Why Philosophy of Science and Science Policy?

Why focus on connecting Philosophy of Science to Science Policy?

I worry that science policy practitioners and researchers need to be more reflective about what science policy should be. I think that research concepts from philosophy of science, as well as trained philosophers of science themselves, can be an important way to improve science policy, helping society to be more deliberate and ethical in the means and ends of scientific and engineering practice.

I’ve made this site to help encourage fruitful interaction and reflection, in ways that can help both policy practitioners and academic philosophers understand potential directions for science policy, as well as how they can better get involved in shaping science policy practice.

What is Science Policy?

The US federal government spends $172 billion dollars a year on research and development across all fields of science, engineering, and technology. 

‘Science policy’ is often used as a simple descriptor to describe the vast array of policies and administrative work across all those fields. Policy making is often defined as purposeful actions to define the goals, methods and culture of institutions. Policy analysis, as such, should be distinct from politics, which debates what good should be pursued by a society. Policy analysis involves refining politically established goals and reflecting more carefully on how they should be done.

I use an expansive view of science policy  to describe much of the work done inside government agencies: the mechanics of how proposed science and engineering efforts are formulated, assessed and implemented all greatly shape what science and engineering gets done. This view contrasts with a narrower view, which focuses on policy-making as involving national proclamations by an Executive or Congressional branch leader, and the work done by their direct staff is characterized as policy analysis. This narrower view is inapt. Indeed, thousands of government employees interact to make decisions on what ‘science’ should be done,  which is often called policy for science. Thousands of other government employees work in agencies that focus on missions, from oceanic observation, defense, renewable energy, space exploration, etc., where they must use science and engineering to inform other decisions, in a way often referred to as ‘science for policy.’ The work done by staffers at many levels can significantly shape what high level national science policy outcomes will be.

Science policy is not yet what it should be. In a classic and foundational essay, the science policy scholar Dan Sarewitz once asked “Does Science Policy Matter?” In focusing on policy for science, especially on decisions about what science budgets should be, he found that discretionary, non-defense science funding has largely remained constant with inflation for the last 50 years. In other words, after exhaustive yearly budget debates among civil servants at government agencies, the best predictor of what future science budgets will be tends to be the funding levels from the year prior. If the entire budget system is driven by inertia, then many high profile policy debates about funding levels may be more theater than rigorous analysis. It raises concerns about frequent requests for increased science funding: are there reasons  that justify additional research funding that identify tangible benefits to society? Or are funding requests merely political push to create more science and engineering jobs? Sarewitz worried that an unduly  self-serving politics may be shaping many prominent science policy proclamations.

Science policy research and practice, at its best, should be holistic in thinking about how science and engineering affect society, seeking to use tools to best shape science to benefit society. Sarewitz discussed a series of deeper questions for improving science policy, such as thinking about the values underlying research, who benefits, and how science can be best connected to societal outcomes. Answering these questions requires new research and work, much of which requires a deep engagement with science itself, alongside the creation of new conceptual frameworks for how science and engineering actually shapes societal outcomes. It also needs a lot of new research and data collection, to better understand how science policy decisions can affect actions in practice. [1]

What is Philosophy of Science?

Philosophical reflection can be a way to dig more deeply into any concept, and philosophy of science is one sub-field in broader academic philosophy. The philosophy of science can ask many questions about the nature of science, reflecting on topics such as the nature of scientific theories, how explanations work, how models work,  etc. The Philosophy of Science Association is the main professional group for philosophers of science, and other interesting groups abound, such as the Society for Philosophy of Science in Practice (SPSP). Philosophers of science increasingly focus on specific sub-disciplines, such as the philosophy of biology, physics, technology, and chemistry. 

I discuss key relevant literature in the “Literature” page, but I personally find tremendous value in a specific  style of philosophy of science that often casts itself as doing science and focusing on conceptual questions in collaboration with scientists. This “Practice Turn” in philosophy of science, combined with what some call a naturalistic approach to philosophy, can be helpful at getting critical understanding of science and engineering.

It should be noted that many other humanities and social sciences fruitfully explore science: the Science, Technology, and Society studies (STS) community brings together philosophers, historians, sociologists and other disciplines. [2]

Footnotes:

[1]  Citing Sarewitz, former Presidential Science Advisor Jack Marburger pushed the National Science Foundation to create a “Science of Science Policy” (SciSIP) program to do research that can better improve science policy.  While the vision was clear, its implementation hasn’t achieved the sea change in science policy practice that Sarewitz called for.

[2] Much of my plea for integrating philosophy of science into science policy can well apply to Science and Technology Studies (STS) generally. I focus on philosophy of science because I think the specific conceptual skills that philosophers have can be helpful in policy, and find that the cultural attitude of some philosophers of science can be helpful in engaging with policy practitioners. However, there is clearly a long history of political friction among science studies scholars and philosophers, and some STS scholars make poignant critiques that philosophers of science sometimes excessively ignore the social context of their work.