|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 5
1
U.S. Policy for Global Science
The public and private sectors and federal administrations from
both major political parties have repeatedly recognized advantages that
science brings to international relations. Scientific and technological
advances are critical for addressing many major global challenges, while
the apolitical focus of science on evidence allows positive interactions
even in the presence of policy differences. This perspective is reflected
most recently in the Obama administration’s emphasis on and sup-
port for science, technology, and innovation in many of its foreign and
domestic policies. Efforts are under way to revitalize global science and
technology cooperation, to address challenges that impede such coop-
eration, and to reach out to other countries through efforts such as the
science envoy program.1 However, the administration is interested in
what more can and should be done to further encourage international
scientific engagement and collaboration to address challenges that face
the United States and the world.
In this report, the term global science is used to describe the
advancement of science as a common, global process.
HISTORICAL AND STRUCTURAL CONTEXT
Employing a universal language that connects its participants, science
crosses national borders and brings people together, and has done so
for centuries. Particularly in recent decades, large numbers of scientists
have moved to settings that enable unencumbered scientific discovery
1For more information on the Science Envoy Program, visit www.america.gov/science_envoys.
html; www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/fs/2010/136220.htm; or www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/03/157830.
htm. All accessed April 4, 2011.
5
OCR for page 6
6 U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON GLOBAL SCIENCE POLICY
and exchange. Offering such opportunities, the United States has been
an attractive choice for many of the brightest minds around the world.
In fact, today about a quarter of the Nobel laureates living in the United
States were born overseas, as Ralph Cicerone, president of the National
Academy of Sciences, said in his welcoming remarks.
C. D. Mote Jr., of the University of Maryland, summarized major
changes of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries related to sci -
ence. Following the Vannevar Bush report Science: The Endless Frontier,
delivered to President Truman in 1945, the U.S. “national innovation
environment”2 was created through a partnership between government,
industry, and universities delineating responsibilities for national health,
welfare, and security. With the substantial changes the world experi -
enced after the cold war, this partnership, while remarkably successful
for decades, no longer corresponds to the realities that emerged in the
1990s.
The cold war period (1945–1990), Mote argued, was character-
ized throughout the world by a paradigm of “isolation and control” of
information and innovation for national security and commercialization
purposes. This paradigm has been replaced by one of “partnerships
and engagement” to most effectively accelerate innovation, discovery
in science, and creation of the technologies shaping the twenty-first
century. However, many U.S. policies, such as export controls or travel,
visa, and employment restrictions for foreign visitors, were put in place
many years ago and reflect the isolation and control perspective of the
past and are not adaptive in a rapidly changing world.
Businesses and industry no longer operate on a national platform
but on a global platform, not for a lack of national interest, but because
new economic realities dominate the identification of science and tech-
nology investments likely to be most effective. Similarly, Mote said, gov-
ernments face concerns of an increasingly global nature that are rooted
in science and technology and that require partnerships between and
among governments: currency valuation, interest rates, climate change,
2Major elements of the U.S. national innovation environment were laid out in Science: The Endless
Frontier (1945). This was not stipulated in law to be the “national innovation environment” and
was not adopted formally by the nation. However, the policy recommendations of Science: The
Endless Frontier were followed closely by the nation. What followed in the cold war period was a
consequence of the assignment of responsibilities in that report and the nation’s adherence to its
guidance.
Mote first formulated the ideas outlined in this section for the National Academies’ report S&T
Strategies of Six Countries: Implications for the United States (2010).
OCR for page 7
7
U.S. POLICY FOR GLOBAL SCIENCE
pandemics, diseases, food supply and safety, terrorism, and nuclear
proliferation and security, to name a few.
For the government–industry–university triad to operate effectively
in a global innovation environment, the world’s principal research uni -
versities must also operate on the global platform, said Mote. Though
much research involves international cooperation, most universities have
not yet adopted a global vision and function, a step that industry took
more than a decade ago.
Recognizing the opportunities, risks, and complexities of partner-
ships between governments, industries, and universities, Mote explained
that science policy can facilitate advances in science and technology
through promoting an environment of partnerships and engagement
and through increasing the effectiveness of interactions within the global
innovation platform.
CHANGING PATTERNS OF MOBILITY
Charles Vest, president of the National Academy of Engineering,
opened the session on changing patterns of mobility with a reflection on
the changing nature of what many call brain drain. For most of the twen-
tieth century, the world experienced a pattern of brain drain with the
brightest minds moving to countries
that offered the best possible edu-
cation and environments to pursue Engineering is a social
careers in science and technology. exercise. To work in teams,
you have to know the people
For decades, the United States was
you’re working with—you
among the most appealing countries need to know each other’s
for the best researchers from around strengths and weaknesses,
the world. In the shifting global and you need to understand
environment this started to change. each other’s culture. This
is especially true when
Countries such as India and China
working together from a
have been able to reverse the brain
distance . . . so when you
drain to some extent and attract sci- are on teleconferences or
entists and engineers to return to exchanging emails you have
research and technology facilities in personal relationships to
their home countries. Other coun- build on.
tries and regions also have created
John Wall, Vice President and Chief
more attractive and stronger educa- Technical Officer, Cummins Inc.
tion and research environments for
their scientists and engineers.
OCR for page 8
8 U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON GLOBAL SCIENCE POLICY
According to Vest, these conditions resulted in what is called brain
circulation: Many scientists and engineers no longer spend their careers
in one or two countries but in many different countries. This is chang -
ing again. In a global innovation environment and with technological
advances in the cyber infrastructure, the next era could be one of brain
integration, allowing experts to work increasingly across boundaries, on
global problems, often without having to leave their laboratories.
During the ensuing discussion, several participants noted that to
maximize advances in science and technology that benefit the global
community, governments should create an environment that inspires
and engages top talents from around the world, offers opportunities for
leveraging international collaboration, and provides researchers with
access to research facilities.
Movement of Scientists Hampered by Visa and Travel Restrictions
Many participants, both from the United States and from other
countries, voiced concern that, particularly during the last 10 years,
the United States responded to national and global security concerns
with visa and immigration processes that have made it more difficult
for some scientists and engineers to study, conduct research, work,
or even attend meetings and conferences in this country. Visa restric -
tions that prevent foreign researchers from returning to the United
States for certain periods of time also impose limitations on effective
cooperation of benefit to the United States and the home countries of
those requesting a visa. As many workshop participants pointed out,
this can have serious repercussions in the short and long term, when
more of the brightest young and senior researchers turn away from
opportunities in the United States to those offered by other countries.
Representatives of government agencies noted that U.S. government
researchers also face travel restrictions imposed by government poli -
cies that limit direct interaction with research developments around
the world, and that the lack of communication among U.S. govern -
ment technical agencies sometimes hinders effective domestic and
international coordination.
Personal Relationships in an Age of Virtual Innovations
Many workshop participants noted that rapidly advancing com-
munication technologies offer new opportunities for effective relations
OCR for page 9
9
U.S. POLICY FOR GLOBAL SCIENCE
through virtual meetings and collaborations and that these interactions
often take place in different ways within different age groups. It also was
pointed out that even though new social media play an unprecedented
role, especially in connecting young people, face-to-face interactions
remain critical for building long-term relationships among scientists
and engineers from very different backgrounds. Several participants
therefore stressed that restrictions imposed on travel and visas, which
limit direct personal interaction, remain a problem.
Educating and Empowering a New Generation of Scientists
Rita Colwell, professor at the University of Maryland and recently
appointed science envoy, highlighted that it is important for the U.S.
science system to prepare young
researchers for a career in today’s Funding agencies should
globally interconnected science encourage joint funding with
environment. This requires a multi- labs overseas that allows
for student and researcher
disciplinary approach to their edu-
exchanges through linkages
cation, in which foreign language
of labs.
and intercultural skills can be of
major importance. This interdisci- Rita Colwell, Distinguished University
plinary education would be further Professor, University of Maryland, and
U.S. Science Envoy
strengthened by expanded student
exchanges. However, Colwell noted
that spending several years in a foreign laboratory may not be the most
appropriate model, since most U.S. researchers feel the need to remain
in the United States to pursue their academic career. An alternative is
linkages of U.S. and foreign labo-
ratories that allow students and
Working around the world for
researchers to spend a few weeks
young scientists and engineers
at a time over the span of several
must become just like working
years in a laboratory overseas for around the country has been
joint research, to exchange results, for earlier generations.
draft papers, and publish with their
counterparts. This can be an effec- C. D. Mote, Glenn L. Martin Institute
Professor of Engineering, University of
tive way of building international Maryland
understanding and cooperation.
Yet, this approach requires funding
agencies to have the flexibility to provide shared funding for work in
laboratories in the United States and overseas.
OCR for page 10
10 U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON GLOBAL SCIENCE POLICY
Gebisa Ejeta, professor at Purdue University and recently appointed
science envoy, emphasized the importance of strengthening science edu-
cation, particularly at the tertiary level, in many developing countries to
build a local science culture that increases the respect for scientists and
for the benefits to society that result from their work. Marvadeen Singh-
Wilmot, professor at the University of the West Indies, Jamaica, added
that good science education is critical for children around the world, as it
shows them a way to create, innovate, and build, and thus exposes them
to interesting and exciting career possibilities. Several U.S. and foreign
participants stressed that investments in science education in the United
States and around the world are a critical step to build a science culture
in a society that is beneficial to each country and the world at large.
Engaging Early Career Researchers Around the World
Both domestic and foreign workshop participants pointed out the
importance of enabling early career researchers around the world to
connect, collaborate, and establish relationships that have the potential
to last for decades to come. Bringing early career researchers together,
many noted, not only benefits scientific and technological progress, but
for many of these young scientists and engineers, such connections lead
to engaging with experts in other fields and to reaching out to society
broadly. The idea of a science program similar to the U.S. Peace Corps
was raised in the discussion; however, several workshop participants
suggested that there are existing programs with such aims that merit
support, some of which are described in Box 1-1.
Other Questions and Ideas
In addition to the points already addressed, the following questions
were raised during this session’s discussion:
• How will the changing demographics around the world affect
mobility patterns, and what implications does this have for the United
States and other countries?
• How can different sectors take advantage of an aging population
of highly skilled but retired scientists and engineers?
• What can governments do to help the private sector employ the
large and still-growing number of young unemployed college graduates,
particularly in countries in the Middle East and North Africa?
OCR for page 11
11
U.S. POLICY FOR GLOBAL SCIENCE
BOX 1-1
Selected International Programs for Early Career Researchers
Young Scientist Ambassador Program (YSAP)
“This program will promote the efforts of…Young Scientists to bridge the
international scientific gap by facilitating cultural, scientific, intellectual, or
educational interactions. The ambassadorship must be non-traditional; that
is, interaction must occur between two countries that are at different stages
of scientific development, or between two countries that historically have had
minimal scientific contact.” (www.chem.ufl.edu/~miller/YSAP/)
Young Scientists Volunteer Program (YSVP)
The Young Scientist Volunteer Program (YSVP) aims to bridge and close the
gap between the scientific communities in developed and developing coun-
tries. Scientists are volunteering to identify barriers to and challenges for
progress in developing countries; to form a list of existing helpful resources
(made available by embassies, UNICEF, science academies, available visit-
ing positions for undergraduate and graduate students and faculty, and so
on); and to build a marketplace for volunteering opportunities.
Kavli Frontiers of Science Symposia
“Kavli Frontiers of Science symposia bring together outstanding young sci-
entists to discuss exciting advances and opportunities in a broad range
of disciplines. The format encourages both one-on-one conversations and
informal group discussions in which young participants continue to commu-
nicate about insights gained from formal presentations and the excitement
of learning about cutting-edge research in other fields. By doing so, Frontiers
helps to remove communication barriers between fields and encourages
collaborations among some of the world’s best and brightest young scien-
tists. Annual Kavli Frontiers symposia are held for young scientists in the
U.S. and bilateral symposia have included young researchers in the U.K.,
Germany, France, Japan, China, Indonesia, and India.” (www.nasonline.org/
site/PageServer?pagename=FRONTIERS_main)
Frontiers of Engineering Program
“The Frontiers of Engineering program brings together…a group of engi-
neering leaders from industry, academe, and government labs to discuss
pioneering technical work and leading-edge research in various engineering
fields and industry sectors. The goal of the meetings is to introduce these
outstanding engineers (ages 30-45) to each other, and through this interac-
tion facilitate collaboration in engineering, the transfer of new techniques
continued
OCR for page 12
12 U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON GLOBAL SCIENCE POLICY
BOX 1-1 Continued
and approaches across fields, and establishment of contacts among the
next generation of engineering leaders.” Frontiers of Engineering symposia
are held annually in the United States, and bilateral symposia engage young
engineers from Germany, Japan, India, and China. A multilateral symposium
with the European Union started in 2010. (http://www.naefrontiers.org)
Germany’s Young Academy of Sciences
“The Junge Akademie (Young Academy) was founded in the year 2000
as an academy for the new generation of scientists and scholars. It is a
joint project of the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften -
BBAW (Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities) and the
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (National Academy of
Sciences Leopoldina). Its remit is to promote interdisciplinary discourse
and co-operation between outstanding young scientists and scholars, and
to support initiatives at the interface between science and society.” Ten new
members are elected yearly and each member of the Akademie is allo-
cated a research budget to support joint scientific projects.” (http://www.
diejungeakademie.de/english/index.html)
Note: There is also an Austrian Young Academy, a Royal Netherlands Young Academy, and a Royal
Society of Edinburgh Young Academy. The InterAcademy Panel has furthermore established the
Global Young Academy. These academies and other regional groups interact in creating interna-
tional young scientist networks.
Other discussants wondered whether the Fulbright and similar pro-
grams could be modernized. While the Fulbright Program is an excellent
opportunity for some of the brightest young minds around the world to
get a first-class education and research experience in the United States,
grant recipients often face difficulties in continuing their research once
they return to their home countries (to fulfill the Fulbright 2-year home-
country physical presence requirement), as many countries lack the neces-
sary scientific and technological infrastructure. How can the United States
and the home countries help these returning researchers to continue
pursuing their research career? The U.S. Agency for International Devel-
opment (USAID) supports some researchers in developing countries.
One participant wondered whether Germany’s Humboldt Foundation
OCR for page 13
13
U.S. POLICY FOR GLOBAL SCIENCE
program3 that provides funding for researchers when they return to their
home country is a model that could be followed in the United States.
MAXIMIZING SCIENTIFIC ADVANCES IN AN
INCREASINGLY GLOBAL RESEARCH COMMUNITY
Today’s global research environment is highly competitive, innova -
tion is critical, the cost of research is growing while resources are limited,
and competition for the best and brightest minds is fierce. Workshop
participants recognized that much is being done by U.S. federal agencies
to encourage international research cooperation. Some participants also
suggested additional areas of opportunity.
Access to Facilities and Equipment
Scientific and technological facilities and equipment can be vital to
scientific progress, yet most researchers in the world depend on access to
facilities in other countries—access that may be hindered by such barri -
ers as costs, export controls, and, in some cases, cultural factors. Several
participants thought it was important to overcome these barriers.
Pooling Resources
Many countries, industries, and universities around the world
invest in science and technology.
Celia Merzbacher, vice president
There are a lot of resources
for innovative partnerships at the
going into science and
Semiconductor Research Corpora- technology around the world,
tion, suggested that an assessment and the United States should
of foreign centers of excellence take advantage of that.
and investment priorities of other
Celia Merzbacher, Vice President for
countries would provide ideas as to Innovative Partnerships, SRC
how the United States and others
can take advantage of these invest-
ments by pooling resources and providing complementary efforts that
would benefit the global science environment and, consequently, society
3After successfully completing the initial stay sponsored by the Alexander von Humboldt
Foundation in Germany, Humboldt and Georg Forster Research Fellows can apply for a return
fellowship to sponsor reintegration into an institute abroad. For more information see www.
humboldt-foundation.de/web/return-fellowship.html (accessed September 28. 2011).
OCR for page 14
14 U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON GLOBAL SCIENCE POLICY
at large. Azamat Abdymomunov, former vice minister of education and
science of the Republic of Kazakhstan, pointed out that an assessment
should not be limited to projects that are sustained, but should include
those that are being cut or eliminated, to see whether critical research
needs additional support.
Combining Local Relevance with Global Intellectual Engagement
Some of the foreign workshop participants suggested that some
developing countries have built up first-class science systems and research
facilities. These provide excellent foundations for science and technol -
ogy plans that address local priorities and global developments. While
such plans need to come from within each country, these participants
noted, some nations would benefit from greater support from the
United States in developing national science and technology strategies
to improve science education at all levels, and to strengthen a local sci -
ence culture that increases the respect for scientists and their work. For
other countries, such as Malaysia, the U.S. administration’s emphasis
on science and technology and investing in research is an inspiring role
model that can be followed without much external guidance.
Learning from Industry
Workshop participants expressed considerable interest in the role
of industry and what can be learned from private-sector approaches.
Representatives from industry indicated that many of the barriers faced
by government and academia do not exist for the private sector, where
national boundaries mean very little and where multinational research
activities are widespread. They suggested that governments should try to
leverage the experience of industry, promote partnerships with industry
and between academia and industry, encourage federal agencies to be as
flexible as possible, and explore how government agencies could apply
an entrepreneurial spirit similar to that shown by the private sector and
public foundations.
Role of Government
Khotso Mokhele, former president of South Africa’s National
Research Foundation, pointed out that there is often an absence of an
American voice at international science conferences and within inter-
OCR for page 15
15
U.S. POLICY FOR GLOBAL SCIENCE
national scientific bodies. The United States needs to promote its pres -
ence and participation in international science, he emphasized, which
requires a critical look at how international science is and should be
organized within its own boundaries.
Some international collaboration promoted by the U.S. government
is driven by policy priorities that identify general areas of research.
Other collaborations promote specific projects that are designed to
meet the priorities of partner countries. Many U.S. government agencies
face the dilemma that their mandate is predominantly domestic, which
limits opportunities for actively supporting research cooperation with
international partners.
As one participant noted, however, even under the constraints of a
domestic mission, the leadership of an agency can significantly influence
the status of science within the agency and encourage innovative ways
to work with other countries on research projects. Several participants
suggested that it would be extremely valuable to coordinate efforts sup -
ported by different agencies and to integrate similar projects whenever
possible. For the science community, it is difficult to navigate through
the opportunities provided by different U.S. government agencies, as
there is no single agency or office that is responsible for international
science. As Cutberto Garza, provost of Boston College, said, researchers
wonder, “Who do we call when we want to speak to the individuals
who are in charge of enabling and promoting international science in
the United States?”
AREAS FOR INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC COLLABORATION
In her introductory remarks, session moderator Cherry Murray,
dean of Harvard’s School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, sug -
gested the following common existing modes of scientific collaborations
(noting that the list is not exhaustive):
• International treaties (e.g., Antarctica, space, oceans)
• Bilateral agreements between nations
• Multinational agreements (telescopes and others)
• Cases in which a country is not part of a multinational agreement
but is an important partner in a scientific project (e.g., Large Hadron
Collider)
• Bilateral agreements between national labs (e.g., Russia and U.S.
nuclear labs)
OCR for page 16
16 U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON GLOBAL SCIENCE POLICY
• Bilateral agreements between universities
• Small principal investigator or research group collaborations
In the ensuing discussion, several participants remarked that changes
in the global scientific environment and new information and commu -
nication technologies will provide new forms of collaborative research
and further opportunities for science to be international. As Vaughan
Turekian of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
pointed out, this development is already reflected in the number of
articles published in Science: Only about 20 percent were based on inter-
national collaborations in the early 1980s, a number that has increased
to 55–60 percent since then.
Some workshop participants suggested that there is an increasing
need for multilateral collaboration, given the
• Global and multidimensional nature of many of today’s challenges;
• Widely distributed expertise of researchers and facilities around
the world;
• Massive amount of data that is being generated; and
• Advantages that cost sharing represents.
Cost sharing is particularly important for large-scale projects, for
example in the space and earth sciences, because one country alone
often cannot provide the necessary resources. Other workshop par-
ticipants underlined that small-scale projects, some of which may be
expanded easily in scale and others that involve only a few principal
investigators, are equally important and often cost-effective. In addition,
changing patterns of mobility require U.S. scientists to reach out actively
to their counterparts around the globe, as the best researchers often are
unable to come to the United States for extended periods commonly
required by research. U.S. scientists and engineers increasingly under-
stand that research conducted in other places in the world is relevant
to their own work.
In their presentations, discussion leaders Karen Strier, professor
of anthropology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and Thomas
Casadevall, scientist emeritus of the U.S. Geological Survey, identified
several fields as promising areas for international cooperation, includ -
ing biodiversity and the environment (including climate, which affects
sustainability, health, and energy) and humanitarian assistance (espe-
cially when expanded to include issues related to the earth sciences and
OCR for page 17
17
U.S. POLICY FOR GLOBAL SCIENCE
responses in pre- and postcrisis situations). Casadevall added that the
management, processing, storing, archiving, and accessing of scientific
datasets increasingly require international collaborative efforts.
Flood of Data
According to Larry Weber, director of the Office of International
Science and Engineering at the National Science Foundation (NSF),
every year the world research community collects more data than in
all of history previously combined, and this massive amount of data
is changing the way science is done.4 Being flooded with data creates
many challenges (archiving, storage, processing, and interoperability)
and many opportunities. Several workshop participants emphasized
that open access to data is a key question for global collaboration. It
is critical to ensure that quality data are collected and shared through
a peer-review process, and to define principles through which various
communities may gain access to these data.
Mobile technologies and networked information technology plat -
forms enable sharing of data and information worldwide at lightning
speed. Yet, many participants noted, there are barriers, including limited
broadband availability, the sheer volume of data, and restrictions faced
by U.S. government agencies to access and share data and informa-
tion through various virtual means. Thomas Casadevall pointed out
that the U.S. government should not miss opportunities to cooperate
with private companies that propose innovative ideas to manage, store,
and share data. One way to achieve this, he said, would be to expand
cooperative research and development agreements between government
agencies and private companies.
A good example of data collection and sharing, as suggested by
James Herrington, director of international relations at the National
Institutes of Health (NIH), is the National Library of Medicine. Every
NIH grant recipient is expected to publish his or her results, which are
then collected and made available by the National Library of Medicine.
Similar efforts exist in other U.S. agencies and other countries, although
he emphasized that much more needs to be done.
4For more information see https://www.teragrid.org/web/tg11/seidel-article (accessed Septem -
ber 23, 2011). This is also captured in a series of articles in The Economist, February 25, 2010 issue,
for example: Data, data everywhere.
OCR for page 18
18 U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON GLOBAL SCIENCE POLICY
Responsible Science
Larry Weber directed workshop participants’ attention to the
importance of responsible conduct of research as another area in which
the international scientific community needs to collaborate. Society will
demand that research is done ethically and that governments and fund-
ing agencies have systems in place that ensure integrity and responsible
conduct in research activities. With science becoming increasingly inter-
national, global principles for meeting these aims are needed, he noted.
Other participants supported this suggestion, including Rita Colwell,
who added that convincing the international science community to
adhere to a uniform code of conduct should not be difficult and should
be undertaken right away, as many scientists already follow various exist-
ing standards of responsible research conduct.
Conditions for Success
Several U.S. and international participants noted that international
collaborative research activities are most likely to generate promising
results when they
• Focus on areas that have been identified as priorities within col-
laborating countries;
• Engage researchers who possess cultural awareness and local
language skills;
• Include educational and capacity-building programs;
• Have a data-sharing component; and
• Build on well-established collaborative activities.
Many workshop participants illustrated specific ways in which U.S.
science is engaged in international activities through private, govern-
ment, and academic enterprises. What is missing, they said, is a coherent
story of how and why the United States is engaged in science globally
and a focal point within the U.S. government that coordinates interna -
tional science and serves as a resource for researchers.
EFFECTIVE GLOBAL SCIENCE
With the changing nature of science and the globalization of society,
several workshop participants remarked that there is a growing need
to address multidisciplinary grand challenges that increasingly require
OCR for page 19
19
U.S. POLICY FOR GLOBAL SCIENCE
multinational, instead of bilateral, cooperation. According to Larry
Weber, “that type of global science requires large investments, larger
numbers of people, expertise across multiple disciplines, and support
from multiple parties, and multiple stakeholders need to be engaged
and satisfied.” However, achieving truly global science policies is very
difficult, and not much progress to achieving this goal has been made,
argued Khotso Mokhele of South Africa. Instead, national policies for
global science may be a better way to react to the changing paradigm
of science, while more global approaches are explored through pilot
exercises. This notion was supported by Hernan Chaimovich of Brazil,
who pointed out that U.S. policies to promote global science are only
effective if they serve the interests of all parties involved. According
to him, policies of mutual benefit can center on enhancing the science
infrastructure in a developing country or can be based on a more equal
partnership, depending on the partners in question.
Judith Kimble, professor of biochemistry at the University of
Wisconsin–Madison, highlighted that for global science to be effective,
it is essential to engage early career
scientists (a notion that was sup-
We should establish incentives
ported repeatedly by many work-
for training grants to develop
shop participants), to develop poli- programs that raise awareness
cies that promote talent exchange at of the global nature of science.
every level, and to foster networks
of excellence around the world. Judith Kimble, Professor of Biochemis-
try, University of Wisconsin–Madison
Kimble proposed that incentives
be established for training grants to
encourage development of programs to raise awareness of the global sci-
ence platform5 among early career researchers and promote their stays
in laboratories abroad.
Measuring the Effectiveness of Science Policy
Because the goal of these policies has not yet been clearly defined,
measuring the effectiveness of science policy is difficult. Similar to many
research projects, long-term achievements are more important than their
short-term outcomes, said Shafiqul Islam of Tufts University.
5Similar to the way ethics programs were incorporated in training grants to raise awareness of
responsible science.
OCR for page 20
20 U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON GLOBAL SCIENCE POLICY
Some foreign workshop partici-
pants suggested that effective sci-
Most of today’s scientific lead-
ership around the world were ence policy could be measured by
trained in the 1950s, 1960s,
the level of engagement of policy
and 1970s; many of them in
makers and politicians. The number
the United States. Owing to
of countries that establish science
their knowledge of the sys-
and technology agencies, appoint
tem and culture of the United
science and technology ministers,
States and to contacts that
they have made as students develop new national science poli-
and often maintained through-
cies (or improve and implement
out their career, many have
existing ones), or adopt policies
been wonderful ambassadors
and legislation on science and tech-
for the United States in their
nology could be other indicators of
own countries. Thus, their train-
ing was a very effective invest- success.
ment when we look at it from a
Many participants pointed
long-term perspective.
out that although measurements
are important, metrics need to be
Unfortunately, the programs
defined carefully. Many parameters
that supported those leaders
were suggested, but no predomi-
have largely been eliminated
over time, and most of them nant set of measures emerged from
effectively ended in the 1990s.
the discussion.
Thus, this type of investment
was not made for an entire
generation. The leaders of Examples of Effective Global
science in the upcoming gen-
Science
eration have not had the same
set of experiences and will not The Human Genome Project
possess the same deep knowl-
(Box 1-2) was mentioned by James
edge of the United States.
Herrington and Judith Kimble as
one example of effective global sci-
Michael T. Clegg, Foreign Secretary of
ence policy, in which scientists from
the U.S. National Academy of Sciences
22 countries came together to estab-
lish open access policies for genome
sequence data. The Human Genome Project was seen as demonstrative
of the potential of open access policies to be highly effective. It also
demonstrated that the effectiveness of such a policy can be measured
easily, for example, by the number of papers published based on the
open data made available by such a policy.
Norman Neureiter, first science advisor to the U.S. secretary of
state, drew attention to the Indo-U.S. Science and Technology Forum
(Box 1-3). Although the forum originally had joint, but very limited,
OCR for page 21
21
U.S. POLICY FOR GLOBAL SCIENCE
BOX 1-2
Human Genome Project
The Human Genome Project was a multinational effort that began in 1990.
Originally planned as a 15-year project, technological advances acceler-
ated the process and it culminated in 2003 with a complete human DNA
sequence. In 1996, scientific leaders from 22 countries met in Bermuda to set
guidelines for data sharing in this project. The resultant “Bermuda Principles”
declared that primary genomic sequence should be released unconditionally
to the public within 24 hours of its acquisition. This revolutionary standard of
global cooperation was established for scientists and funding agencies and
was adopted quickly. Its impact has been huge—both for advancing genome
sciences and for paving the way to similar policies on other major projects
designed to generate resources for the scientific community. These Bermuda
principles provide a stellar example of policy driven by scientists with the
express goal of setting guidelines for the common good.
For additional information, see http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/research/
bermuda.shtml.
BOX 1-3
Indo-U.S. Science and Technology Forum (IUSSTF)
IUSSTF was established under an agreement between the governments of
India and the United States in March 2000 as an autonomous, not-for-profit
society that “promotes and catalyzes Indo-U.S. bilateral collaborations in sci-
ence, technology, engineering, and biomedical research through substantive
interaction among government, academia, and industry.” IUSSTF is a grant-
making organization whose principal objective is to provide opportunities;
exchange ideas, information, skills, and technologies; and collaborate on
scientific and technological endeavors “of mutual interest that can translate
the power of science for the benefit of mankind at large.” (www.indousstf.org)
financial support, it has brought about 10,000 scientists together,
adopted the National Academies’ Frontiers of Science and Engineer-
ing symposia for India, expanded its activities with the private sector
to offer fellowships, and over time increased its funding significantly.
Neureiter suggested that this is a remarkably successful model that
could be implemented in other countries.
OCR for page 22
22 U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON GLOBAL SCIENCE POLICY
Funding Mechanisms for Global Science
It is extremely challenging for multiple agencies in different countries
to provide support for researchers from multiple countries in an orga-
nized and coordinated way, stated Larry Weber, one of the discussion
leaders in this session. In the absence of a global funding organization6
functioning at the intersection of science and development, the U.S.
National Science Foundation has entered into partnerships in which NSF
supports U.S. researchers with their developing-country counterparts,
funded by USAID or the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation or both.7
Weber also pointed to a pilot effort similar to the idea of a Global
Science Foundation that supports researchers from across the G8
countries to work together on projects that address global challenges.
Researchers from three or more countries submit a single application,
and if selected, these researchers receive grants from funding agencies
in their home countries. This pilot approach is intended to help fund -
ing agencies in different countries develop mechanisms that consider
single proposals for multinational research cooperation submitted by a
multinational group of researchers.
Global Science for the United States
Judith Kimble suggested that many of the issues raised in the dis -
cussion of day one of the workshop should also be applied to domestic
issues within the United States. This would not only benefit our own
society but also help develop the support for international science within
our domestic constituencies.
One example that shows how the United States benefits from medi-
cal experience in a different country was provided by James Herrington.
6While there is not a global funding organization for scientific research, there are two groups
that should be mentioned. The European Research Council (http://erc.europa.eu), supporting
investigator-driven frontier research, is the largest supranational funding agency currently in
existence. The Global Science Forum of the OECD brings together science policy officials who seek
to identify and maximize opportunities for international cooperation in basic scientific research
(http://www.oecd.org/department/0,3355,en_2649_34319_1_1_1_1_1,00.html ).
7As of February 25, 2011, NSF and USAID have worked on a memorandum of understanding
between the agencies and have supported several successful projects on a case-by-case basis. A more
structured program is planned to be announced soon.
NSF and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation partner on the program Basic Research to
Enable Agricultural Development (BREAD) to support new collaborations between U.S. and
international scientists and engineers that lead to a different way of thinking about developing-
country agriculture.
OCR for page 23
23
U.S. POLICY FOR GLOBAL SCIENCE
The Mississippi delta region faces high rates of pregnancy and obesity
and very poor access to health service delivery. The use of “health
house” programs in Southern Iran, specifically the Shiraz region, has
significantly reduced child mortality rates and improved health indi -
cators related to maternal health, for example contraceptive use. The
Mississippi delta region is learning from the Shiraz Medical School
how to implement a health house program. Iran also has a very strong
program in multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, an additional example of
many instances in which the United States learns and benefits from
experiences of other countries.
REFLECTIONS
During the last session of the first day of the workshop, participants
reflected on the discussions and raised the following issues that had not
yet been addressed:
• Many U.S. and international participants remarked that while
social and behavioral sciences as well as humanities do not receive
enough attention in the United States, they are critical for understanding
the complex issues our societies are facing today.
• Several participants suggested that the ideas expressed in this
workshop be considered in current and future activities of the White
House Office of Management and Budget.
• The role of the scientific diaspora is critical for the develop-
ment of many developing countries, including science, some participants
noted. Yet many countries do not benefit from their diaspora as much
as, for example, India and China. How can that change?
At the end of the session, committee chair Michael T. Clegg and
others stressed that science policies can be developed at a national level,
but that thinking of the necessary standards and norms for their success-
ful implementation is more a scientific than an intergovernmental effort
and thus is a particular challenge for the global science community. Both
policy makers and the science and engineering communities have a role
to play in developing policies that are global in nature and address the
challenges of today’s world.
OCR for page 24
