The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) charges experts from outside the federal government with making science, technology, and innovation policy recommendations to the President and the White House.
Over the past couple of years, PCAST has heard from many behavioral and social scientists and regularly referred to and called upon experts and findings from the fields to address pressing societal challenges. On May 22, the body met for presentations and discussion on the National Purpose of Research and Emerging Research Models at Universities
David Goldston, PhD, Director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Washington Office, provided a historical overview of federal investment in science, posing provocative questions such as how does science serve the public good, which sciences have the greatest impact, and how much spending is enough.
1940s Science: The Endless Frontier, Vannevar Bush
1950s Sputnik
1970s Research Applied to National Needs (RANN)
1980s Competing with Japan
1990s Doubling of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget
2000s Rising Above the Gathering Storm
2020s CHIPS and Science Act
To put FABBS disciplines into this timeline, the National Science Foundation (NSF) created a social science division in 1957, reportedly in response to urging by then Vice President Nixon who saw its relevance to defense strategy. Congress expanded NSF’s mandate to more explicitly include social sciences in 1968. The stand-alone directorate was later established in 1992. The recent OSTP report: Blueprint for the Use of Social and Behavioral Science to Advance Evidence-Based Policymaking is an important guide to how FABBS communities may be able to maximize the long term impact of the federal investment in basic behavioral and social science.
Are We Doing Science Right? Lisa Margonelli, Editor in Chief, Issues in Science and Technology posed this and other questions about who is doing the science and in what settings for PCAST members to consider. An interesting and wide-ranging conversation followed and include topics such as: How to incentivize more team-based approaches? Given investment in biomedical science, are we moving the needle on health? How do we foster scientific citizens in addition to citizen science.
Interestingly, the conversation returned multiple times to the social sciences. Goldston pointed out that social science funding has been erratic, eliminated under Reagan and then gradually restored. Margonelli also commented on how little the government spends on training and developing social scientists.
It has been extremely encouraging to see PCAST incorporate behavioral and social science into every meeting discussion and also invite experts from FABBS fields to present and serve on the Council.
