# **The Conceptualization and Measurement of Policy Leadership**

**Jon D. Miller**

**Professor and Director**

**Center for Biomedical Communication**

**Feinberg School of Medicine**

**Northwestern University**

**Chicago, Illinois 60611**

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

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

**Denver, Colorado**

**February 18, 2003**

# **The Conceptualization and Measurement of Policy Leadership**

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the meaning of policy leadership
in the context of the American policy system and to outline some
procedures for the operational definition and measurement of the
leadership of science and technology policy and energy policy in the
United States. Many commentators speak of the "western democracies" as a
relatively homogenous set of political systems and they do share
important common traditions of broad participation and free speech, but
there are important differences in the structures and processes through
which public policy on specialized issues -- including science and
technology -- are formulated.

It is important to begin with a review of the context within which
science and technology policy is formulated within the United States,
recalling briefly the emergence of science policy on the American policy
agenda during the 20^th^ century. It is also important to be aware of
major social science constructs that are useful in understanding the
formulation of public policy in numerous specialized fields, and then to
apply those constructs to the formulation of science and technology
policy. The final sections of this paper will outline the translation of
these constructs into an operational definition of science policy
leadership and into a national survey of science and energy policy
leaders. It is hoped that this introduction will facilitate the
presentation and understanding of the three subsequent papers in this
session.

**THE EVOLUTION OF SCIENCE POLICY IN THE 20^TH^ CENTURY**

The formulation of science and technology policy in the United States
and other industrial nations in the 20^th^ century has been studied
extensively (Hewlett & Anderson, 1962; Penick, 1965; Greenberg, 1967;
Price, 1954, 1965; Stewart, 1948; Miller, 1983a; Smith, 1990). Prior to
the Second World War, most of the growth and expansion of science and
technology occurred in industrial laboratories, with a smaller portion
of basic science occurring in universities (Birr, 1979; Weart, 1979).
Most of this work was outside the realm of public policy, financed and
governed by non-governmental decision-makers (Hewlett & Anderson, 1962;
Penick, 1965; Stewart, 1948).

The Second World War brought science and technology policy into the
public arena, and science and technology policy remained on the public
agenda throughout the remainder of the 20^th^ century. War-related
programs to develop radar, improve communications and aviation, and to
develop atomic weapons led to the creation of a Federal system of
national laboratories (Smith, 1990; Penick, 1965; Stewart, 1948). The
successful creation of the first atomic weapons symbolized both the
power of science and technology and the need for national policies to
harvest the benefits of science and to manage and control its possible
negative consequences (Hewlett & Anderson, 1962). Vannevar Bush's
landmark report -- *Science: the endless frontier* (1945) -- became the
governing policy document for the development of post-war science and
technology in the United States and, to a lesser extent, for the
industrial nations of the world (Price, 1954, 1965; Miller, 1983a;
Barke, 1986; Smith, 1990). Wolfe's history of the American Association
for the Advancement of Science from the end of the Second World War to
1970 is an excellent summary of both the rapid growth of science and
technology in post-war America and of the role of science policy leaders
-- often working through the AAAS -- to influence and shape public
policy relevant to science and technology (Wolfe, 1989).

The launch of Sputnik I by the Soviet Union in October, 1957, became the
second major symbol of the power and potential of science and technology
and a leading indicator of the scientific standing of nations (Miller,
1983a; Barke, 1986). In the 45 years since Sputnik, the United States
emerged as the major force in space exploration and research,
influencing decades of scientific and technological research and the
production of numerous new technologies with broad applications to
non-space purposes. It can be argued, for example, that the need for
miniaturization of electronics led to new technologies that provided the
foundation for the microprocessor revolution that continues to re-shape
modern society (U.S. Senate, 1986; Lanius, 1994).

By the end of the 20^th^ century, biologists had completed a draft map
of the human genome, opening a new era of biomedical research
(International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium, 2001;Venter, 2001).
The first results found fewer genes in the human genome than had been
expected, and a substantial linkage to virtually all other forms of
life, from yeast to mice. This new science and technology promises
unimaginable advances in the identification and treatment of illness and
in our definition of health (Baltimore, 2001; Chakravarti, 2001). At the
same time, it opens new issues about individual rights, intellectual
property, and the role of government in the regulation of research.

The impact of science and technology on modern society is massive and
continues to expand. In ways that McLuhan (1989) could not have
imagined, the world is an electronic global village linked by the
Internet. Medical science is just beginning to use the growing volume of
genomic information to understand the causes of disease and to develop
new strategies to prevent or block undesired health outcomes. Satellite
surveillance and laser guidance systems are redefining the nature of
warfare, and collectively the world hopes that our growing knowledge of
biology will not further redefine the nature of warfare.

In this context, it is clear that science and technology policy is a
major function of government at the national and international levels.
Indeed, in the United States, science and technology policy issues are
important agenda items in the Departments of Agriculture, Defense,
Energy, and Health and Human Services. Currently, 13 major committees
and 35 subcommittees of the Congress address major science and
technology policy issues, reflecting the scope and complexity of these
issues.

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

Despite the substantial impact of science and technology on life in the
United States, there is no evidence that any congressional or senatorial
election has ever been determined by differences over a science or
technology issue. Why do science and technology 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, science and technology policy is a low-salience issue for most
Americans. For similar reasons, the major subdivisions of science and
technology policy -- energy policy, space policy, biomedical policy --
are also low-salience issues for most adults in the United States.

There are three important reasons for the low political salience of
science and technology policy issues. First, science and technology
policy issues are often complex and require some level of scientific
literacy to understand and participate in a policy debate on a specific
scientific or technological 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; Miller, Pardo & Niwa, 1997;
Miller & Pardo, 1999; Miller & Kimmel, 2001).

Second, there is a sufficient diversity of science and technology policy
views within each of the two major parties in the United States that few
scientific or technical issues have found their way into national party
platforms or campaigns (Price, 1954, 1965; Miller, 1983a; Barke, 1986;
Smith, 1990). Because American political parties tend to compete for the
middle of the political spectrum, there are strong academic, business,
and scientific interests in both parties. The support of both parties
for the doubling of the budgets of the NIH and the NSF reflect the
absence of a strong pro-science or anti-science perspective in either
party.

Third, the primary scientific and technological 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 and technology interest groups discourage the introduction of
science policy issues into political campaigns.[^1]

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

The seminal work on the structure of decision-making involves the study
and understanding of low salience issues, and especially Professor
Gabriel Almond's 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 energy 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. 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, 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. For the formulation of
science policy or energy 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 science and
technology

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

**Figure 1: A Model of the Formulation of Science Policy in the United
States.**

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).

The second level of the system is a collection or network of
non-governmental policy leaders. In the case of science policy or
energy, this group of non-governmental policy leaders would include
leading scientists and engineers active in research universities and
selected corporations; the leadership of major universities,
corporations, and organizations active in scientific or energy-related
work; scientific, engineering, and other professional societies relevant
to science and engineering; and the leadership of other relevant
voluntary associations. This leadership group interacts regularly with
policy-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 science and energy policy is formulated through discussions and
negotiations among decision-makers and non-governmental science or
energy 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 science and technology policy and
the attentive public for energy policy have been described and discussed
elsewhere, and that work will not be repeated in this paper (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 1999 approximately 12 percent of American adults were attentive
to science and technology policy (24 million individuals) and that
approximately six percent of American adults were attentive to energy
policy (12 million individuals).

**THE DEFINITION AND SELECTION OF 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 science and technology 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 my earlier studies of
science and technology policy leaders and is employed in the 2002 study
reported in this session.

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 science policy
would include:

-   Officers and board members of national scientific and engineering
    societies and associations, such as the American Physical Society or
    the American Chemical Society.

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

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

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

-   Winners of a Nobel Prize or a Field Medal.

-   Individuals who testify before a congressional committee or
    subcommittee on a science or technology policy issue, including
    leaders and spokespersons for interest groups involved in the
    resolution of scientific and technical issues.

-   Full-time science and technology journalists with a national outlet,
    including syndication.

In 2002, a total of 8,820 positions qualified as potentially influential
in the formulation of science and technology policy. Because some
individuals may hold more than one position of influence, the list of
positions reduces to approximately 7,946 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. A count of the number of qualifications can be
used as an indicator of the differential in influence among
non-governmental policy leaders. If this indicator is seen in ordinal,
rather than interval terms, it is a useful tool in thinking about
differential roles within the science and technology policy community
(Miller and Prewitt, 1982; Miller, 1985, 1986a, 1988).

The criteria used to define and identify science and energy 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 Science who favors the
expanded use of fossil fuels and an NAS member who is concerned abut the
impact of fossil fuel use on climate change would both be defined as a
science or energy policy leader and be included in the population
database. The experience of building similar databases in the past
indicates that the proposed 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 DEFINITION AND SELECTION OF ENERGY POLICY LEADERS**

The definition of energy policy leaders follows the same general model,
and there is some overlap with the leadership of science and technology
policy. Inherently, some individuals qualify as leaders in both science
policy and energy policy because their scope of interest covers both
areas. For example, the officers of major research universities -- MIT,
Stanford, Michigan, Chicago, the University of California -- have
responsibilities that encompass both science policy and energy policy.
Similarly, officers and board members from scientific societies such as
the American Chemical Society would be concerned about both science
policy and energy policy. Other individuals are distinctively focused on
energy issues -- officers and directors of companies engaged in energy
production.

Within the system described by Almond (1950) and Rosenau (1961, 1963,
1974) and operationalized by Miller (1985a, 1985b, 1985c, 1986b, 1986c),
the non-governmental leadership for energy policy would include:

-   Officers and board members of national scientific and engineering
    societies and associations that include energy within their areas of
    concern.

-   Officers and board members of major corporations involved in energy
    production or use.

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

-   Officers of federal national laboratories.

-   State energy directors.

-   Officers and board members of energy-related professional and trade
    associations.

-   Officers and board members of environmental organizations with
    interest in energy issues.

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

-   Full-time journalists with a national outlet, including syndication,
    who cover energy issues.

In 2002, approximately 3,700 positions qualified as potentially
influential in the formulation of energy. As with science policy
leaders, some individuals may hold more than one position of influence
in regard to energy policy, and the list of 3,700 positions reduces to
approximately 3,563 individuals. A count of the number of qualifications
for energy policy leadership can be used as an indicator of the
differential in influence among non-governmental energy policy leaders.
If this indicator is seen in ordinal, rather than interval terms, it is
a useful tool in thinking about differential roles within the energy
policy community (Miller and Prewitt, 1982; Miller, 1985, 1986b, 1988).
As with science policy, the criteria used to define and identify energy
policy leaders are policy neutral. Positions are identified for their
policy relevance without regard to occupant, and then the current
occupant of each position is identified and listed in the population
data base.

## 

## THE 2002 NATIONAL LEADERSHIP STUDY

## 

## 

## To study the membership, activities, communication practices, and information needs of science and energy policy leaders, a population listing of each group was constructed in the summer and fall of 2002. Building on the definitions originally developed for national leadership studies in 1981, 1984, and 1986, all of the members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine were included, as were all Nobel Laureates. The original list of scientific, mathematical, and engineering societies was constructed by looking at the federated associations that comprise the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Some additional societies and associations were added when it was found that they were frequently involved in testifying before congressional committees. Full-time science journalists were identified by pruning an original list of the membership of the National Association of Science Writers (NASW) to eliminate part-time writers and journalists without national exposure. Additional journalists were added by examining major science and technology stories published in 2000 and 2001, using Lexis-Nexis and similar indices. A list of science-related corporations was developed by pruning the Fortune 500 list of corporations to remove corporations with minimal involvement with science or technology. Various online indices were used to locate the names and addresses of the officers and board members of each qualifying corporation. 

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

## 

Some individuals qualified as a science policy leader and as an energy
policy leader. To select a sample for the 2002 study, three separate
population lists were constructed: (1) positions occupied by individuals
who qualified as a science policy leader only, (2) positions occupied by
individuals who qualified as an energy policy leader only, and (3)
positions occupied by individuals who qualified as a science policy
leader and as an energy policy leader. Within each list of these three
lists of positions, a systematic sample was selected, using a random
entry point and a systematic sampling interval thereafter. As a result
of this sampling procedure, an initial sample of 339 science policy
leaders, 367 energy policy leaders, and 294 science and energy policy
leaders was selected for participation in the study (see Table 1).

Some of the individuals selected in the original sample draw were
subsequently determined to be ineligible for the study for reasons of
illness, death, retirement from any involvement in the policy process, a
change of position, or an incorrect determination of original
eligibility. For example, the original science policy population list
included all of the members of the National Academy of Sciences and the
National Academy of Engineering, and each individual remains a member of
the Academy until his or her death. When contacted for participation in
the study, some of these individuals indicated that they had totally
withdrawn from any involvement in any professional or policy-relevant
activity. Others were seriously ill and unable to participate in the
study. The Adjusted Sample is the number of individuals who were
eligible for participation in this study (see Table 1).

Of the 561 science policy leaders in the adjusted sample (science policy
leaders only and science and energy policy leaders), 63 percent of
science policy leaders completed a questionnaire and 27 percent refused
or failed to return the questionnaire. Of the 538 energy policy leaders
in the adjusted sample (energy policy leaders only and science and
energy policy leaders), 56 percent of energy policy leaders completed a
questionnaire and 44 percent refused or failed to return the
questionnaire. Neither of these cooperation rates reached the 80 percent
level obtained in the policy leadership studies conducted in the
mid-1980's (Miller, 1985, 1988).

There are several reasons for the lower rate cooperation rates,
especially in the 2002 National Energy Policy Leadership Study. First,
the sample definition included all of the board members and officers of
major energy-related corporations. Several of the individuals selected
for the study refused on the grounds that their expertise was either
financial or legal and that they did not feel competent to answer the
questions included in the study questionnaire. While this result is
understandable in terms of the needs of a corporation for a wide array
of expertise on its board, it is informative about the information needs
of individuals who sit in positions of potential influence on energy
policy but who feel ill-informed about basic scientific concepts and
some of the specific issues in energy policy.

Second, the energy industry was in a state of turmoil during the period
of data collection. The collapse of Enron and the indictment of several
leaders of major energy and accounting corporations created an
atmosphere of uncertainty. Several individuals selected for the sample
indicated that their company

**Table 1: Population and Sample Characteristics, 2002.**

+----------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|                            | Science     | Energy      | Science &   |
|                            | Policy      | Policy      | Energy      |
|                            |             |             |             |
|                            | Leaders     | Leaders     | Policy      |
|                            |             |             | Leaders     |
+----------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Number of positions        | 7,488       | 2,368       | 1,332       |
+----------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Number of individuals      | 6,635       | 2,252       | 1,311       |
+----------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Original sample of         | 339         | 367         | 294         |
| individuals                |             |             |             |
+----------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Ineligible due to illness  | 9           | 2           | 0           |
+----------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Ineligible due to death or | 43          | 22          | 6           |
| retirement                 |             |             |             |
+----------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Ineligible due to change   | 7           | 25          | 23          |
| of position                |             |             |             |
+----------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Ineligible due to          | 8           | 31          | 14          |
| incorrect inclusion        |             |             |             |
+----------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Adjusted sample            | 272         | 287         | 251         |
+----------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Number of refusals         | 88          | 132         | 104         |
+----------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Number of individuals      | 184         | 155         | 147         |
| participating              |             |             |             |
+----------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Cooperation rate           | 67.6        | 54.0        | 58.6        |
+----------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

was in a period of crisis and that they did not have time to focus on
anything but the immediate needs of their business.

Each of the leaders selected for the study received an initial letter,
printed questionnaire, postage-paid return envelope, and a re-print from
an article reporting the results of one of my earlier leadership studies
(Miller, 1985, 1988). The letter indicated that the individual could (1)
complete the printed questionnaire and return it in the postage-paid
envelope, (2) complete the same questionnaire online using a password
provided in the letter, or (3) request a telephone interview using an
enclosed post card. Individuals who did not respond in the first three
weeks received a second mailing that was identical to the first,
including all of the enclosures. Approximately two weeks after the
second mailing, individuals who had not responded were called by
telephone to ask about the status of the questionnaire, and individuals
with a known e-mail address received an additional message asking for
their cooperation. Beginning in mid-January, individuals who had not
responded received another telephone call asking about the status of the
questionnaire. Additional personalized e-mail messages from the
principal investigator to non-respondents have been sent in recent weeks
and appear to be effective in obtaining cooperation.

The process of reaching the individuals who have neither returned a
questionnaire nor refused to participate in the study continues. This
paper and the other papers in this session are preliminary in the sense
that we expect to increase the total cooperation rate to approximately
70 percent by the close of the study at the end of February. This rate
of participation will be slightly lower than the 80 percent rates of
participation obtained in the 1981, 1984, and 1986 leadership studies. I
do not have a good explanation for this difference, but we will study
the response patterns carefully and seek to improve our understanding of
the cooperation rate.

###  

### VALIDATION INDICATORS

## 

If the procedures outlined above have identified policy leaders, 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 scientists and engineers,
communicating with public groups, contacting public officials, and
working within major educational and corporate structures.

The results from the 2002 study confirm a pattern of leadership
activities. Nearly 60 percent of energy policy leaders and 75 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),
and more than 60 percent of both leadership groups reported giving one
or more talks to public audiences on a scientific or technical subject
during the preceding year. Most indicative, 54 percent of science policy
leaders and 64 percent of energy policy leaders indicated that they made
one or more contacts with a public official -- legislative or executive
-- on a public policy issue involving science or technology during the
preceding year. These high levels of professional, public, and
decision-maker contact support the conclusion that a substantial
majority of the individuals identified as leaders are currently active
in seeking to influence science or energy 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 contact with public officials are the most direct
examples, but substantial influence can also be exercised through
various infrastructure roles within the scientific community and through
the interface between the scientific community and other public
institutions. The 2002 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). Forty percent of science policy leaders and 21
percent of energy policy leaders serve on one or more journal editorial
boards. One in four science policy leaders serve on the governing board
of an independent scientific or technical research center, as do 16
percent of energy policy leaders. More than 20 percent of the
individuals in both leadership groups serve on the board of directors of
one or more scientific or engineering corporations. Ten percent of both
leadership groups serve on the board of trustees of one or more colleges
or universities.

To provide a summary measure of leadership involvement by these
individuals, an Index of Policy Leadership was computed. One point was
given for each of the eight potential leadership activities, producing a
zero to eight scale. The mean score on the Index of Policy Leadership
was 3.0 for science policy leaders and 2.7 for energy policy leaders,
and the difference is not significant at the .05 level (see Table 2).
The median number of policy leadership activities for each leadership
group was three.

### These results validate the leadership selection mechanism used in the 2002 Science and Energy Policy Leadership Study. Although the combination of leadership activities differs by individual, the finding that the median leader is actively involved in at least three forms of participation supports the original conceptualization of these individuals as active science or energy policy leaders.

**Table 2: Indicators of Policy Leadership, 2002.**

+----------------------------------------+--------------+--------------+
|                                        | Science      | Energy       |
|                                        | Policy       | Policy       |
|                                        |              |              |
|                                        | Leaders      | Leaders      |
+----------------------------------------+--------------+--------------+
| Speech to science or technical         | 75%          | 59%          |
| audience in last year                  |              |              |
+----------------------------------------+--------------+--------------+
| Speech to public audience in last year | 63           | 67           |
+----------------------------------------+--------------+--------------+
| Contacted decision-maker on policy     | 54           | 64           |
| issue in last year                     |              |              |
+----------------------------------------+--------------+--------------+
| Editorial board member of              | 40           | 21           |
| scientific/technical journal           |              |              |
+----------------------------------------+--------------+--------------+
| Governing board of                     | 23           | 16           |
| scientific/technical research center   |              |              |
+----------------------------------------+--------------+--------------+
| Board of scientific/engineering        | 23           | 24           |
| corporation                            |              |              |
+----------------------------------------+--------------+--------------+
| Governing board of foundation that     | 17           | 16           |
| supports research                      |              |              |
+----------------------------------------+--------------+--------------+
| Governing board of college or          | 10           | 10           |
| university                             |              |              |
+----------------------------------------+--------------+--------------+
| Mean score on Policy Leadership Index  | 3.0 ~(.09)~  | 2.7 ~(.09)~  |
+----------------------------------------+--------------+--------------+
| Median core on Policy Leadership Index | 3            | 3            |
+----------------------------------------+--------------+--------------+
| Number of Respondents                  | 333          | 302          |
+----------------------------------------+--------------+--------------+

### 

###  

### CHANGES IN THE COMPOSITION OF SCIENCE POLICY LEADERSHIP

The same general definition of science policy leadership was used in the
1981, 1984, 1986, and 2002 studies[^2], and a comparison of the results
indicates that the composition of the science policy stratum has changed
during the last 20 years. Science policy leaders in 2002 are slightly
more likely to be female, have a doctorate, and to be older than
comparable leaders in 1981 (see Table 3). There has been a moderate
increase in the proportion of science policy leaders with a disciplinary
background in

**Table 3: Comparison of 1981, 1984, 1986, and 2002 Science Policy
Leaders.**

+------------------------------+------+------+------+------+----------+
|                              | Sci  |      |      |      | Energy   |
|                              | ence |      |      |      | Policy   |
|                              | Po   |      |      |      |          |
|                              | licy |      |      |      | Leaders  |
|                              | Lea  |      |      |      |          |
|                              | ders |      |      |      |          |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+------+----------+
|                              | 1981 | 1984 | 1986 | 2002 | 2002     |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+------+----------+
| Age                          |      |      |      |      |          |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+------+----------+
| Less than 50                 | 42%  | 41%  | 36%  | 17%  | 31%      |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+------+----------+
| 50 to 59 years               | 31   | 30   | 30   | 34   | 42       |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+------+----------+
| 60 to 69 years               | 22   | 24   | 28   | 29   | 23       |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+------+----------+
| 70 years or more             | 5    | 5    | 6    | 20   | 4        |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+------+----------+
| Gender                       |      |      |      |      |          |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+------+----------+
| Female                       | 11   | 12   | NA   | 19   | 20       |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+------+----------+
| Male                         | 89   | 88   | NA   | 81   | 80       |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+------+----------+
| Educational Attainment       |      |      |      |      |          |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+------+----------+
| Baccalaureate                | 10   | 9    | 7    | 8    | 18       |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+------+----------+
| Masters                      | 14   | 13   | 14   | 12   | 24       |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+------+----------+
| Law                          | 10   | 7    | 7    | 1    | 8        |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+------+----------+
| M.D.                         |      |      |      | 3    | 1        |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+------+----------+
| Ph.D.                        | 66   | 71   | 72   | 75   | 46       |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+------+----------+
| Discipline                   |      |      |      |      |          |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+------+----------+
| Biological Sciences          | 16   | 16   | 23   | 26   | 13       |
| (including M.D.)             |      |      |      |      |          |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+------+----------+
| Physical Sciences            | 25   | 29   | 32   | 30   | 24       |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+------+----------+
| Social Sciences              | 19   | 17   | 15   | 8    | 13       |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+------+----------+
| Engineering and related      | 21   | 23   | 17   | 27   | 28       |
| professional                 |      |      |      |      |          |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+------+----------+
| Other (including education   | 17   | 15   | 13   | 9    | 22       |
| and law)                     |      |      |      |      |          |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+------+----------+
| Number of respondents        | 287  | 630  | 508  | 333  | 302      |
+------------------------------+------+------+------+------+----------+

the biological or life sciences and a decrease in the proportion of
science policy leaders with a background in the social sciences.

Of these changes, the increase in the mean and median ages of science
policy leaders is the most substantial. Between 1981 and 2002, the
percentage of science police leaders aged 60 or more increased from 27
percent to 49 percent. The percentage of leaders aged 70 or more
increased four fold during the last two decades, from five percent in
1981 to 20 percent in 2002 (see Table 3). The evidence suggests that
many older science policy leaders continue to hold leadership positions
in a wide array of professional organizations and societies. As noted in
the earlier discussion of adjustments to the sample, more than 30 of the
original sample of science policy leaders were dropped from the sample
after they reported that they had become inactive in science policy or
professional affairs. Thus, these results indicate a significant
increase in the age of active science policy leaders.

The growth in the proportion of women in the science policy leadership
group nearly doubled in the last two decades. By 2002, one in five
science policy leaders was a woman. This pattern reflects the general
increase in the proportion of women with advanced degrees and research
careers in the major scientific disciplines.

## DISCUSSION

## 

Policy leaders play a critical role in the formulation of public policy
in low-salience non-electoral issue areas such as science, energy,
space, and biomedicine. The governance of a modern scientific and
industrial nation is a complex process requiring a mixture of popular
control and technical expertise. There is an inherent tension in the
formulation of science and technology policy in a democratic society.

Despite the centrality of their role, most science and technology policy
leaders have a limited grasp of the broader setting in which public
policy is made. Most scientists and engineers have a limited background
in political science and often hold a New England town meeting
conceptualization of democracy. In this study, as in the previous
leadership studies, numerous scientists and engineers who hold one or
more significant policy relevant offices protested that they were not a
leader of science or energy policy and should not have been included in
the sample and the study.

In a parallel manner, many professional communicators fail to recognize
the role of policy leaders in the formulation of science and technology
policy in the United States. Faithful to our democratic roots, many
communicators -- both science and technology policy leaders and
professional communication officers -- continue to define the political
formulation process in either electoral or mass public terms. In
practice, both science and technology policy leaders and professional
communicators acknowledge the importance of maintaining good working
relationships with the leadership and staff of congressional committees
and in providing sound testimony on pending issues. In recent decades,
many science and energy interest groups have learned a good deal about
how to select and tutor the individuals who actually testify, but these
tasks are too often seen as simply the mechanics of dealing with the
Congress and separate from any larger communication objective or
program.

The next three papers in this symposium will describe the attitudes,
activities, and information needs of science policy leaders and energy
policy leaders. These papers will provide solid empirical evidence about
the current activities and attitudes of policy leaders, providing an
important confirmation of the general model that I have sketched for you
this morning. The final paper will focus on more specific communication
needs and strategies. It is my hope that this set of papers will be
helpful to both policy leaders -- many of whom attend this meeting --
and to professional communicators who represent scientific and technical
agencies, corporations, and institutions.

## 

## REFERENCES

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

Baltimore, D. 2001. Our Genome Unveiled. *Nature* 409:814-816.

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

Birr, K. 1979. Industrial research laboratories, in N. Reingold (Ed.),
*The Sciences in the American Context: New Perspectives*. Washington:
Smithsonian Institution Press.

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

Chakravarti, A. 2001. Single nucleotide polymorphisms: to a future of
genetic medicine. *Nature* 409:822-823.

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

Hewlett, R.G. & Anderson, O.E. 1962. *The New World, 1939/1946: A
History of the United States Atomic Energy Commission*. University Park,
PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

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

International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium. 2001. Initial
sequencing and analysis of the human genome. *Nature* 409:860-921.

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

McLuhan, M. 1989. *The Global Village: Transformations in World Life and
Media in the 21^st^ Century*. New York: Oxford University Press.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Penick, J.L., Purcell, C.W., Sherwood, M.B. & Swain, D.C. 1965. *The
Politics of American Science: 1939 to the present*. Cambridge, MA:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 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.

Stewart, I. 1948. *Organizing Scientific Research for War*. Boston:
Little, Brown Company.

U.S. Congress. Sentate. Committee on Labor and Human Resources. 1886.
Impact of space Technology on Human Resources: A hearing before the
Committee on Labor and Human Resources. Washington: U.S. Government
Printing Office.

Venter, C. et. al. 2001. The sequence of the human genome. *Science*
291:1304-1351.

Weart, S.R. 1979. The physics business in America, 1919-1940: A
statistical reconnaissance, in N. Reingold (Ed.), *The Sciences in the
American Context: New Perspectives*. Washington: Smithsonian Institution
Press.

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.

[^1]: The recent emergence of the stem cell research issue is one of the
    first examples of the popularization of a scientific issue as a mark
    of political difference. If the religious fundamentalists within the
    Republican Party are successful in linking the stem cell research
    issue with an anti-abortion stance, it could become one of the first
    examples of a science policy issue that has become a partisan
    campaign issue. It is too early to determine if this issue -- or
    similar issues -- will have any impact on the 2004 presidential or
    congressional elections.

[^2]: Essentially the same definition of science policy leadership was
    used in all four of these studies. The original population list for
    the 1981, 1984, and 1986 studies were constructed from library
    sources and depended heavily on paper directories. The population
    list for the 2002 study was constructed from a combination of
    traditional library resources and Internet resources, with more
    reliance on electronic resources than printed directories. It is
    likely that the growth of the Internet has encouraged more groups to
    post current leadership information and to keep it current than was
    true for paper directories and annual reports, which were often at
    least one year out-of-date by the time of their publication.