Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T19:27:23.986Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 November 2019

By
M. Granger Morgan  and
Douglas Sicker
Edited by
Todd L. Pittinsky
Todd L. Pittinsky
Affiliation:
Stony Brook University, State University of New York
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
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.)

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.htmGoogle Scholar
Bowers, R., & Frey, J. (1972). Technology assessment and microwave diodes. Scientific American, 226, 13–21.CrossRefGoogle 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/10.1086/467403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornell University Department of Science and Technology Studies (2018a). Academics. Retrieved from https://sts.cornell.edu/academicsGoogle Scholar
Cornell University Department of Science and Technology Studies (2018b). Graduate program. Retrieved from http://sts.cornell.edu/phdGoogle Scholar
Cornell University Department of Science and Technology Studies (2018c). Overview. Retrieved from http://sts.cornell.edu/phdGoogle 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.3.2.95CrossRefGoogle 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/10.1086/467402Google 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.pdfCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.5.2pt2.48CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.pdfGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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-8921065Google Scholar
Little, J. D.C. (2002). Philip M. Morse and the beginnings. Operations Research, 50, 146–148. doi:10.1287/opre.50.1.146.17799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lumina Decision Systems (2009). Who uses Analytica? Retrieved from http://www.lumina.com/ana/usesofanalytica.htmGoogle 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/bengsocietyGoogle 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/BF00138489CrossRefGoogle 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)90063-5CrossRefGoogle 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.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stanford University (2018). Stanford engineering: Undergraduate program. Retrieved from https://msande.stanford.edu/academics/undergraduate-programsGoogle 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#ProgramOverviewGoogle Scholar
Stony Brook University (2018b). Undergraduate bulletin: Fall 2018–Spring 2019 working copy. Retrieved from www.stonybrook.edu/sb/bulletin/_workingcopy/academicprograms/tsm/degreesandrequirements.phpGoogle Scholar
Thayer School of Engineering at Dartmouth (2018). Perspective: Engineering and politics. Retrieved from https://engineering.dartmouth.edu/magazine/perspective-engineering-and-politicsGoogle 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.pdfGoogle 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.pdfGoogle Scholar
Wasserman, L. (2000). Bayesian model selection and model averaging. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 44, 92–107. doi:10.1006/jmps.1999.1278CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×