How Do You Study Science Policy Academically? (Part III)

Part 1 | 2 | 3

---

Part III, our final installment with Shobita Parthasarathy, author of Building Genetic Medicine, follows below. All entries in the author-meets-bloggers series can be found here.

---

WF: I cut you off at the end of the last Part. Here, I'll let you continue with the connection between women's health movements and the rise of BRCA testing.

SP: When BRCA testing came on the horizon, US and British advocates behaved somewhat differently. In the US, NBCC and other advocacy groups were (and continue to be) skeptical about the technology. They felt that the technology was still experimental, and needed to be researched more before it was commercialized and made available for widespread use. They also felt that attention to the BRCA genes might also diminish attention to other causes of breast cancer (mutations in the BRCA genes accounted only for about 5% of all breast cancers, for example.) In Britain, activists (both breast cancer activists and groups advocating for people with genetic conditions) were more concerned with ensuring that the new technology was available throughout the country. They worked with NHS officials, scientists, and health care professionals to ensure widespread but equal access. Of course, the technologies that US and British activists were dealing with were quite different. In Britain, activists were promoting a technology that was regulated, and to which patients could only access if they had clear, severe need. In the US, activists were criticizing a technology which was relatively unregulated, and was available to consumers on demand.

WF: You know, David Hess was just here talking about social movements and scientific opportunities. He observed that social movements can shift history by focusing on current political trends that are not irreversible, such as corporate consolidation, environmental degradation, democracy deficits, and increased within-nation inequality. Does your work help that argument at all?

SP: I think it is possible for social movements to have that capacity, but I think that more often than not, social movements accept the status quo (and don't try to make big changes) because that is the best way for them to gain and maintain power. This is certainly the case for breast cancer activism. The most powerful breast cancer activists, whom I referred to above, haven't really rocked the boat all that much. They haven't criticized the structure of funding for breast cancer research, for example, and the relative lack of research into the environmental dimensions of breast cancer. (There are groups who do this, but they are not anywhere near as high-profile or powerful.) This is understandable; they don't want to be seen as extreme, because if they are, then they won't be able to influence policymakers as much. Unfortunately, it also means that the status quo doesn't really change all that much, even when civil society groups get involved. (In fact, there is research that shows that the movements that are the most successful are those that have extreme wings, because under these circumstances policymakers are more likely to work with the mainstream movements because they are, in essence, less scary!) I'd say that the breast cancer advocacy movement certainly follows that pattern.

WF: You're in a School of Public Policy and you're an STS scholar. What exactly does an STS scholar do in a School of Public Policy? A lot of folks at the Scienceblogs address policy issues - be that with Chris Mooney, who does it for a living, or a range of others, who comment on what they see as flaws or holes in public policy. Can you explain a bit about how one studies science policy academically and professionally?

SP: The Ford School of Public Policy at University of Michigan is one of the few policy schools that now offers a program in Science, Technology, and Public Policy, which I co-direct. All in all, science and technology policy is not a topic that has been traditionally taught in American schools of public policy. This is due to a number of factors, including the traditional gulf between the sciences and social sciences/humanities and the history of science and technology policy in the United States. To the extent that we have science & technology policy in the US (and in a recent issue of Issues in Science and Technology, Daniel Sarewitz discusses the lack of a focused S&T policy, in contrast to other countries), its development has traditionally been dominated by the scientific and engineering communities. So basically, eminent scientists and engineers have been asked to provide advice on science & technology policy issues (sitting on peer-review panels, government advisory committees, committees of the National Academy of Sciences, testifying before Congress on S&T policy matters, etc.) Over the past couple of decades, however, in the face of a variety of social and political changes (the environmental, bioethics, and patient advocacy movements, for example), multiple scandals in the scientific community (over issues including research ethics and conflict-of-interest) and the increasing dominance of science and technology in our everyday lives, there has been increasing recognition that scientists and engineers aren't the only people who should be weighing in on S&T policy matters. Furthermore, there is increasing recognition within the science & engineering communities that the political/policy world is incredibly important to their daily work and rather complex, and that they need guidance to navigate it (whether they plan to spend their careers in the laboratory or not.)

WF: Which means our own national context is shifting.

SP: In a way, yes. In this environment, schools of public policy (and science and technology policymaking types in Washington D.C. and elsewhere) are starting to recognize that there is a need for research and education in the area of science & technology policy. Some of this work focuses on economic competitiveness issues, and how to maximize a country's (or a state's or a locality's) innovative capacity. This kind of literature explores the circumstances (e.g., R&D policies, patent regimes) that are most likely to promote innovation (usually measured by numbers of research articles or patents) and economic growth.

WF: That's a more quantitative-methods kind of approach.

SP: Perhaps so. Other work, which is heavily influenced by the field of science & technology studies, focuses on the historical, philosophical, social, and political dimensions of scientific and technological development. This work is often qualitative and case study-based, but delves into the nuts and bolts of science and technology much more and explicitly tries to understand how S&T development is shaped by society and, simultaneously, how S&T development shapes society. So this type of research is often quite helpful in trying to develop assessment and regulatory frameworks for emerging science and technology that are simultaneously economically viable, socially beneficial, and democratically accountable. Much of this research has also explored the nature of advice and expertise (in essence, the transmission of knowledge to power), and so it can be very helpful when governments need to develop expert advisory mechanisms or determine how to incorporate the public into decision-making processes (whether the issue is S&T policy-related or not.)

WF: Beyond the academy, what kind of people do you usually talk to about this work? Who needs to hear about it?

SP: I'm hoping that this book will find multiple audiences, including STS-oriented academics, policy and public health folks, and the scientific and medical communities. I'm also hoping that it will contribute to current debates in academic and policy circles about the regulation of genetic medicine, as well as broader discussions about appropriate technology assessment (in particular, building technologies that maximize ethical/social benefits and minimize ethical/social risks).

WF: What did I miss? Go Blue?

SP: Yeah, baby! So long as you don't make any snarky comments about Appalachian State. [Or Oregon?]

---

Part 1 | 2 | 3
Categories

More like this

Part 1 | 2 | 3 --- The World's Fair sits down with Shobita Parthasarathy, author of Building Genetic Medicine: Breast Cancer, Technology, and the Comparative Politics of Health Care (MIT Press, 2007), Assistant Professor at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, and Co-Director of the Science…
Part 1 | 2 | 3 --- "Dendrogram showing 18 tumors from BRCA1 mutation carriers (black branches) and two tumors from BRCA2 mutation carriers (yellow branches)" (source). Part II with Shobita Parthasarathy, author of Building Genetic Medicine, follows below. All entries in the author-meets-bloggers…
Part 1 (below) | Pt. 2 | Pt. 3 --- The World's Fair is pleased to offer the following discussion about Noxious New York: The Racial Politics of Urban Health and Environmental Justice (MIT Press, 2007), with its author Julie Sze. Sze is an associate professor of American Studies at the University of…
There's a wonderful three-part interview with Shobita Parthasarathy, author of Building Genetic Medicine: Breast Cancer, Technology, and the Comparative Politics of Health Care , over at The World's Fair. The interview is broken up into three parts: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3. Here's an excerpt from…

I'm glad to hear the Michigan program is growing and thriving. There are not many programs that do *quantitative* science and policy work. MIT has a strong M.S. program and has recently created a PhD in Technology and Public Policy. Carnegie Mellon's PhD program in Engineering and Public Policy is 30+ years old and very quantitative. Berkeley's Earth Resources Group is quite strong on the policy side, less so on the science and technology, more akin to the large public policy programs. There are several strong international programs, but again most have more policy than science focus. Delft and Cambridge come to mind.

I wouldn't call the Michigan program "quantitative" as such, but rather, I would say that it is research-based. That is, the things we teach are based on the great variety of social science research that has been written on the politics and policymaking of science and technology, from the fields of economics, political science, sociology, history, philosophy, and anthropology. In addition, we expose students to the processes of science & technology policymaking through case studies, so they can get a sense of the dynamics of the process almost first-hand.

I certainly agree that most of the S&T policy-related programs out there do so only nominally (they are often really environmental policy programs or technology management programs, for example). At Michigan, however, we are lucky that we have other programs that specialize (and excel!) in areas allied to science & technology policy (e.g., environmental policy, health policy, innovation management), so that allows us to really focus on two areas: 1) the questions and issues that arise in the process of science and technology policymaking (e.g., developing regulatory frameworks for biotechnology or nanotechnology); and 2) the way that science and technology are invoked in other arenas of policymaking (e.g., one recent example of this is how statistics and methodologies have been used and questioned in the context of the Iraq testimony given by General Petraus and Ambassador Crocker over the past week.)