This principle holds that when an activity threatens harm to public health or ecosystem integrity, precautionary steps should be taken even if scientific uncertainty about cause and effect relationships remains. This symposium explores the extent to which the precautionary principle is in conflict with current regulatory regimes based on risk analysis and cost-benefit analysis. There is justifiable concern within the scientific community that new accountability requirements at state and federal levels may harm the research environment and hinder scientific advance if applied inappropriately. This symposium continues the dialogue previously featured at AAAS meetings on this significant and timely national science policy issue. Many states have similar requirements, as do other countries around the world.
Emphasis is on predicting and quantifying the results and value-added of government programs.
Nevertheless, this is now required. Since measurement of a system can perturb it, it is important to minimize harmful perturbations by formulating measurement based on a correct understanding of the nature of research and its outcomes. Managers and evaluators of research programs now have a few years of experience in developing schemes to describe and measure the performance of their programs. There have been national studies on best practices in assessing research, and studies on what factors are important in the research environment if innovation and excellence are to occur. Most find the strategic planning experience positive and recommend a measurement system that combines peer review, selected quantitative metrics, customer evaluations, and retrospective and other qualitative evaluations.