National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (U.S.)., 2020
A common belief among policy-makers, scientists, and businesspeople is that more science and tech... more A common belief among policy-makers, scientists, and businesspeople is that more science and technology (S&T) funding leads to more S&T development, which in turn leads to a better life. This expectation is espoused as fact and rarely questioned. However, enduring and growing inequality in the United States casts doubt on the assumptions of science’s endless frontier to “lift all boats.” In “Public Value of Science Public Value of Science Public Value of Science” (Issues, Summer 2020), Barry Bozeman shows how the promise that more S&T leads to a better life is not an unassailable fact. Indeed, in some circumstances, S&T progress makes life harder for people, especially those already marginalized by class, gender, race, occupation, and location
Emerging technologies have potential to generate new inequalities in society and to perpetuate ex... more Emerging technologies have potential to generate new inequalities in society and to perpetuate existing inequalities (Cozzens and Wetmore, 2010). Emerging technologies draw on the latest cutting-edge research which tends to be performed by historically advantaged groups in developed countries. Technologies are developed that are aimed at the problems and preferences of those same advantaged groups. Technologies are distributed and priced in such a way that accessing them is much more difficult for other poorer people in less developed regions of the world. However, emerging technologies also have potential to reduce inequality. Innovation can spur economic growth in countries or regions, potentially lessening the disparity of wealth. Or, innovations can be aimed at specific problems faced by poor and marginalized groups in developing regions and countries, so-called ‘pro-poor’ innovation.
Broader impacts (BI) policies generate debate on the purpose of science, measuring the impact of ... more Broader impacts (BI) policies generate debate on the purpose of science, measuring the impact of research, and is an important topic for the science policy community. However, BI policies often fail to determine if R&D funding helps marginalized communities. This paper introduces a new framework, the Inclusion-Immediacy Criterion, that assesses who benefits from research impacts as divided into three groups: (1) advantaged groups; (2) the general population; and (3) marginalized groups. The study analyzes National Science Foundation (NSF) project outcome reports and finds that advantaged groups are the most likely to benefit from NSF-funded research. The study also shows that certain areas of NSF research, such as Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences, more efficiently generate impacts for marginalized groups compared to other directorates. This paper further argues that persistent inequalities in BIs limit the potential of R&D to increase prosperity and well-being, two of NSF’s...
Despite calls to address global challenges through community engagement, engineers are not formal... more Despite calls to address global challenges through community engagement, engineers are not formally prepared to engage with communities. Little research has been done on means to address this 'engagement gap' in engineering education. We examine the efficacy of an intensive, two-day Community Engagement Workshop for engineers, designed to help engineers better look beyond technology, listen to and learn from people, and empower communities. We assessed the efficacy of the workshop in a non-experimental pre-post design using a questionnaire and a concept map. Questionnaire results indicate participants came away better able to ask questions more broadly inclusive of non-technological dimensions of engineering projects. Concept map results indicate participants have a greater understanding of ways social factors shape complex material systems after completing the programme. Based on the workshop's strengths and weaknesses, we discuss the potential of expanding and supplementing the programme to help engineers account for social aspects central to engineered systems.
It is important for funding agencies to evaluate if scientists accomplish their research goals. B... more It is important for funding agencies to evaluate if scientists accomplish their research goals. By comparing a representative sample of National Science Foundation abstracts and project outcome reports (PORs) from 2014 to 2017, this article investigates whether scientists attain the broader impacts they propose. We find that the number of broader impacts proposed in the abstracts is significantly higher than the number of broader impacts reported in the PORs. The trend is common across directorates and type of impact, except when impacts serve advantaged groups. Only the number of broader impacts for advantaged groups increases from the abstract to the POR. Despite the difference between proposed impact and reported impact, our study does not conclude that scientists are delinquent or disingenuous when they propose their research. Rather, we question the capacity of current frameworks to capture the quality of impacts and to weigh the relative importance of impacts that serve margin...
This study analyzes the goals, nanotechnology experience, corporate social responsibility and pro... more This study analyzes the goals, nanotechnology experience, corporate social responsibility and products of 50 USA-based companies working with nanotechnology to see if they are developing products that help low-income populations. Out of the top 50 R&D companies that publish and patent nanotechnology research in agri-food, energy and water sectors, 18 of them do not mention nanotechnology on their websites. The other 32 companies discuss nanotechnology in varying degrees. However, only two of the companies relate their nanotechnology R&D to poverty alleviation. Even though few companies refer to poverty alleviation, 30 firms of the sample have some type of corporate social responsibility programs. From the study, we cannot definitively conclude that nanotechnology is a technology only for wealthy consumers, but we do find that the companies analyzed do not give much attention to pro-poor nanotechnology
3D printers are hailed as the next revolutionary technology, but will they be responsible innovat... more 3D printers are hailed as the next revolutionary technology, but will they be responsible innovations and help decrease poverty and inequality? This paper determines the availability and accessibil...
Aim: This study explores the impact nanomedicine will have on global health, poverty and inequali... more Aim: This study explores the impact nanomedicine will have on global health, poverty and inequality. Materials & methods: Using a nanotechnology search strategy, the team extracted nanotechnology clinical trials (CT) from the dataset clinicaltrials.gov . The team then combined CT with information about burden of disease data from the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation. Finally, the team ran regression analyses to determine whether nanotechnology CT are decreasing inequality compared with non-nanotechnology CT. Results & conclusion: Nanomedicine and non-nanomedicine CT follow similar research patterns. In general, nanomedicine is neither increasing nor decreasing the technological gap between countries in the global North and South.
A major goal of government and non-profit scientific funding agencies is to support research and ... more A major goal of government and non-profit scientific funding agencies is to support research and development (R&D) that has broad impacts, generates responsible innovation, and positively impacts society. This study proposes a new framework, called the Inclusion-Immediacy Criterion (IIC), that better assesses the inclusion and immediacy of research to determine whether the research helps marginalized communities, reduces inequality, and encourages inclusive innovation. To test the framework, the study analyzes NSF sponsored nanotechnology grant abstracts from 2013 to 2017. We find that 109 out of the 300 grants feature research that is inclusive, while 235 out of the 300 grants have broader impacts that either maintain the status quo or predominately help advantage groups. Using the Inclusion-Immediacy Criterion, policy makers and scholars will better understand the potential impact of funded science.
Socio-technical governance has been of long-standing interest to science and technology studies a... more Socio-technical governance has been of long-standing interest to science and technology studies and science policy studies. Recent calls for midstream modulation direct attention to a more complicated model of innovation, and a new place for social scientists to intervene in research, design and development. This paper develops and expands this earlier work to demonstrate how a suite of concepts from science and technology studies and innovation studies can be used as a heuristic tool to conduct real-time evaluation and reflection during the process of innovation – upstream, midstream, and downstream. The result of this new protocol is inclusivity mainstreaming: determining if and how marginalized peoples and perspectives are being maximally incorporated into the model of innovation, while highlighting common problems of inequality that need to be addressed.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (U.S.)., 2020
A common belief among policy-makers, scientists, and businesspeople is that more science and tech... more A common belief among policy-makers, scientists, and businesspeople is that more science and technology (S&T) funding leads to more S&T development, which in turn leads to a better life. This expectation is espoused as fact and rarely questioned. However, enduring and growing inequality in the United States casts doubt on the assumptions of science’s endless frontier to “lift all boats.” In “Public Value of Science Public Value of Science Public Value of Science” (Issues, Summer 2020), Barry Bozeman shows how the promise that more S&T leads to a better life is not an unassailable fact. Indeed, in some circumstances, S&T progress makes life harder for people, especially those already marginalized by class, gender, race, occupation, and location
Emerging technologies have potential to generate new inequalities in society and to perpetuate ex... more Emerging technologies have potential to generate new inequalities in society and to perpetuate existing inequalities (Cozzens and Wetmore, 2010). Emerging technologies draw on the latest cutting-edge research which tends to be performed by historically advantaged groups in developed countries. Technologies are developed that are aimed at the problems and preferences of those same advantaged groups. Technologies are distributed and priced in such a way that accessing them is much more difficult for other poorer people in less developed regions of the world. However, emerging technologies also have potential to reduce inequality. Innovation can spur economic growth in countries or regions, potentially lessening the disparity of wealth. Or, innovations can be aimed at specific problems faced by poor and marginalized groups in developing regions and countries, so-called ‘pro-poor’ innovation.
Broader impacts (BI) policies generate debate on the purpose of science, measuring the impact of ... more Broader impacts (BI) policies generate debate on the purpose of science, measuring the impact of research, and is an important topic for the science policy community. However, BI policies often fail to determine if R&D funding helps marginalized communities. This paper introduces a new framework, the Inclusion-Immediacy Criterion, that assesses who benefits from research impacts as divided into three groups: (1) advantaged groups; (2) the general population; and (3) marginalized groups. The study analyzes National Science Foundation (NSF) project outcome reports and finds that advantaged groups are the most likely to benefit from NSF-funded research. The study also shows that certain areas of NSF research, such as Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences, more efficiently generate impacts for marginalized groups compared to other directorates. This paper further argues that persistent inequalities in BIs limit the potential of R&D to increase prosperity and well-being, two of NSF’s...
Despite calls to address global challenges through community engagement, engineers are not formal... more Despite calls to address global challenges through community engagement, engineers are not formally prepared to engage with communities. Little research has been done on means to address this 'engagement gap' in engineering education. We examine the efficacy of an intensive, two-day Community Engagement Workshop for engineers, designed to help engineers better look beyond technology, listen to and learn from people, and empower communities. We assessed the efficacy of the workshop in a non-experimental pre-post design using a questionnaire and a concept map. Questionnaire results indicate participants came away better able to ask questions more broadly inclusive of non-technological dimensions of engineering projects. Concept map results indicate participants have a greater understanding of ways social factors shape complex material systems after completing the programme. Based on the workshop's strengths and weaknesses, we discuss the potential of expanding and supplementing the programme to help engineers account for social aspects central to engineered systems.
It is important for funding agencies to evaluate if scientists accomplish their research goals. B... more It is important for funding agencies to evaluate if scientists accomplish their research goals. By comparing a representative sample of National Science Foundation abstracts and project outcome reports (PORs) from 2014 to 2017, this article investigates whether scientists attain the broader impacts they propose. We find that the number of broader impacts proposed in the abstracts is significantly higher than the number of broader impacts reported in the PORs. The trend is common across directorates and type of impact, except when impacts serve advantaged groups. Only the number of broader impacts for advantaged groups increases from the abstract to the POR. Despite the difference between proposed impact and reported impact, our study does not conclude that scientists are delinquent or disingenuous when they propose their research. Rather, we question the capacity of current frameworks to capture the quality of impacts and to weigh the relative importance of impacts that serve margin...
This study analyzes the goals, nanotechnology experience, corporate social responsibility and pro... more This study analyzes the goals, nanotechnology experience, corporate social responsibility and products of 50 USA-based companies working with nanotechnology to see if they are developing products that help low-income populations. Out of the top 50 R&D companies that publish and patent nanotechnology research in agri-food, energy and water sectors, 18 of them do not mention nanotechnology on their websites. The other 32 companies discuss nanotechnology in varying degrees. However, only two of the companies relate their nanotechnology R&D to poverty alleviation. Even though few companies refer to poverty alleviation, 30 firms of the sample have some type of corporate social responsibility programs. From the study, we cannot definitively conclude that nanotechnology is a technology only for wealthy consumers, but we do find that the companies analyzed do not give much attention to pro-poor nanotechnology
3D printers are hailed as the next revolutionary technology, but will they be responsible innovat... more 3D printers are hailed as the next revolutionary technology, but will they be responsible innovations and help decrease poverty and inequality? This paper determines the availability and accessibil...
Aim: This study explores the impact nanomedicine will have on global health, poverty and inequali... more Aim: This study explores the impact nanomedicine will have on global health, poverty and inequality. Materials & methods: Using a nanotechnology search strategy, the team extracted nanotechnology clinical trials (CT) from the dataset clinicaltrials.gov . The team then combined CT with information about burden of disease data from the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation. Finally, the team ran regression analyses to determine whether nanotechnology CT are decreasing inequality compared with non-nanotechnology CT. Results & conclusion: Nanomedicine and non-nanomedicine CT follow similar research patterns. In general, nanomedicine is neither increasing nor decreasing the technological gap between countries in the global North and South.
A major goal of government and non-profit scientific funding agencies is to support research and ... more A major goal of government and non-profit scientific funding agencies is to support research and development (R&D) that has broad impacts, generates responsible innovation, and positively impacts society. This study proposes a new framework, called the Inclusion-Immediacy Criterion (IIC), that better assesses the inclusion and immediacy of research to determine whether the research helps marginalized communities, reduces inequality, and encourages inclusive innovation. To test the framework, the study analyzes NSF sponsored nanotechnology grant abstracts from 2013 to 2017. We find that 109 out of the 300 grants feature research that is inclusive, while 235 out of the 300 grants have broader impacts that either maintain the status quo or predominately help advantage groups. Using the Inclusion-Immediacy Criterion, policy makers and scholars will better understand the potential impact of funded science.
Socio-technical governance has been of long-standing interest to science and technology studies a... more Socio-technical governance has been of long-standing interest to science and technology studies and science policy studies. Recent calls for midstream modulation direct attention to a more complicated model of innovation, and a new place for social scientists to intervene in research, design and development. This paper develops and expands this earlier work to demonstrate how a suite of concepts from science and technology studies and innovation studies can be used as a heuristic tool to conduct real-time evaluation and reflection during the process of innovation – upstream, midstream, and downstream. The result of this new protocol is inclusivity mainstreaming: determining if and how marginalized peoples and perspectives are being maximally incorporated into the model of innovation, while highlighting common problems of inequality that need to be addressed.
Uploads
Papers by Thomas Woodson