In Theme one meeting at 11am. Present are Dave Witzel, Brand Niemann, Gary Berg-Cross, Stuart Umpleby, Sushil Birla, Jody Roberts, Steven Blumberg, and Peter Meyer    (410X)

 1. What are the behavioral foundations of innovation?    (40WV) {nid 4154}
 2. What explains technology development, adoption and diffusion?    (40WW) {nid 4155}
 3. How and why do communities of science and innovation form and evolve?    (4156)

So we prefer this reframing a little:    (4157)

 1. What are the behavioral and conceptual foundations of innovation?    (40WV) {nid 4158}
 2. What explains technology development, adoption and diffusion?    (40WW) {nid 4159}
 3. How and why do communities of science and innovation form and evolve?    (415A)

We will reconvene at 1:30. We will move to our second theme groups.    (411K)

====================    (414X)

In Theme four meeting at 13:30.    (414Y)

================== earlier in the day, 9:30 introductions    (4151)

Intros from remote sites on the phone. (clear)    (40YX)

Susan Turnbull is working to support collab wikis on climate change. modeling sites. Thinks of coevolution in the organizing processes.    (4101)

Next up will be Julia Lane who will speak regarding the roadmap doc/process    (4102)

Julia Lane speaks of the science of science policy. Need per Marburger. He had to recommend allocations but didn’t have adequate metrics; had to operate from anecdotes. Asked for the development of a social science of science policy. In response NSF established a science of sci and tech policy program. Linda Carlson in a statistics office worked on indicators. Lane takes the view that careful measurement and science are needed for this.    (4104)

Helsinki meeting, lightfoot and marburger and her co-chair bill valdez . . .    (4105)

Ah the password to is sosp/roadmap or vice versa.    (4106)

Valdez and she did a lit review, relevant data review the roadmap. Federal sci policy only. Not allowed to release to public till many agencies concur. 17 agencies. 2 yrs. 3 themes.    (4107)

Theme 1 Regarding key findings suggests that fed sci and tech isn’t well enough integrated with “practitioners”.    (4108)

Theme two: need to measure the effects of publicly funded sci and tech knowledge. Can we predict discovery? What determines the effectiveness of investment in this area? Finds that agencies are using different approaches, tools, and metrics for this. Some agencies do something mature others do little or are new to it.    (4109)

Theme three: impact of science and policy on innovation and “competitiveness”. Should funding decisions be more transparent? Should have a different intellectual property structure? Changed tax policy? More or less money to sci agencies? R&D tax credits? Tax credits for investment into intangibles? Lack of data in all these areas was a real problem. Little has been invested into understanding them.    (410A)

Recommendations. Asks us to weigh in on them. Will be synthesizing this.    (410B)

4th theme: describe that data infrastructure. Asks for our input. Asks for us to invest in data tools and metrics using the roadmap’s evaluation.    (414W)

The ITG (interagency task group) examined tools and methods and data.    (410D)

Purpose of this workshop is to promote this community of practice and get feedback on the roadmap.    (410E)

Participants in some related workshops are supposedly here: but it doesn’t include me.    (410F)

Todd Laporte. asks about “competitiveness” and yes it turns out to be political from Marburger and the President. “The law” is called the “America Competes Act”. Later this is explained more: The "America Competes Act" of 2007 is oriented toward offering more science funding and more accountability for it.    (4152)

Lane says please put that in writing. Please!    (410G)

[break]    (410H)

Karl of GSA – brings up that in diffusion of techns in private sector one of the great predictors of “successful” versus “failed” diffusion is “trust” but trust wasn’t in the roadmap characterization. Julia responds that the roadmap isn’t supposed to answer the questions but (modestly) to organize them. Jim says no problem but please know that trust is central to policy.    (410I)

Richard Spivack: when will happen after Jan 20? Julia says she doesn’t know but the transition team is actively present here at NSF.    (410J)

Another question, to which Julia responds by saying her/NSF job is to improve the science micro data to help with policy and international comparisons. What we need to have is info about the level of funding to various individuals and understanding of to whom it is distributed (e.g. to which grad students) and to track the future outcomes of this. There is no infrastructure to track this. US R&D funding has dropped since 15 years ago. Should it go back to the previous level? What is our evidence on how much it affects national outcomes and objectives.    (410K)

In response to Brand Niemann comments or question Julia says that some agencies are reporting estimates but not micro following of anything. She’s thinking of the $ going to the principal investigators. Stanford annual report years ago mentions Larry Page got funding then went off to start a company. That’s in a .pdf and not databased systematically. She would like to show a database that tracks the students and what they go off to do. We have nothing like that now.    (410L)

Todd asks whether this would be analogous to the data that IRS has, and about privacy. Julia says yes it would be similar data but that violations of privacy of government holders of data are punishable by many years in jail. Our job is to recommend a data infrastructure that tracks the dollars and outcomes. We are to address what are the feasible ways to develop such an infrastructure.    (410M)

Jody Roberts from Chemical Heritage asks about roadmaps in general. Asks whether road maps are an effective way of doing sci policy; has this been studied? Says it’s been done in the semiconductor industry with green yellow and red but it led to the perpetuation of moore’s law without creativity of changing directions, and implies there was a mistake in there. Julia says the ITG group of which she is a cochair was charged with creating a road map and she doesn’t know about systematic alternatives.    (410N)

Regarding theme 1 she suggests looking at the decision tool which is supposed to gather feedback (option 2) or to suggest changes to the questions (option 1). Option 2 is to fill out the form.    (410P)