Technically Based Programs in Science, Technology, and Public Policy

doi:10.1017/9781316691489.001

Chapter 1 - Technically Based Programs in Science, Technology, and Public Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 November 2019

M. Granger Morgan and

Douglas Sicker

Edited by

Todd L. Pittinsky

Show author details

Todd L. Pittinsky: Affiliation:
Stony Brook University, State University of New York

Book contents

Get access

Summary

In this chapter, we review and discuss academic programs in technology and public policy, focusing on those that are either located in an engineering college or have a strong engineering focus. We consider what constitutes technically focused research in programs melding engineering and policy, where and how this work is done, the focus of these programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels, and the challenges of building and sustaining such programs.

Many academic programs in the United States and elsewhere focus on the social studies aspects of science, technology, and public policy- Indeed, most programs listed in the original American Association for the Advancement of Science guide to graduate education in science, engineering, and public policy were in this category (Levey, 1995). Few programs combine deep technical education and understanding with modern social science and policy-analytical skills and knowledge.

Type: Chapter
Information: Science, Technology, and Society
New Perspectives and Directions
, pp. 1 - 27

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316691489.001 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

ABET (2018). Frequently asked questions (FAQ). Retrieved from www.abet.org/faq/Google Scholar

Agricultural Economics, Purdue University (2003). Indiana Pi. Retrieved from www.agecon.purdue.edu/crd/Localgov/Second%20Level%20pages/Indiana_Pi_Story.htm Google Scholar

Bowers, R., & Frey, J. (1972). Technology assessment and microwave diodes. Scientific American, 226, 13–21.CrossRef Google Scholar

Brooks, H. (1964). The scientific adviser. In Gilpin, R. & Wrights, C. (Eds.), Scientists and national policy making (pp. 73–96). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Brooks, H., & Bowers, R. (1977). Technology: Process of assessment and choice. In Teich, A. H. (Ed.), Technology and man’s future (2nd ed., pp. 229–242). New York, NY: St. Martins Press.Google Scholar

Coase, R. H. (1998). Comment on Thomas W. Hazlett: Assigning property rights to radio spectrum users: Why did FCC license auctions take 67 years? Journal of Law and Economics, 41, 577–580. https://doi.org/10.1086/467403 CrossRef Google Scholar

Cornell University Department of Science and Technology Studies (2018a). Academics. Retrieved from https://sts.cornell.edu/academics Google Scholar

Cornell University Department of Science and Technology Studies (2018b). Graduate program. Retrieved from http://sts.cornell.edu/phd Google Scholar

Cornell University Department of Science and Technology Studies (2018c). Overview. Retrieved from http://sts.cornell.edu/phd Google Scholar

de Neufville, R., & Scholtes, S. (2011). Flexibility in design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Hahn, R. (1989). Economic prescriptions for environmental problems: How the patient followed the doctor’s orders. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3(2), 95–114. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.3.2.95 CrossRef Google Scholar

Hahn, R. W., & Noll, R. (1982). Designing a market for tradable emissions permits. In Magat, W. (Ed.), Reform of environmental regulation (pp. 119–146). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar

Hazlett, T. W. (1998). Assigning property rights to radio spectrum users: Why did FCC license auctions take 67 years? Journal of Law and Economics, 41, 529–575. https://doi.org/10.1086/467402 Google Scholar

Hendrickson, C. T., Lave, L. B., & Matthews, H. S. (2006). Environmental life cycle assessment of goods and services: An input-output approach. New Haven, CT: RFF Press.Google Scholar

Howard, R. A., & Matheson, J. E. (1977). Readings in decision analysis., Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.Google Scholar

Howard, R. A., Matheson, J. E., & North, D. W. (1972). The decision to seed hurricanes. Science, 176, 1191–1202. Retrieved from www.warnernorth.net/hurricanes.pdf CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Ignall, E. J., Kolesar, P., Swersey, A. J., Walker, W. E., Blum, E. H., Carter, G., & Bishop, H. (1975). Improving the deployment of New Your City fire companies. Interfaces, 5, 48–61. https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.5.2pt2.48 CrossRef Google Scholar

John Glenn College of Public Affairs (2018). Science, engineering, and public policy minor. Retrieved from http://glenn.osu.edu/undergraduate/sepp/Google Scholar

Joravsky, D. (1986). The Lysenko Affair. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternative and public policies. Columbus, GA: Little, Brown.Google Scholar

Knezo, G. J. (2005). Technology assessment in Congress: History and legislative options (CRS Report for Congress No. RS21586). Retrieved from http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21586.pdf Google Scholar

Lave, L B. (1996). Benefit-cost analysis: Do the benefits exceed the costs? In Hahn, R. (Ed.), Risks costs and lives saved: Getting better results from regulation (pp. 104–134). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lave, L. B., Hendrickson, C. T., & McMichael, F. C. (1995). Environmental implications of electric cars. Science, 268, 993–995. doi:10.1126/science.268.5213.993Google Scholar

Levey, L. (1995). Guide to graduate education in science, engineering and public policy. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved from http://grantome.com/grant/NSF/NCSES-8921065 Google Scholar

Little, J. D.C. (2002). Philip M. Morse and the beginnings. Operations Research, 50, 146–148. doi:10.1287/opre.50.1.146.17799CrossRef Google Scholar

Lumina Decision Systems (2009). Who uses Analytica? Retrieved from http://www.lumina.com/ana/usesofanalytica.htm Google Scholar

Maslow, A. (1966). The psychology of science: A reconnaissance. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

McMaster University (2018). Bachelor of engineering and society: Overview. Retrieved from www.eng.mcmaster.ca/engphys/programs/degree-options/bengsociety Google Scholar

Michigan Engineering (2018). Undergraduate degrees and programs. Retrieved from www.engin.umich.edu/academics/undergraduate-degrees/Google Scholar

Miller, R. E., & Blair, P. D. (1985). Input–output analysis: Foundations and extensions. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Mishan, E. J. (1972). Elements of cost-benefit analysis. Crows Nest, Australia: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar

Mooney, C. (2006). The Republican war on science. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Morgan, M. G. (2010). Technology and policy. In Grasso, D. & Burkins, M. (Eds.), Holistic engineering education: The dawn of a new era (pp. 271–281). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Morgan, M. G. (2011). Technically focused policy analysis. In Husbands-Fealing, K., Lane, J., Margurger, J. III, & Shipp, S. (Eds.), The science of science policy: A handbook (pp. 120–130). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., & Atman, C. (2002). Risk communication: A mental models approach. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Morgan, M. G., & Henrion, M. (1999). Uncertainty: A guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Morgan, M. G., & McMichael, F. C. (1981). A characterization and critical discussion of models and their use in environmental policy. Policy Sciences, 14, 345–370. doi:10.1007/BF00138489CrossRef Google Scholar

Morgan, M. G., & Peha, J. (Eds.) (2003). Science and technology advice to the Congress. New Haven, CT: RFF Press.Google Scholar

Paté-Cornell, M.-E., & Fischbeck, P. S. (1993). PRA as a management tool: Organizational factors and risk-based priorities for the maintenance of the tiles of the space shuttle orbiter. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 40, 239–257. doi:10.1016/0951-8320(93)90063-5CrossRef Google Scholar

Paté-Cornell, M.-E., Lakats, L. M., Murphy, D. M., & Gaba, D. M. (1997). Anesthesia patient risk: A quantitative approach to organizational factors and risk management. Risk Analysis, 17, 511–523. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb00892.xGoogle Scholar

Patiño-Echeverri, D., Morel, B., Apt, J., & Chen, C. (2007). Should a coal-fired power plant be replaced or retrofitted? Environmental Science and Technology, 41, 7980–7986. doi:10.1021/es0711009Google Scholar

Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland; or, Why it’s amazing that federal programs work at all, this being a saga of the Economic Development Administration as told by two sympathetic observers who seek to build morals on a foundation of ruined hopes. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Quade, E. S. (1975). Analysis for public decisions. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Raiffa, H., & Schlaifer, R. (1968). Applied statistical decision theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Rosenberg, N. (1982). Inside the black box: Technology and economics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sagan, C. (1995). The demon-haunted world: Science as a candle in the dark. New York, NY: Random House.Google Scholar

Small, M. J. (2008). Methods for assessing uncertainty in fundamental assumptions and associated models for cancer risk assessment. Risk Analysis, 28, 1289–1307. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01134.xCrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Stanford University (2018). Stanford engineering: Undergraduate program. Retrieved from https://msande.stanford.edu/academics/undergraduate-programs Google Scholar

Stiber, N. A., Small, M. J., & Pantazidou, M. (2004). Site-specific updating and aggregation of Bayesian belief network models for multiple experts. Risk Analysis, 24, 1529–1538. doi:10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00547.xGoogle Scholar

Stony Brook University (2018a). Undergraduate: Technological systems management. Retrieved from www.stonybrook.edu/academics/program-details-undergraduate/index.php?code=tsm&type=description&level=undergrad_bulletin_data#ProgramOverview Google Scholar

Stony Brook University (2018b). Undergraduate bulletin: Fall 2018–Spring 2019 working copy. Retrieved from www.stonybrook.edu/sb/bulletin/_workingcopy/academicprograms/tsm/degreesandrequirements.php Google Scholar

Thayer School of Engineering at Dartmouth (2018). Perspective: Engineering and politics. Retrieved from https://engineering.dartmouth.edu/magazine/perspective-engineering-and-politics Google Scholar

US Government Accountability Office (2002). Technology assessment: Using biometrics for border security (Report No. GAO-03-174). Retrieved from www.gao.gov/assets/160/157313.pdf Google Scholar

US Government Accountability Office (2005). Technology assessment: Protecting structures and improving communications during wildland fires (Report No. GAO-05-380). Retrieved from www.gao.gov/assets/160/157597.pdf Google Scholar

Wasserman, L. (2000). Bayesian model selection and model averaging. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 44, 92–107. doi:10.1006/jmps.1999.1278CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed