Encouraging Responsible Innovation In the University

1
Encouraging Responsible Innovation In the
University

• David H. Guston
• Associate Professor and Director
• Program in Public Policy
• Bloustein School of Planning Public Policy
• Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
• 33 Livingston Ave., suite 202
• New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1980
• 732-932-2499 x707
• 732-932-1107 (fax)
• guston_at_rci.rutgers.edu

2
ABSTRACT

• Research universities have become a critical
  location for the generation of not just new
  knowledge but also commercial innovations driven
  by scientific discoveries. In the US in the
  1970s, universities at the insistence of the
  government adopted protocols to assure the
  protection of human research subjects. In the
  1980s, they adopted, also at the insistence of
  government, protocols to assure the integrity of
  their research (through policies and procedures
  to combat research misconduct) and the
  productivity of their research (through offices
  of technology transfer). But when universities
  reap millions of dollars from licensing fees,
  when their faculty operate with increasing
  conflicts of interest or commitment, and when the
  knowledge-based innovation they stoke fuels
  societal change, doing no harm and contributing
  economically do not exhaust the ethical
  responsibilities of universities. This
  presentation describes Centers for Responsible
  Innovation as organizational solutions to
  universities current situation, as well as a
  research program, real-time technology
  assessment, that could help assure that choices
  being made by scientists and engineers on campus
  reflect responsible concern for the public good.

3
Drawn from

• D. H. Guston. 2004. CRIs in the Wilderness
  Toward Centers for Responsible Innovation in the
  Commercialized Academy. In D. Stein, ed. Buying
  in or Selling Out Essays in the
  Commercialization of the American Research
  University. New Brunswick Rutgers University
  Press.
• D. H. Guston and D. Sarewitz. 2001. "Real-Time
  Technology Assessment." Technology in Society
  23(4)93-109.

4
Encouraging Responsible Innovation in the
University

• I. Framing Well-Ordered Science
• II. Overview of the University Research
  Enterprise
• III. Three Premises About the Commercialized
  University
• IV. Tasks That CRIs Would Perform
• V. Grounding of CRIs in Contemporary Science and
  Technology Studies
• VI. Facing Objections to CRIs

5
I. Framing Well-ordered science

• Philip Kitchers Science, Truth, and Democracy
• well-ordered science
• Not vulgar democracy
• Not elite-dominated
• but
• a highly informed public
• coupled with a public spirited research community
• sets overall priorities

6
I. Framing Well-ordered science

• Contemporary policy environment falls short on
  both counts of informed public participation and
  unselfish scientific service
• Therefore, needs for
• sociological information required to build
  realistic models of the construction of tutored
  collective preferences
• a political theory of science that will consider
  the various ways in which the interests of actors
  and social institutions relate to outcomes in
  well-ordered science.

7
II. Overview of the University Research
Enterprise in the US

• Federal FY 05 RD request is about 132 billion,
  with 74 B (56) slated for Defense-related
  activities and 58 B slated for civilian
  activities.
• By historical standards, slightly lt 25, or
  perhaps about 30 B, of the federal total will be
  spent at universities and colleges.

8
II. Overview of the University Research
Enterprise in the US

• In 2002, universities performed some 37.5 B of
  RD, funded by the following sources
• 22.5 B federal government
• 2.5 B non-fed govt
• 2.3 B industry
• 7.5 B universities colleges
• 2.7 B non-profits
• Funding from industry increased, in 1996 constant
  dollars, about 43 from 1993 to 2002.
• Funding from universities colleges themselves
  has increased about 71.

9
II. Overview of the University Research
Enterprise in the US

• Technology Transfer Activities AT US Universities
  (AUTM, 2002)
• Invention Disclosures 15,573 by 221
  institutions.
• New US Patent Apps 7,741 by 216 institutions.
• US Patents issued 3,673 by 219 institutions.
• Licenses and Options 4,673 by 219 institutions
  (nearly half, but slightly declining proportion,
  exclusive).
• Gross License Income 1.3 B by 218
  institutions.
• New Start-Ups 450 by 214 institutions.

10
III. Three Premises about the Commercialized
University

• Premise 1
• Universities will continue in the business of
  knowledge-based innovation for a long time.
• Premise 2
• The commercial aspect of the university will not
  disappear (and may grow stronger).
• Premise 3
• The enterprise of knowledge-based innovation has
  normative dimensions that science policy
  confronts only marginally or in ad hoc ways.

11
IV. Tasks that CRI Would Perform Teaching

• Brokering interdisciplinary opportunities
• Support science engineering departments in
  federal or professionally mandated programs
• NIH traineeships
• ABET 2000
• Propose, plan, implement novel interdisciplinary
  programs
• STS
• Cross-training

12
IV. Tasks that CRI Would PerformResearch

• engaging in cooperative ELSI-type research
• Real-time Technology Assessment (RTTA)
• Provide small fellowships and advice for students
• Assist/collaborate with scientists and engineers
  in articulating the societal implications of
  their work

13
IV. Tasks that CRI Would Perform Service

• reaching out to decision makers and public
• Information programs for public officials
• Non-academic outlets for publications
• Two-way communications with lay public

14
V. Grounding of CRIs in Contemporary STS

• Proposal draws on recent, more detailed
  familiarity with public participation in
  technical decision making
• Consensus Conferences
• Citizens Juries
• Scenario Workshops, etc.

15
V. Grounding of CRIs in Contemporary STS

• Proposal draws on recent research on boundary
  organizations that operate at the interface
  between science and other societal activities to
  help produce better outcomes
• Offices of Technology Transfer
• Cooperative Extension Services
• Other knowledge assessment dissemination
  organizations

16
V. Grounding of CRIs in Contemporary STS

• Proposal draws on recent research on RTTA, which
  provides a framework for collaboration between,
  on one hand, natural scientists engineers, and
  on the other, social scientists humanists, to
  explore the ethical, legal, and societal
  implications of new knowledge earlier in the
  research process
• Analogical Case Studies
• Research Program Mapping
• Communication Early Warning
• Technology Assessment Choice

17
VI. Facing Objections to CRIs

• Objection CRIs will institutionalize criticism
  of science.
• Response Institutionalized criticism of
  science, akin to art or food criticism, is
  needed.
• Response Proof-of-concept in some
  collaborations already extant, e.g,
  collaborations between ASU nanotech researchers
  and CSPO science policy people.

18
VI. Facing Objections to CRIs

• Objection CRI could contribute to ELSI-fication
  of the social sciences.
• Response ELSI-type work is big, but not
  overwhelming aspect of social science research.
• Response More likely result is taking over of
  ELSI-type research by programs of study, like
  genome, info tech, nanotech with huge inertia
  already. CRIs could provide ELSI-type research
  on programs that still might be flexible.

19
Conclusion

• Well-ordered Science,
• One University at a Time