close this window
R&D From Both Sides Now
Tom Price is blogging live from the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s public policy conference for Miller-McCune.com.
This is the second of two postings from the AAAS conference today. To see the first post, click here.
When it comes to deciding whether to fund a research project, business seems to have an easier job than government.
Business executives can compare the expected cost of a project with the income it might earn by making new or improved products possible. But what do government executives compare?
Speaking during the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s public policy conference today, Susan Butts, a Dow Chemical Company executive, described how businesses typically decide where to spend their research money.
Businesses fund research into technology that has the best chance for market success and can produce the greatest return through sales volume or profit margin, said Butts, who is Dow’s senior director of external science and technology programs.
She described the decision-making process as a risk-reward comparison. Possible rewards include new products, improved market position, competitive advantage, increased sales and higher profitability. Only 1 in 10 research projects succeeds, so the winners need to be profitable enough to pay for the losers, she said.
Even good science can fail commercially, she warned. The technology may not be reproducible or won’t scale up from the laboratory to the production facility. It may encounter cost or quality problems in manufacturing, or there may be insufficient market demand.
“You have science that rocks,” she explained, “but nobody wants to buy it.”
The federal government tends to make research decisions based on “expert judgment” of a project’s likely worth, which is a good way to make public policy decisions, said Department of Energy executive William Valdez. But the president, Congress and public would like to see harder data explaining the return they’re getting on the $172 billion allocated to federally supported research and development this year, he added.
Valdez and Julia Lane of the National Science Foundation co-chair a government-wide task force that’s trying to come up with better measuring sticks.
The government doesn’t fund research to make a profit but to boost the economy, advance medicine, strengthen national defense or accomplish many other goals. Valdez and Lane’s group — called the Interagency Task Group on Science of Science Policy — is trying to determine how to compare costs and benefits in those areas.
How many jobs did a specific research project create? How much did a specific grant contribute to an invention? How do you measure the value of public good?
To do that, Lane said, the group is trying to “understand the innovation process and the scientific process. How do ideas get created? How do ideas get transmitted?”
“What is the national innovation infrastructure,” Valdez added.
To do so, the group has commissioned research of its own. Some subjects: measuring innovation, measuring scientific progress and identifying patents and jobs produced by specific grants, for instance.
“What we’re trying to describe are complex, heterogeneous processes,” Lane said.
Sign up for our free e-newsletter.
Are you on Facebook? Become our fan.
Follow us on Twitter.
word on the street
more in this section
Gender Wage Gap Skewed By Survey Flaws
‘Orcas as Slaves’ Argument Sinks
The Perceived Delicacy of the Female Conductor
Prop Planes: The Future of Eco-Friendly Aviation?
House Puts Transportation in Partisan Crossfire
A Perennial Epicenter, Now for Same-Sex Marriage
Prop 8 May Be Same-Sex Couples’ Least Worry
EarthScope: A Seismic Shift in Data Gathering
Pressure to Conform Can Inspire Creativity
Learning to Read When a School System Falters
also by this author
Tom PriceTom Price is a Washington-based freelance writer who focuses on public affairs, business, technology and education. Previously he was a correspondent ...
Crafting Policy to Bridge the Red-Blue DivideThe Bipartisan Policy Center, a think tank founded four years ago by four former U.S Senate majority leaders, works to overcome political polarization.
State Budget Cuts Hurting Quality of ResearchWhile the federal component of research funding remains federal, state budget cuts threaten U.S. research quality, educators say. …
Beware of Science as Political Veneer“Scientization of politics,” not just politicization of science, weakens scientific integrity.
U.S. Challenged for High-Tech Global LeadershipA mixed picture emerges as science organizations examine the U.S. lead in innovation and where that lead is headed.
A Primer on Media in the 21st Century: Part IIIt’s been said that the so-called new media are driving a stake into the heart of the traditional dead-tree model. A recent Project for Excellence in Journalism report shows that while new media are growing in popularity, old-school reportage is still important and relevant.
Receive 1 year (6 issues) of our print magazine for just $14.95. Miller-McCune features polished, in-depth reports on research and solutions across the policy spectrum — from health care, education and energy to international affairs, poverty and the global economy. It's a must read for well-informed and solutions-driven individuals.
follow us on:
join our newsletter:
from the source
A lot of people say they watch the Super Bowl mostly for the ads. But it turns out a good game surrounding those ads makes them seem better.
After decades of obstacles hindering the voting process, new laws will allow overseas and military voters to submit their votes in time for the 2012 election.
World health leaders announce coordinated push to eradicate or control neglected tropical diseases.
A survey of award-winning children’s picture books from 1938 to 2008 suggests our increasing estrangement from the natural environment.
Rather than moaning about too many cars on the road, the Ridesharing Institute says the real key to battling traffic congestion and pollution is filling empty passenger seats.
