asked to rate his or her own
understanding of ten basic scientific constructs that are relevant to
space policy issues. A majority of space policy leaders and science
policy leaders reported that they had a clear understanding of the
electromagnetic spectrum, a basic scientific construct essential to
understanding applications from broadband television communications to
space telescopes (see Table 12). An additional quarter of space policy
leaders and science policy leaders indicated that they have a "general
sense" of the electromagnetic spectrum, but at least 20 percent of both
leadership groups reported that they are "less familiar" with this
construct.

Half of space policy leaders and 43 percent of science policy leaders
reported that they have a clear understanding of plate tectonics. More
than 40 percent of space policy leaders indicated that they have a clear
understanding of the process of nuclear fusion, the concept and causes
of global climate change, and the concept of ozone depletion and
recovery. Slightly lower proportions of science policy leaders reported
holding a clear understanding of each of these constructs. Only 35
percent of space policy leaders and 27 percent of science policy leaders
claimed to have a clear understanding of the age of our Sun, suggesting
a limited understanding of current theories of the formation and history
of the universe. A quarter of both space policy leaders and science
policy leaders said that they have less familiarity with the age of the
Sun (see Table 12).

To provide a summary index of the level of space-related construct
understanding, the seven items that were asked of both space policy
leaders and science policy leaders were used to construct an Index of
Space Construct Understanding (see Table 13). One point was assigned for
a clear understanding of each of the seven items asked of both
leadership groups.

Space policy leaders and science policy leaders both recorded a mean
score of 3 on this zero-to-seven index. Physical scientists in both
leadership groups recorded the highest scores, followed by leaders with
advanced training in engineering. Leaders with backgrounds in the
biological sciences, the social, sciences, and other fields earned lower
mean scores than physical scientists and engineers.

These results indicate that many space policy and science policy leaders
have -- and recognize -- unmet information needs relative to the range
of space 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 recognition of the breadth and complexity of
the space policy agenda. Setting aside somewhat more difficult
constructs such as the life cycle of stars or the concept of an
accelerating rate of expansion in the universe, it is clear that a
significant portion of current policy leaders operate on the basis of a
general sense about major constructs rather than a clear understanding.
For any given space policy issue, some policy leaders will be fully
informed about the matter and may have fully developed views on the
issue, but other policy leaders may need to obtain some additional or
updated information about that issue and may benefit from an informed
discussion of the issue.

**Table 12: Understanding of Space and Scientific Constructs, 2003.**

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

                                    CU        GS     LF               CU        GS     LF

  The electromagnetic               52%       28%    20%              51%       25%    24%
  spectrum.                                                                            

  The concept of plate              49        35     16               43        41     16
  tectonics.                                                                           

  The process of nuclear            44        41     15               32        43     25
  fusion.                                                                              

  The concept and causes            43        53     4                41        54     5
  of global warming.                                                                   

  The concept of ozone              43        51     6                36        50     14
  depletion & recovery.                                                                

  The origin and                    39        41     20               36        42     22
  composition of a laser                                                               
  beam.                                                                                

  The age of our Sun.               35        41     24               27        47     26

  The life cycle of                 34        43     23               \--       \--    \--
  stars.                                                                               

  The concept of an                 33        48     19               \--       \--    \--
  accelerating universe.                                                               

  The place of quarks in            18        39     43               \--       \--    \--
  atomic theory.                                                                       

  Number of respondents             341                               444              

  CU = clear              GS =                             LF = less                   
  understanding           general                          familiar                    
                          sense                                                        
  ----------------------- --------- --------- ------ ----- ---------- --------- ------ ------

**Table 13: Mean Score on the Index of Space Science Construct
Understanding, 2003.**

  ----------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
  Discipline                    Space                 Science    
                                Policy                Policy     
                                Leaders               Leaders    

                                Mean       N          Mean       N
                                ~(se)~                ~(se)~     

  Physical sciences             4.9        83         4.4        108
                                ~(.21)~               ~(.18)~    

  Engineering                   3.1        112        2.5        147
                                ~(.19)~               ~(.19)~    

  Biological sciences           2.4        40         1.8        125
                                ~(.35)~               ~(.18)~    

  Other disciplines and fields  1.7        64         1.7        23
                                ~(.24)~               ~(.47)~    

  Social sciences               1.4        23         1.8        26
                                ~(.37)~               ~(.33)~    

  All Policy Leaders            3.0        341        3.1        112
                                ~(.13)~               ~(.19)~    
  ----------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

Too often, this simple need for timely information has been ignored. As
the results of this study indicate, virtually all of the space policy
and science policy leaders who participated in the 2003 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. This need is an
unrecognized by most scientific organizations and societies, including
groups that often try to communicate to these policy leaders.

## INFORMATION SEEKING AND ACQUISITION BEHAVIORS

Space policy leaders and science policy leaders are voracious consumers
of information. Three quarters of space and science policy leaders read
a newspaper everyday and an additional 14 percent read a newspaper most
days (see Table 14). Eighty-three percent of space policy leaders and 88
percent of science policy leaders reported that they read one or more
magazines regularly to obtain science information. Thirty-nine percent
of space policy leaders and 58 percent of science policy leaders
indicated that they read one or more one or more books relevant to space
or science policy during the preceding year. This high rate of
information acquisition and consumption is not new. Miller's earlier
studies of science policy leaders found high levels of newspaper,
magazine, journal, and report reading (Miller, 1985, 1988, 2002; Miller
and Prewitt, 1982).

**Table 14: Use of Print Information Sources, 2003.**

+-----------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
|                                               | Space    | Science  |
|                                               | Policy   | Policy   |
|                                               | Leaders  | Leaders  |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| Reads newspaper: Everyday                     | 78%      | 76%      |
|                                               |          |          |
| Most days                                     | 14       | 15       |
|                                               |          |          |
| 2 or 3 days each week                         | 3        | 4        |
|                                               |          |          |
| Less than twice a week                        | 5        | 5        |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| Reads one or more magazines for science       | 83       | 88       |
| information                                   |          |          |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| Reads one or more books for science           | 39       | 58       |
| information                                   |          |          |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| Number of leaders                             | 341      | 444      |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------+----------+

What is new is the method by which policy leaders acquire new
information. By any measure, space policy leaders and science policy
leaders are well connected electronically. Virtually all space policy
and science policy leaders reported using an office computer for e-mail
and Internet searching (see Table 15). Ninety-three percent of space
policy leaders and 89 percent of science policy leaders indicate that
they use a home computer for work purposes, and roughly two-thirds
reported that their home computer was connected to a high speed line.
Seventy six percent of space policy leaders and 83 percent of science
policy leaders said that they search for scientific and technical
information on the Internet, using their work, home, or travel
computers. The median space policy leaders reported seeking space or
scientific information on the Web 10 times each month, and the median
science policy leader reported seeking scientific information on the Web
20 times each month (see Table 15).

One approach to understanding information acquisition patterns is to ask
about recent information sources used in regard to a specific topic or
issue. In the 2003 Leadership Study, each space and science policy
leader was asked to identify two major policy issues and to report the
primary information sources that he or she had used in the last year to
obtain information about that topic. Each leader was also asked to
identify the information source to which he or she would turn to obtain
additional information on the same subject matter.

Space policy leaders and science policy leaders reported primary
reliance on a combination of Internet, colleagues, and newspapers for
policy-related information (see Table 16). Professional journals were
the major source for science policy leaders, but the refereed literature
was less important for space policy leaders. Space policy leaders were
somewhat more likely to report obtaining information from a government
agency -- especially NASA -- than science policy leaders, and both
groups indicated some use of information from non-governmental groups,
including professional societies and corporations. There was little
reported use of broadcast media.

To understand how leaders would obtain information about the same
issues, each participant was asked to report the sources of information
to which he or she would turn if they needed additional information
within the next month on the topic that they had designated as the most
important space or science policy issue. The Internet was the primary
source of additional information for both space policy leaders and
science policy leaders (see Table 17).

**Table 15: Use of Electronic Communication Resources, 2003.**

+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
|                                                 | Space   | Science |
|                                                 |         | Policy  |
|                                                 | Policy  | Leaders |
|                                                 | Leaders |         |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
| Uses work (office) computer regularly           | 98%     | 95%     |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
| Uses office computer for e-mail                 | 95      | 93      |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
| Uses office computer to search Internet         | 95      | 93      |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
| Uses home computer for work purposes            | 93      | 89      |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
| Has high-speed line for home computer           | 72      | 60      |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
| Uses a computer to search for space/science     | 76      | 83      |
| information on the Web                          |         |         |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
| Median number of Internet accesses per month    | 10      | 20      |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
| Number of leaders                               | 341     | 444     |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+

**Table 16: Sources of Information about Space or Scientific Subjects,
2003.**

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

  Internet and online sources                33%            29%

  Colleagues, personal conversations         32             20

  Newspapers                                 23             21

  Magazines (other than professional         21             14
  journals)                                                 

  Professional journals                      18             34

  Government agencies (including national    17             8
  laboratories)                                             

  Non-governmental organizations (including  15             24
  firms)                                                    

  Television (including news and             4              2
  documentaries)                                            

  Books and reports                          2              7

  Radio (including NPR)                      1              1

  Number of leaders                          341            444

  Please think about how you would obtain                   
  information about a specific scientific or                
  space issue. Use the issue or subject that                
  you listed in response to Question 17 or                  
  19 as an example. Thinking back to the                    
  last year, from what sources have you                     
  obtained most of your information on that                 
  subject? Is there another source that you                 
  have found helpful on that subject?                       
  ------------------------------------------ -------------- --------------

**Table 17: Sources of Additional Information about Space or Scientific
Subjects, 2003.**

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

  Internet and online sources                39%            45%

  Colleagues, personal conversations         20             9

  Government agencies (including national    10             3
  laboratories)                                             

  Non-governmental organizations (including  8              11
  firms)                                                    

  Professional journals                      4              10

  Newspapers                                 4              2

  Magazines (other than professional         3              2
  journals)                                                 

  Libraries                                  1              2

  Books and reports                          1              0

  Television (including news and             0              0
  documentaries)                                            

  Radio (including NPR)                      0              0

  Number of leaders                          341            444

  If, in the next month, you wanted to get                  
  more information about that subject \[the                 
  most important space or science policy                    
  issue just cited by the respondent\], what                
  source would you turn to first?                           
  ------------------------------------------ -------------- --------------

These results indicate that some of the policy-relevant information now
held by space policy leaders and science policy leaders was obtained
from traditional print and organizational sources. The speed and reach
of the Internet make it the source of choice for obtaining additional
information as needs arise. In this context, it is important to note
that space policy leaders are more likely to rely on colleagues and on
the government -- primarily NASA -- for new information than are science
policy leaders. A significant proportion of science policy leaders
report that they would rely on professional journals and
non-governmental organizations for information. There was a high level
of reliance on reports and information from the National Academies among
science policy leaders. Neither space policy leaders nor science policy
leaders report that they would expect to obtain new information from
broadcast sources.

The release of the report of the Gehman Commission about the causes of
the Columbia shuttle accident provides an excellent case study in the
acquisition and use of policy-relevant information by space policy
leaders and science policy leaders. Eighty-five percent of space policy
leaders indicated that they had read about the Gehman Report in
newspapers or magazines, and 45 percent said that they had read about
the report online (see Table 18). A third of space policy leaders had
read all or a significant portion of the report. Nearly two-thirds of
space policy leaders had talked to one or more colleagues about the
report, and 26 percent had spoken to one or more NASA officials about
the report. This pattern of information acquisition and use demonstrates
that the individuals identified in this study as space policy leaders
are active participants in discussion and formulation of space policy in
the United States.

It is equally important to note that three-quarters of science policy
leaders indicated that they had read about the Gehman Report in the
media, and 21 percent of science policy leaders had read about the
report online. Only 12 percent of science policy leaders had read all or
a significant portion of the report, but nearly a third of science
policy leaders had discussed the report with colleagues and 26 percent
had talked to one or more NASA officials about the report. It is
interesting to note that this is the same as the proportion of space
policy leaders who spoke to a NASA officer about the report. Given that
there are more than twice as many science policy leaders as space policy
leaders, these results suggest that the voice of the science policy
community is as least as loud in space matters as is the voice of space
policy leaders. These results make it clear that science policy leaders
are active participants in the discussion and formulation of space
policy.

**Table 18: Awareness and Use of the Gehman Report, 2003.**

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

  Read about the Gehman Report in the media  85%            77%

  Read about the Gehman Report online        45             21

  Have read all or significant sections of   31             12
  the Gehman Rept.                                          

  Have talked with colleagues about the      62             31
  Gehman Report                                             

  Have talked to a NASA official about the   26             26
  Gehman Report                                             

  Have not followed the issue                14             24

  Number of respondents                      341            444
  ------------------------------------------ -------------- --------------

## ASSESSMENT OF SELECTED INFORMATION SOURCES

Space policy leaders and science policy leaders are surrounded by
information from a variety of sources. Virtually all policy leaders have
the resources to subscribe to more newspapers and magazines than they
can read, to buy more books than they can find time to read, and are
sufficiently wired to have wide access to the full resources of the
Internet. In this information rich environment, policy leaders must
select the information that they will utilize, and the literature
suggests that this choice will reflect a combination of perceived
usefulness and trustworthiness.

To test this general model, the 2003 Leadership Study asked each policy
leader to assess both the utility and the trustworthiness of major
information sources. The results show that policy leaders are
discriminating information consumers, rating some sources high in
usefulness and trust and others much lower.

Both space policy leaders and science policy leaders rated the Internet
as the most useful source for "keeping up with" science and space issues
(see Table 19). On a zero to 10 scale, space policy leaders gave the
Internet a mean rating of 7.5, and science policy leaders assigned a
mean score of 8.1 to the Internet. The three major print media --
newspapers, magazines, and books -- were rated as significantly less
useful.

**Table 19: Usefulness of Selected Space Information Sources, 2003.**

+-------------------------------+------------------+------------------+
|                               | Space Policy     | Science Policy   |
|                               |                  |                  |
|                               | Leaders          | Leaders          |
+-------------------------------+------------------+------------------+
| Newspaper                     | 4.8 ~(.14)~      | 4.8 ~(.12)~      |
+-------------------------------+------------------+------------------+
| Magazine                      | 5.0 ~(.33)~      | 6.0 ~(.24)~      |
+-------------------------------+------------------+------------------+
| Book                          | 5.0 ~(.24)~      | 5.6 ~(.16)~      |
+-------------------------------+------------------+------------------+
| Internet                      | 7.5 ~(.15)~      | 8.1 ~(.11)~      |
+-------------------------------+------------------+------------------+
| Number of leaders             | 341              | 444              |
+-------------------------------+------------------+------------------+
| ( ) = standard error of the   |                  |                  |
| mean                          |                  |                  |
+-------------------------------+------------------+------------------+

Each space policy and science policy leader included in the 2003 Study
was asked to assess the level of confidence they would have in science
information from a set of major information sources. The results again
display a high degree of discrimination. Space policy leaders and
science policy leaders expressed the highest level of confidence in a
report from the National Academy of Sciences (or presumably a report
from the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, or
the National Research Council). On a zero to 10 scale, space policy
leaders gave a report from the NAS a mean score of 8.3 and science
policy leaders assigned a mean score of 8.7 to an Academy report (see
Table 20). An article in *Science* or *Nature* was the second most
trusted source by both leadership groups. The two most trusted sources
are characterized by a high level of expertise and a tradition of
independence from short-term partisan causes.

Space policy leaders have a high regard for *Space News* and *Aviation
Week & Space Technology*, two space industry publications with wide
distribution and recognition within the space community, giving these
publications a mean rating of 7.1 on a zero-to-10 scale. In recent
years, the number of industry-specific publications has grown and the
high ratings accorded these two publications indicate the role they play
inside the space community. Space policy leaders assigned a mean score
of 6.0 to "a report from the Planetary Society," an advocacy group for
deep space exploration.

Space policy and science policy leaders both awarded a high rating to "a
report from a scientist from a major university," with mean scores of
7.0 and 7.4 respectively (see Table 20). The imprint of a university
apparently retains substantial value in these policy communities.

A report from NASA received high marks from both space policy leaders
and science policy leaders, with mean scores of 6.9 and 6.6
respectively. This level of trust was higher than the level of trust
accorded the *Wall Street Journal*, the *New York Times*, the
*Washington Post*, or a report from a Congressional committee on science
and technology, all of which received mean scores of 6.0 or higher from
both leadership groups.

Space policy and science policy leaders express markedly less confidence
in information from the mass media. A story in *Time* or *Newsweek*
earned a mean score of about 5.0 from both leadership groups, and a
story on CNN received a mean score of about 4.6 from both leadership
groups. Space policy and science policy leaders concurred in awarding
the lowest level of trust to "a story on a network television news
show," assigning a mean score of about 3.5 (see Table 20).

**Table 20: Confidence in Selected Space/Science Information Sources,
2003.**

+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
|                                                 | Space   | Science |
|                                                 |         | Policy  |
|                                                 | Policy  | Leaders |
|                                                 |         |         |
|                                                 | Leaders |         |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
| A report from the National Academy of Sciences  | 8.3     | 8.7     |
|                                                 | ~(.08)~ | ~(.06)~ |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
| An article in *Science* or *Nature*             | 7.9     | 8.3     |
|                                                 | ~(.09)~ | ~(.07)~ |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
| A story in *Space News* or *Aviation Week &     | 7.1     | \-\--   |
| Space Technology*                               | ~(.11)~ |         |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
| A report by a scientist from a major university | 7.0     | 7.4     |
|                                                 | ~(.10)~ | ~(.08)~ |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
| A report from the National Aeronautics and      | 6.9     | 6.6     |
| Space Administration                            | ~(.12)~ | ~(.10)~ |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
| A story in the *Wall Street Journal*            | 6.6     | 6.1     |
|                                                 | ~(.10)~ | ~(.10)~ |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
| A story in the *New York Times* or the          | 6.4     | 6.4     |
| *Washington Post*                               | ~(.11)~ | ~(.09)~ |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
| A report from a Congressional committee on      | 6.0     | 6.1     |
| science and technology                          | ~(.11)~ | ~(.19)~ |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
| A report from the Planetary Society             | 6.0     | \-\--   |
|                                                 | ~(.15)~ |         |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
| A report from the Department of Defense         | \-\--   | 5.1     |
|                                                 |         | ~(.12)~ |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
| A story in *Time* or *Newsweek*                 | 5.0     | 4.9     |
|                                                 | ~(.12)~ | ~(.11)~ |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
| A story on CNN                                  | 4.7     | 4.5     |
|                                                 | ~(.11)~ | ~(.10)~ |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
| A story on a network television news show       | 3.6     | 3.5     |
|                                                 | ~(.11)~ | ~(.10)~ |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
| Number of leaders                               | 341     | 444     |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
| ( ) = standard error of the mean                |         |         |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+

##  DISCUSSION

## 

## The results of the preceding analyses demonstrate that it is feasible to define space policy and science policy leadership and to develop a listing of positions that contribute, or have the opportunity to contribute, to the formulation of public policy related to space and science. The finding that there are approximately 3,000 space policy leaders and 8,000 science policy leaders in the United States is an important insight into the policy process. This baseline definitional work allows the selection of samples of policy leaders for more intensive study and it provides a basis for comparative studies with other policy leadership groups. The self-reported activities of the policy leaders selected for this study confirm that they are regularly engaged in important leadership roles and activities each year.

There is broad agreement among space policy leaders and science policy
leaders that the space program has been beneficial for American society
and that the United States should seek to maintain an international
leadership position in space. There is near unanimity that existing
orbital service systems have a substantial economic value and need to be
retained and improved. There is also broad agreement that the space
science work currently funded by NASA is important and needs to be
continued. There are, however, serious divisions among space and science
policy leaders over the relative importance of manned and unmanned
programs. Even within the space policy community, there are as many
leaders who would limit manned flight to orbital missions as there are
leaders who would prefer manned exploration of Mars and perhaps other
parts of our solar system. The twin issues of the replacement of the
current shuttle fleet and the International Space Station generate major
divisions among space policy leaders and substantial opposition from
science policy leaders.

The recent initiative of the President to begin active planning to
return humans to the Moon and to use a lunar station as a base to launch
manned missions to Mars is likely to activate several of these divisions
within the space policy community and with the science policy community.
The decision to terminate service missions to the Hubble Space Telescope
is likely to generate additional opposition to the Administration's
plan. And, pressures to hold down the size of the federal deficit may
generate additional conflict within the space community and from the
scientific community.

Facing this kind of potential conflict at the beginning of a
Congressional review of space policy poses challenging policy and
communication issues. The map of policy preferences found in this
analysis can provide a useful framework for thinking about both
communication issues and possible policy strategies.

Looking first at the space policy community itself, there are important
divisions among leaders committed to manned exploration of the solar
system and leaders who are primarily interested in either Earth
monitoring programs or astrophysics. These conflicts are not inherently
difficult, but they become more difficult when a new initiative such as
the return of humans to the Moon must be financed largely from existing
resources. Some of this conflict may be reduced if it is possible for
NASA to lay out a plan for its Earth monitoring and astrophysics
programs showing the level of resources that are likely to be available
in the next 10 years, for example. If this kind of analysis were to show
that there are sufficient resources to continue NASA's current program
in these areas and to replace and upgrade some of the space telescopes
over a period of years, the magnitude and intensity of opposition to
manned missions to the Moon and to Mars may be reduced. Uncertainty
breeds anxiety and opposition to change.

Within the space policy community itself, there is a significant level
of dissatisfaction with the leadership and management of NASA, as the
preceding analysis described. Without making any judgment about the
merit or lack of merit of these perceptions, it is essential that the
current leadership of NASA try to address these concerns directly with
the space policy community. It may be useful to engage the National
Academies as a broker to assess the sources of dissatisfaction and
possible approaches to conciliation.

From this analysis, it is possible that there could be overt policy
conflict between space policy leaders and science policy leaders in the
months and years ahead. As the committees of the Congress look at budget
recommendations and new authorization legislation for the programs
requested by the President, the policy preferences described earlier
will come into play. Some of this conflict is inevitable because of the
growing federal deficit and the likelihood of reductions in
discretionary federal spending for non-defense purposes. In general,
dialogue is a good thing and NASA should seek to structure an expanded
dialogue with the leadership of the scientific community. It may be
possible to utilize the Administrator's existing external advisory
committee structure to initiate some of this discussion, but NASA should
engage in serious and continuing dialogue with groups such as the
American Astronomical Society, the American Physical Society, and the
Aerospace Industries Association.

To reach out to the science policy community, a similar set of dialogues
needs to be created. Given the likelihood of Congressional hearings
extending into the beginning of a new Congress in January, 2005, NASA
should begin these discussions as early as possible. Initially, a
structured dialogue with the National Academies and with the American
Chemical Society would be helpful. Ultimately, it will be important to
bring the biological sciences community into these discussions.

These results demonstrate that both space policy leaders and science
policy leaders are actively engaged in the current discussion of the
future of the space program. The release and reaction of both policy
communities to the Gehman Report illustrates the dynamic of the process.
The proportion of space policy leaders who had read portions of the
report was higher than the comparable proportion of science policy
leaders, but the larger number of science policy leaders means that
almost equal numbers of space and science policy leaders looked at the
report carefully and talked with their colleagues about it. Ultimately,
the same proportion of space policy leaders and science policy leaders
spoke to one or more NASA officers about the report, but this means that
more than twice as many science policy leaders were engaged in
discussions with NASA leadership than were space policy leaders. It is
important for the leadership of NASA to recognize this two community
basis of their support and to develop effective communication programs
to address both audiences.

It is unlikely that the future of the space program will become a
visible political issue in either the current presidential campaign or
in the House and Senate elections this fall. The future shape of NASA
and the space program will be shaped largely by the policy judgments of
space and science policy leaders, working within federal fiscal
constraints and competing demands for other major scientific
investments. There is a strong foundation of support for space
exploration and for the space sciences, but there are major divisions
within these leadership communities over the status of the International
Space Station and the desirability of manned flight to Mars. It is
essential for the leadership of NASA to recognize the structure of the
decision-making process and to expand and improve its dialogue with the
space policy and science policy communities.

## REFERENCES

Almond, G. A. 1950. *The American People and Foreign Policy*. New York:
Harcourt, Brace and Company.

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

Greenberg, D.S. 1967. *The Politics of Pure Science*. New York: New
American Library.

Hunter, F. 1953. *Community Power Structure: A Study of Decision
Makers*. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

Lanius, R.D. 1994. *NASA: A History of the U.S. Civil Space Program*.
Malabar, Florida: Krieger Publishing.

Miller, J. D. 1982. A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Public
Attitudes toward Conservation and Energy Issues, in D. Conn (Ed.),
*Energy and Material Resources*. Boulder: Westview Press. Pp. 61-78.

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

Miller, J. D. 1983b. Scientific literacy: a conceptual and empirical
re­view. *Daedalus* 112:2:29-48.

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

Miller, J.D. 1986b. Reaching the Attentive and Interested Publics for
Science, in S. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, & C. Rogers (Eds.), *Scientists
and Journalists: Reporting Science as News*. New York: Free Press. Pp.
55-69.

Miller, J.D. 1987. Scientific literacy in the United States. In Evered,
D. and O\'Connor, M. (Eds.), *Communi­cating Science to the Public.*
London: Wiley. Pp. 19-40.

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. Pp. 185-204.

Miller, J.D. 1998. The measurement of civic scientific literacy. *Public
Understanding of Science* 7:1-21.

Miller, J.D. 2002. Civic Scientific Literacy: A Necessity for the 21^st^
Century. *Public Interest Report: Journal of the Federation of American
Scientists, 55*:1:3-6.

Miller, J.D. 2004. Public understanding of, and attitudes toward
scientific research: what we know and what we need to know. *Public
Understanding of Science 13*:1-22.

Miller, J.D. & Pardo, R. 1999. Civic Scientific Literacy and Attitude to
Science and Technology: A Comparative Analysis of the European Union,
the United States, Japan, and Canada, in M. Dierkes & C. von Grote
(Eds.), *Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science, and
Technology*. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers. Pp. 81-129.

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.

Rosenau, J. A. 1961. *Public Opinion and Foreign Policy: An Operational
Formulation*. New York: Random House.

Rosenau, J. A. 1963. *National Leadership and Foreign Policy: The
Mobilization of Public Support*. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.

Rosenau, J. A. 1974. *Citizenship Between Elections*. New York: Free
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.

**Attachment A**

**2003 Survey of Science and Space Policy Leaders**

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 33%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 22%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 1%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="20"><h1 id="section-3"></h1></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="20"><h1
id="survey-of-science-and-space-policy-leaders">Survey of Science and
Space Policy Leaders</h1>
<h2 id="northwestern-university">Northwestern University</h2></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="18"><p><strong>Please read each item and mark the box or
write your answer. When you have finished the questionnaire, please put
it in the postage-paid return envelope and mail it. If you have any
questions or concerns about this questionnaire, please call me directly
at any time at 312-503-1431. Thank you for your kind assistance in this
study.</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Jon D. Miller</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="18">The following questions ask about how you get
information about science policy and space policy.</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="8"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>1.</td>
<td colspan="3">Do you read a newspaper (print or online) ...</td>
<td colspan="8">Everyday</td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="11">Most days</td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="11">Two or three times a week</td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="11">Less than two or three times a week</td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="8"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2">Please list the newspapers (if any) that you
read everyday or most days ►</td>
<td colspan="16"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="16"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="8"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>2.</td>
<td colspan="18">Please rate how useful the newspaper that you read most
often is in keeping up with science and space. Please use a zero-to-10
scale, with zero meaning that it is of no value in keeping up with
science and space and 10 meaning that it is very helpful in keeping up
with science and space.</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="11"><strong>Usefulness of newspaper for keeping up with
science and space (0-10)</strong> ►</td>
<td colspan="7"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="8"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>3.</td>
<td colspan="18">If there are any magazines or journals that you read
most of the time that you find to be useful in understanding and keeping
up with science and space, please list the most useful magazines (up to
2) below. Using the same zero-to-10 usefulness scale, please rate each
magazine that you list in terms of how useful it is in helping to keep
up with science and space news and issues. If you did not find any
magazine to be a useful source of information about science and space,
please enter “none” for the first magazine.</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="18"><strong>Usefulness of each magazine for keeping up with
science and space (0-10)</strong> ▼</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="11">Magazine 1:</td>
<td colspan="7"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="11">Magazine 2:</td>
<td colspan="7"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="8"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>4.</td>
<td colspan="18">During the last year, have you read any books that you
found to be useful in keeping up with science and space? If you have
read any books that were useful to you for this purpose, please enter
the number of books read in the box below, or a zero if you have not
read any books useful for this purpose.</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="8"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="11"><strong>Number of books read that were useful in
keeping up with science and space ►</strong></td>
<td colspan="7"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="18"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>5.</td>
<td colspan="18">If you found one or more books to be helpful in keeping
up with science and space, please rate the usefulness of all of the
books that you read last year for this purpose using that same
zero-to-10 scale, as above.</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="11"><strong>Usefulness of books for keeping up with science
and space (0-10) ►</strong></td>
<td colspan="7"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="11"></td>
<td colspan="7"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="18">The following questions concern your use of computers
and the Internet.</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="8"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>6.</td>
<td colspan="8">Do you have a computer in your office that you use
regularly?</td>
<td colspan="8">Yes</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="8"></td>
<td colspan="8">No</td>
<td colspan="3"> <strong>Go to Q10</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="8"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>7.</td>
<td colspan="8">Do you use this computer for e-mail?</td>
<td colspan="8">Yes</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="8"></td>
<td colspan="8">No</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="8"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>8.</td>
<td colspan="18">Do you read your own e-mail or do you have someone else
screen it for you?</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="16">Read my own e-mail</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="16">Have someone screen it for me</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="8"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>9.</td>
<td colspan="8">Do you use this computer to connect to the
Internet?</td>
<td colspan="8">Yes</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="8"></td>
<td colspan="8">No</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="8"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>10.</td>
<td colspan="8">Do you have a computer at home that you sometimes use
for work?</td>
<td colspan="8">Yes</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="8"></td>
<td colspan="8">No</td>
<td colspan="3"> <strong>Go to Q12</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="8"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>11.</td>
<td colspan="16">Is your home computer connected to a high-speed line
for e-mail or Internet use?</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="8"></td>
<td colspan="8">Yes</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="8"></td>
<td colspan="8">No</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="8"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>12.</td>
<td colspan="18">When you use the Internet at work, or home, or while
traveling, do you sometimes search for scientific or space information
on the Internet?</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="8"></td>
<td colspan="8">Yes</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="8"></td>
<td colspan="8">No</td>
<td colspan="3"> <strong>Go to Q17</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="8"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>13.</td>
<td colspan="18">During the last month, about how many times have you
looked for scientific or space information on the Internet?</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="11"><strong>Enter number</strong> ►</td>
<td colspan="7"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="11"></td>
<td colspan="7"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2">14.</td>
<td colspan="16">Thinking about your searches for scientific or space
information on the Internet during the last six months, please describe
in general terms the kind of information that you looked for most often
on the Internet.</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="4"><strong>Enter response ▼</strong></td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="16"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="6"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2">15.</td>
<td colspan="16">Please describe the three sites or search services that
you found to be most useful in finding information on the subject matter
you just described. Please provide URL if known.</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="4"><strong>Enter response ▼</strong></td>
<td colspan="12"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2" rowspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="16">1 <strong>►</strong></td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="3"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="16">2 <strong>►</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="16">3 <strong>►</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td colspan="12"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="6"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="6"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>16.</td>
<td colspan="18">Using the same zero-to-10 scale used earlier, please
rate the general usefulness of the Internet for keeping up with science
and space.</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="11"></td>
<td colspan="7"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="11"><strong>Usefulness of the Internet for keeping up with
science and space (0-10) ►</strong></td>
<td colspan="7"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="6"></td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>17.</td>
<td colspan="18">What do you think is the most important public policy
issue today that involves science and technology?</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="4"><strong>Please enter issue description here
▼</strong></td>
<td colspan="11"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="18"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="18"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>18.</td>
<td colspan="18">What is the second most important public policy issue
that involves science and technology?</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="4"><strong>Please enter issue description here
▼</strong></td>
<td colspan="11"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="18"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="18"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>19.</td>
<td colspan="18">What do you think is the most important public policy
issue today that involves space policy?</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="4"><strong>Please enter issue description here
▼</strong></td>
<td colspan="14"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="18"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="18"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>20.</td>
<td colspan="18">What is the second most important public policy issue
that involves space policy?</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="4"><strong>Please enter issue description here
▼</strong></td>
<td colspan="14"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="18"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="18"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>21.</td>
<td colspan="18">Please think about how you would obtain information
about a specific scientific or space issue. Use the issue or subject
that you listed in response to Question 17 or 19 as an example. Thinking
back to the last year, from what sources have you obtained most of your
information about that subject?</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="6"><strong>Please enter description of primary source below
▼</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="6"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="18"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="6"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="6"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>22.</td>
<td colspan="18">Is there another source that you have found helpful on
that subject?</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="6"><strong>Please enter description of second source below
▼</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="6"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="18"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="6"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="6"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>23.</td>
<td colspan="18">If, in the next month, you wanted to get some more
information about that subject, what source would you turn to
first?</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="6"><strong>Please enter description of source below
▼</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="6"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="18"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="6"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="6"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>24.</td>
<td colspan="18">Shortly after the loss of the shuttle Columbia, the
Administrator of NASA appointed an external review committee, headed by
Admiral Gehman. Recently, this Commission released its final report. In
regard to this report, please indicate whether each of the following
statements applies to you or not.</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="9"></td>
<td colspan="5"><p><strong>Applies</strong></p>
<p><strong>to me</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="4"><strong>Does not apply</strong></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="9">I read about the Gehman Report in newspapers and
magazines</td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="9">I read about the Gehman Report online</td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="9">I have read all or significant sections of the Gehman
Report</td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="9">I have talked with friends or colleagues about the
Gehman Report</td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="9">I have talked to one or more NASA officers about the
Gehman Report</td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="9">I am not very interested in the space program and have
not followed the issue</td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="6"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>25.</td>
<td colspan="18">Now, please think about sources of information about
science policy and space policy. For each of the organizations and news
sources listed below, please indicate how much confidence you have in
information from that source. Use the same zero-to-10 scale as above,
with zero meaning no confidence and 10 meaning complete confidence.
Please enter one score for each organization or source listed.</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="6"></td>
<td colspan="7"></td>
<td colspan="5"><p><strong>Enter 0-10</strong></p>
<p><strong>▼</strong></p></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="13">A story in <em>Time</em> or <em>Newsweek</em></td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="13">A story on a network television news show</td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="13">A report from the Department of Defense</td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="13">A story in the <em>New York Times</em> or
<em>Washington Post</em></td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="13">A story in <em>Space News</em> or <em>Aviation Week
&amp; Space Technology</em></td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="13">A report from the American Enterprise Institute</td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="13">A report from the Planetary Society</td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="13">A report from the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA)</td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="13">A story in the <em>Wall Street Journal</em></td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="13">A story on CNN</td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="13">A report by a scientist from a major university</td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="13">A report from the National Academy of Sciences</td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="13">An article in <em>Science</em> or <em>Nature</em></td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="13">A report from a Congressional committee on science and
technology</td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="6"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="6"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>26.</td>
<td colspan="18">Future federal budget decisions may require judgments
about the relative priority assigned to various areas of scientific
research and technological development. For each of the areas listed
below, please indicate the relative priority that you would place on
each area using a zero-to-10 scale. Zero would mean that you accord no
priority to an area and ten would mean that you accord the highest
priority to the area. You may use any value from zero through 10.</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="12"></td>
<td colspan="6"><p><strong>Enter 0-10</strong></p>
<p><strong>▼</strong></p></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="12">Basic research on the human genome and its relationship
to health and disease</td>
<td colspan="6"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="12">Disease-oriented biomedical research (apart from
genomics)</td>
<td colspan="6"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="12">Basic biology research (apart from disease
applications)</td>
<td colspan="6"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="12">The development of a new generation of space
vehicles</td>
<td colspan="6"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="12">The conduct of scientific research on the International
Space Station</td>
<td colspan="6"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="12">The development of a new generation of space-based
telescopes such as Hubble and Chandra</td>
<td colspan="6"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="12">The continuation of deep-space exploration</td>
<td colspan="6"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="12">Basic high energy physics such as the work at Fermi,
Brookhaven, or CERN</td>
<td colspan="6"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="12">Global climate change research</td>
<td colspan="6"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="12">Earth science research, including oceanographic and
polar research</td>
<td colspan="6"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="12">The development of nanotechnology</td>
<td colspan="6"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="12">The development and improvement of fuel cells and other
alternative energy sources</td>
<td colspan="6"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="12">Defense-related research and development</td>
<td colspan="6"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="12">Research on the human immune system, including vaccine
development and related research</td>
<td colspan="6"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="12">The development of fusion-based energy systems</td>
<td colspan="6"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="12">Agricultural research focused on the genetic
modification of plants and animals</td>
<td colspan="6"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="12"></td>
<td colspan="6"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 47%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 1%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>27.</td>
<td colspan="10">There are a lot of new developments in science and
space today. For each of the scientific and technological concepts
listed below, please indicate whether you feel that you have a clear
understanding of the concept, a general sense of it, or are less
familiar with it.</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"><p><strong>Clear</strong></p>
<p><strong>Understanding</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="3"><p><strong>General</strong></p>
<p><strong>Sense</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>Less</strong></p>
<p><strong>Familiar</strong></p></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">The function of DNA in cells</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">The age of our Sun</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">The electromagnetic spectrum</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">The origin and composition of a laser beam</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">The place of quarks in atomic theory</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">The functions and uses of stem cells</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">The concept of plate tectonics</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">The process by which a vaccine creates immunity to a
disease</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">The life cycle of stars</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">The concept of ozone depletion and recovery</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">The concept of an accelerating expansion of the
universe</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">The process of nuclear fusion</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">The concept and causes of global warming or climate
change</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>28.</td>
<td colspan="10">The following questions concern your activities in
explaining scientific concepts to professional and public groups. Please
indicate the number of times that you have done each of the following
activities during the last 12 months. If you have not done a specific
activity, please enter zero in the appropriate box.</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td><strong>Enter Number</strong></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="9">Given a speech or talk on a scientific or technical
topic to a group of scientists or engineers</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="9">Given a speech or talk on a scientific or technical
topic to a general audience</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="9">Was interviewed on a scientific or technical topic on
television</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="9">Was interviewed on a scientific or technical topic on
radio</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="9">Published a scientific or technical article in a
professional journal</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="9">Published a scientific or technical article or opinion
piece in a publication for a general audience</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="9">Posted scientific or technical material on a web site
for use by scientists or engineers</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="10">Posted scientific or technical material on a web site
for use by non-scientists or engineers</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>29.</td>
<td colspan="10">During the last 12 months, have you contacted any
member of the U.S. Congress, or an officer of the executive branch,
about a public policy issue involving science or space?</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3">Yes</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3">No</td>
<td colspan="2"> <strong>Go to Q31</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>30.</td>
<td colspan="9">About how many times in the last year have you contacted
someone at the federal level?</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>31.</td>
<td colspan="10">Without revealing the exact issue or your position on
that issue, please indicate the general issue area involved in your most
recent contact.</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>Enter response ▼</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="10"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 47%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 1%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>32.</td>
<td colspan="13">There are numerous issues in the news involving science
and technology and several statements about these issues are listed
below. For each of these issues, please indicate if you strongly agree
with the statement, tend to agree, tend to disagree, or strongly
disagree. If you do not have a position on the issue, please mark Not
Sure.</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>Strongly</strong></p>
<p><strong>Agree</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>Tend to</strong></p>
<p><strong>Agree</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>Not</strong></p>
<p><strong>Sure</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="3"><p><strong>Tend to</strong></p>
<p><strong>Disagree</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="3"><p><strong>Strongly</strong></p>
<p><strong>Disagree</strong></p></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td>The International Space Station is an important and promising
laboratory for scientific research.</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td>The federal government should fund stem cell research on the same
basis as other biomedical research.</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td>It is important for the United States to maintain international
leadership in human space exploration.</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td>The United States should make the investments necessary to sustain a
vigorous program of human and robotic space exploration and space
sciences research.</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td>The developing Chinese space program is a threat to United States
leadership in space.</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td>NASA should limit human space exploration to Earth-orbit missions
and use robotic missions for exploring in and beyond the solar
system.</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td>The genetic modification of standard food crops and animals is risky
and should be approached cautiously.</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td>If the present rate of fossil fuel use continues, serious long-term
environmental damage will occur.</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td>Evolution and natural selection are basic parts of our understanding
of nature and should be included in school curricula on the same basis
as other science.</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td>Current orbital technologies such as weather satellites and
communication satellites are essential economic resources and should be
continued and improved.</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td>There are important moral and ethical issues involving the use of
embryonic stem cell research and we should go forward slowly in this
area.</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td>It is likely that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the
universe.</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td>The United States should begin planning for a manned mission to Mars
in the next 20 years.</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="4"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>33.</td>
<td colspan="12">NASA is a large and complex agency that manages a wide
array of space flight and scientific research programs. For each of the
activities listed below, please evaluate the job that NASA is currently
doing, using a zero-to-10 scale. If you think that NASA is doing an
outstanding job in a specific area, give it a 10. If you think that NASA
is doing an awful job in an area, give it a zero. You may use the full
range of values from zero to 10.</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="9"></td>
<td colspan="3"><p><strong>Enter 0-10</strong></p>
<p><strong>▼</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="9">The management of human flight programs</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="9">The management of scientific research on the
International Space Station</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="9">The management of aeronautical research and related
development</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="9">The management of space science research, including
space telescopes and deep-space probes</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="9">The management of earth science research</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="9">The communication of NASA-sponsored research to the
public</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="9">The overall management of its budget</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="8"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

+---+------------------------------------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| 3 | NASA's 2003 budget was \$14.6      |      |      |   |     |     |
| 4 | billion. Do you consider this to   |      |      |   |     |     |
| \ | be:                                |      |      |   |     |     |
| . |                                    |      |      |   |     |     |
+---+------------------------------------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
|   | Too much                           |      |      |   |     |     |
+---+------------------------------------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
|   | Sufficient                         |      |      |   |     |     |
+---+------------------------------------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
|   | Not enough                         |      |      |   |     |     |
+---+------------------------------------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
|   |                                    |      |      |   |     |     |
+---+------------------------------------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| 3 | Compared with 20 years ago, would  |      |      |   |     |     |
| 5 | you say NASA is doing a better job |      |      |   |     |     |
| \ | today, a worse job, or about the   |      |      |   |     |     |
| . | same?                              |      |      |   |     |     |
+---+------------------------------------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
|   | Better                             |      |      |   |     |     |
+---+------------------------------------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
|   | About the same                     |      |      |   |     |     |
+---+------------------------------------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
|   | Worse                              |      |      |   |     |     |
+---+------------------------------------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
|   |                                    |      |      |   |     |     |
+---+------------------------------------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| 3 | What do you see as the most        |      |      |   |     |     |
| 6 | important problem facing NASA      |      |      |   |     |     |
| \ | today?                             |      |      |   |     |     |
| . |                                    |      |      |   |     |     |
+---+------------------------------------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
|   | ### Enter response here ▼          |      |      |   |     |     |
+---+------------------------------------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
|   |                                    |      |      |   |     |     |
+---+------------------------------------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
|   |                                    |      |      |   |     |     |
+---+------------------------------------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| 3 | What do you think should be NASA's |      |      |   |     |     |
| 7 | number one priority?               |      |      |   |     |     |
| \ |                                    |      |      |   |     |     |
| . |                                    |      |      |   |     |     |
+---+------------------------------------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
|   | **Enter response here ▼**          |      |      |   |     |     |
+---+------------------------------------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
|   |                                    |      |      |   |     |     |
+---+------------------------------------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
|   |                                    |      |      |   |     |     |
+---+------------------------------------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| 3 | What do you feel was the high      |      |      |   |     |     |
| 8 | point in the history of our space  |      |      |   |     |     |
| \ | program?                           |      |      |   |     |     |
| . |                                    |      |      |   |     |     |
+---+------------------------------------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
|   | ### Enter response here ▼          |      |      |   |     |     |
+---+------------------------------------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
|   |                                    |      |      |   |     |     |
+---+------------------------------------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
|   |                                    |      |      |   |     |     |
+---+------------------------------------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
| 3 | Within the broad area of science   |      |      |   |     |     |
| 9 | and space policy, there are a      |      |      |   |     |     |
| \ | number of specialized issues. For  |      |      |   |     |     |
| . | each of the areas listed below,    |      |      |   |     |     |
|   | please indicate if you are very    |      |      |   |     |     |
|   | interested in that issue,          |      |      |   |     |     |
|   | moderately interested, or not very |      |      |   |     |     |
|   | interested.                        |      |      |   |     |     |
+---+------------------------------------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
|   |                                    | **Ve | **   | * |     |     |
|   |                                    | ry** | Mode | * |     |     |
|   |                                    |      | rate | N |     |     |
|   |                                    | **   | ly** | o |     |     |
|   |                                    | Inte |      | t |     |     |
|   |                                    | rest | **   | V |     |     |
|   |                                    | ed** | Inte | e |     |     |
|   |                                    |      | rest | r |     |     |
|   |                                    |      | ed** | y |     |     |
|   |                                    |      |      | * |     |     |
|   |                                    |      |      | * |     |     |
|   |                                    |      |      |   |     |     |
|   |                                    |      |      | * |     |     |
|   |                                    |      |      | * |     |     |
|   |                                    |      |      | I |     |     |
|   |                                    |      |      | n |     |     |
|   |                                    |      |      | t |     |     |
|   |                                    |      |      | e |     |     |
|   |                                    |      |      | r |     |     |
|   |                                    |      |      | e |     |     |
|   |                                    |      |      | s |     |     |
|   |                                    |      |      | t |     |     |
|   |                                    |      |      | e |     |     |
|   |                                    |      |      | d |     |     |
|   |                                    |      |      | * |     |     |
|   |                                    |      |      | * |     |     |
+---+------------------------------------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
|   | Biomedical research                |      |      |   |     |     |
+---+------------------------------------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
|   | Energy research                    |      |      |   |     |     |
+---+------------------------------------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
|   | Global warming and climate change  |      |      |   |     |     |
+---+------------------------------------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
|   | Physics or chemistry research      |      |      |   |     |     |
+---+------------------------------------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
|   | Earth science and geophysical      |      |      |   |     |     |
|   | research                           |      |      |   |     |     |
+---+------------------------------------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
|   | Engineering research               |      |      |   |     |     |
+---+------------------------------------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
|   | The shuttle program and related    |      |      |   |     |     |
|   | vehicles                           |      |      |   |     |     |
+---+------------------------------------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
|   | The International Space Station    |      |      |   |     |     |
+---+------------------------------------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
|   | Orbital satellites and service     |      |      |   |     |     |
|   | systems focused on Earth           |      |      |   |     |     |
+---+------------------------------------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
|   | Human and robotic exploration      |      |      |   |     |     |
|   | within our solar system            |      |      |   |     |     |
+---+------------------------------------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
|   | Deep space probes outside the      |      |      |   |     |     |
|   | solar system                       |      |      |   |     |     |
+---+------------------------------------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
|   | Astrophysics                       |      |      |   |     |     |
+---+------------------------------------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
|   | The commercial development of      |      |      |   |     |     |
|   | space                              |      |      |   |     |     |
+---+------------------------------------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
|   | Advanced space transportation      |      |      |   |     |     |
|   | systems                            |      |      |   |     |     |
+---+------------------------------------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
|   | Science and mathematics education  |      |      |   |     |     |
|   | in the United States               |      |      |   |     |     |
+---+------------------------------------+------+------+---+-----+-----+
|   |                                    |      |      |   |     |     |
+---+------------------------------------+------+------+---+-----+-----+

  ------ ------------------------------------------ --------- -- ------------ --------- --
         Finally, just a few questions about you.                                       

  40\.   Please indicate if you are a member of any                                     
         of the following groups or organizations?                                      

                                                                 **Member**             

         A board of trustees of a college or                                            
         university                                                                     

         The governing board of any independent                                         
         scientific research center or laboratory                                       

         A board of directors of any corporation                                        
         involved in science or technology                                              

         A board of directors of any foundation                                         
         that provides funds for scientific                                             
         research                                                                       

         An editorial board of a scientific or                                          
         technological journal                                                          

         National Academy of Sciences                                                   

         National Academy of Engineering                                                

         Institute of Medicine                                                          

         American Association for the Advancement                                       
         of Science                                                                     

                                                                                        

                                                                                        

  41\.   What is the highest degree that you have   **Check                             
         earned?                                    all that                            
                                                    apply ▼**                           

         High school diploma or equivalent                                              
         secondary certificate                                                          

         Baccalaureate degree                                                           

         Masters degree                                                                 

         Ph.D. or other doctoral degree                                                 

         M.D.                                                                           

         L.L.B. or other law degree                                                     

                                                                                        

  42\.   What do you consider to be your major                                          
         field or fields of study?                                                      

         **Enter response ▼**                                                           

                                                                                        

                                                                                        

  43\.   What is your current age?                  **Enter                             
                                                    age ►**                             

                                                                                        

         **Thank you for your kind assistance with                                      
         this study.**                                                                  
  ------ ------------------------------------------ --------- -- ------------ --------- --

[^1]: Science policy leaders include individuals who are leaders of
    universities that do substantial science or engineering research;
    corporations involved in science and engineering; members of the
    National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and
    the Institute of Medicine; scientific and related professional
    societies; and interest groups with a strong interest in scientific
    issues. Winners of the Nobel Prize and the Fields Medal are defined
    as science policy leaders, as are members of federal
    department-level science advisory committees. Individuals who
    testified before a House or Senate committee on a science-related
    issue during 2002 or 2003 were also included as science policy
    leaders.