Excerpted from a piece I just posted on DiscoverMagazine.com:

Prizes: This old idea is making a sweeping comeback and it is changing the way government, industry and foundations help revolutionize future discovery. It’s high time we offer prizes to motivate and galvanize the public to come up with creative, real-time solutions to major disasters, such as the BP oil spill.

Approximately one-and-a-half weeks ago, I received an email from Andrew Revkin (who writes the DotEarth blog at The New York Times) in which he challenged researchers and others to think creatively about substantive approaches to stanching the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

“There’s a lot of talk about sweeping Grand Engineering Challenges this year. But one is unfolding in real-time in the Gulf. Waiting months for a relief well seems pretty in the box,” he wrote in the email (reprinted with Revkin’s permission), and reiterated in this blog post.

While it’s true that BP is accepting public suggestions about ideas to mitigate the oil spill, the process needs some tweaking. From the Deepwater Horizon Response website: “Once a formal suggestion has been filed, BP technical personnel will carefully evaluate each and every one for technical feasibility and proof of application. If the engineering group finds the suggestion feasible, the person submitting the suggestion will be contacted if and when their support is needed.”

BP technical personnel will evaluate the suggestions? Seems a little too cozy to me.

For the same reasons President Obama wants to divide the Minerals Management Service into two agencies–one charged with inspecting oil rigs, investigating oil companies and enforcing safety regulations, and another to oversee leases for drilling and collection of billions of dollars in royalties–perhaps we should consider a third-party administrator to solicit and evaluate proposed solutions from the public.

I suspect the White House would agree. Earlier this week, Beth Noveck, U.S. Deputy Chief Technology Officer and Director of the White House Open Government Initiative, summarized on the White House blog the highlights of a  recent Prize Summit organized by the Office of Science and Technology Policy and some of the major players in the world of big prizes. “Leaders from over thirty Federal agencies have come to learn about how to incorporate prizes and incentive-backed challenges into their work of addressing complex policy problems,” Noveck reported.  The summit helped agencies learn more about the benefits of prizes while setting forth guidelines, like this one from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB): “A prize should not be an end in itself, but one means within a broader strategy for spurring private innovation and change.”

Hold the phone. What if one IS looking for an end in itself, such as an immediate solution to the oil spill? Read full post.

On the heels of this announcement about a new effort to involve citizens in technology assessment, comes this word from David Sittenfeld at the Boston Museum of Science, one of the five founding partners of this initiative known as ECAST: Expert and Citizen Assessment of Science and Technology. The core group  includes: Richard Sclove (LOKA Institute), Dave Rejeski (Woodrow Wilson Intl Center for Scholars in DC), Dave Guston and Mahmud Farooque (Arizona State Univ), Larry Bell, David Rabkin and David Sittenfeld from the Boston Museum of Science, and me (Science Cheerleader):

Yesterday, Iannis Miaoulis, testified before the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. As part of his written testimony, he included the following paragraph about our ECAST efforts:

“Finally, the Museum is also concerned with public education concerning new technologies and in public engagement with science and technology policy. The Museum has joined forces with the Science and Technology Innovation Program at the Wilson Center, the Consortium of Science, Policy, and Outcomes at Arizona State University, Science Cheerleader, and the Loka Institute to create a nationwide network to conduct Expert & Citizen Assessment of Science & Technology (ECAST). The ECAST network will combine the skills of nonpartisan policy research organizations with
the research strengths of universities and the public outreach and education capabilities of science museums. By educating and engaging laypeople, participatory technology assessment enables decision-makers to learn of their constituents‘ informed views regarding emerging developments in science and technology. We urge Congress to support OSTP and GAO in efforts to support ECAST and engage the public in discourse about STEM-related policy issues.”

(PS: it’s ok to chuckle at the sight of “Science Cheerleader” in that mix…I did!)

A very thoughtful person from Switzerland, Joanie, sent this newspaper article (about moi) to me this morning. It’s written in French so she translated it to English. (Thanks, Joanie!)

Hello Darlene,

I read this article in the newspaper yesterday. The paper is called “Le Matin Bleu”, it is published in the Western (French) part of Switzerland. As I found it interesting, I thought you’d like to have it so I have attached it to this email. I also made a translation for you, you’ll find it below. Go on with your ecology projects, I like them. Sincerely,  Joanie.

That takes the cake (idiom equivalent)
In Obama’s country a former cheerleader makes everyone go green.

COMMITMENT. In 1991, Darlene Cavalier hung up her pompoms; after many years in the spotlights with the Philadelphia Sixers, the young woman decides to go green (before its time). Logically, she starts biology studies, gets small jobs here and there, then creates a website, “The Science Cheerleader”, that aims at winning common people over to her passion: the environment. Score! In a country were only 7% of the people says being interested in science, the initiative is a straight success.

Today, the ex-cheerleader is the head of an army of green guys. Her website is getting more and more popular and lists a mass of ideas and projects useful for the earth and easy to apply!

Why hasn’t Obama nominated her as the Head of Energy? If she hasn’t obtained the Nobel Prize yet, you’ll certainly agree, she gives a sexier image to it!”
www.sciencecheerleader.com

From the White House:
“Look for a blog post on participation beginning on June 10th and get involved! We improve citizen participation by demonstrating its effectiveness in practice.”

SC Note: Of course this came from the White House.  Will we live to see the day when Congress utters those words? I say, YES! (For new subscribers, that was my attempt to bait Congress into a deeper discussion on how and why they should reopen a 21st Century Office of Technology Assessment with an emphasis on public participation.)

TUESDAY, JUNE 9TH, 2009 AT 9:45 PM
Wrap-Up of the Open Government Brainstorming: Participation
Posted by Beth Noveck
On May 21st through June 3rd, thousands of you shared your ideas in Phase I of this public consultation process, the Open Government Brainstorm.   June 3rd marked the beginning of Phase II, the Discussion Phase. We started with your ideas on Transparency.  Hundreds of comments flooded in from across the country.  Tomorrow we turn to Participation. This blog posting sets the stage for that conversation by summarizing the input we received on participation during the Brainstorm.

As the President noted in his January 21st Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government, participation is essential because: “Public engagement enhances the Government’s effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions. Knowledge is widely dispersed in society, and public officials benefit from having access to that dispersed knowledge.” In the Open Government Brainstorm, you suggested many ideas for how to create and improve opportunities for public participation in government. In the next four days, we will take the next step in translating those ideas into concrete, measurable and cost-effective solutions.

We’ve heard from so many of you just how important public participation in political life can be. Several groups sent us lofty participation principles, such as these from the International Association of Public Participation and these from the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation. We read and considered all the participation ideas you generated during the Open Government Brainstorm hosted by the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA). We also reviewed ideas submitted by federal employees, who were particularly engaged and lively on this topic. NAPA did an analysis of the Brainstorm (pdf).

We grouped the participation-related suggestions you submitted into four topics that we want to discuss with you this week:

·         Enhancing citizen participation in government decision-making
·         Promoting civic education
·         Improving Web 2.0: technology and policy frameworks
·         Enhancing e-rulemaking.

Here’s how the Discussion will unfold.

On Wednesday, June 10th, we’ll address “Enhancing citizen participation in government decision-making.” On this topic, you offered a number of suggestions.  Here are a few examples of those:

·         A five day public review period before Presidential bill signing.
·         Require an “Open Government” button on each agency home page, linking to opportunities for two-way interaction.
·         Equitably incorporate diverse people, voices, ideas, and information into the participation process.
·         Decision makers communicate to participants how their input affected the decision post-hoc.
·         Make the decision framework explicit, and give the public access to that framework to increase the likelihood of comments being salient.
·         Promote a culture of participation with programs and institutions that support ongoing quality public engagement.
·         Co-create compelling alternative visions of the future as a springboard for creative policy recommendations and citizen empowerment.
·         Create ad hoc, randomly selected councils of average citizens to deliberate on an important issue and deliver an informed, thoughtful, shared solution.
·         Host a national town hall meeting or national network of citizen conversations, in which individuals would have a chance to discuss and share issues of highest public concern.
·         Host standing brainstorming sessions to generate ideas on important issues.   Appoint a small office of people to review the most popular proposals.
·         Provide citizens with nonpartisan, highly-accessible guides to public issues.

On Thursday, June 11th, we’ll turn from talking about how government can create better opportunities for participation to address how to promote the civic literacy needed to participate effectively in government. On Promoting Civic Education, you said:

·         Provide a toolkit, including neutral discussion guides, to facilitate community discussions and a website for groups to share conclusions.
·         Invest in educating Americans (e.g. through town halls) to analyze complex information.
·         Train neighborhood facilitators to use proven dialogue methods that engage a group in 3 hours or less.
·         Establish listening and personal story sharing skills workshops in homes & schools.
·         Create and sponsor teen model governments to seek solutions.
·         Combine deliberation and service on Martin Luther King Day and other holidays.

On Friday, June 12th, we’ll have 2 postings about Web 2.0: one will focus on technology, the other on policy. With regard to technology, you’ve said:

·         Permit the public to use mobile text messaging as one means to obtain information and submit input.
·         Expand access to government information through systems such as application programming interfaces (APIs), Really Simple Syndication (RSS) or Atom feeds, syndicated search results, email notifications, and similar technologies.
·         Centralize petitions to the President on a single website (like petitions.number10.gov.uk).
·         Create an online portal for citizen participation that would allow citizens to research, discuss, and oversee formation of public policy as well as locate and log community service.
·         Implement a policy wiki to enable widespread participation and help opinions converge on solutions.
·         Create a website where Americans can post personal writings and postings about the problems they face, mark their location, and vote on others’ entries as they affect them.
·         Use navigable animated demonstrations and data visualizations to help the public understand what is going on in their cities, states, and regions.
·         When using novel technologies, also advertise them in traditional media.
·         Leverage crowdsourcing strategies to write transcriptions for videos to improve accessibility for people with disabilities and ensure 508 compliance.

As part of this same discussion on June 12th, we will talk about the policies we need to support the adoption of new tools for civic engagement by federal agencies. Government officials, in particular, had a lot to say on this topic on the MAX wiki:

·         Use the insights in the document Social Media and the Federal Government: Perceived and Real Barriers and Potential Solutions from the Federal Web Managers to craft better policy.
·         Update the Paperwork Reduction Act to distinguish between citizen engagement and burdensome forms. Redefine the meaning of “form” for the digital age.
·         Define some guidelines for standard web applications that are pre-approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act, e.g. any online survey with fewer than 10 questions that does not record personal information.
·         Develop strategies for modern records management compliance to ensure accurate archiving using electronic and collaborative technologies.
·         Provide the federal information technology infrastructure community with opportunities for training around new technologies.  Make Web 2.0 part of standard operating procedure.
·         Update the cookies policy to come up to speed with the latest in browser practices and persistence technologies.  Enable agencies to harness capabilities of cookies by streamlining approval process.
·         Make social media sites and web 2.0 technologies accessible to government employees at their desks.
·         Develop policy to support informal interaction between government employees and the citizenry.
·         Develop model no-cost agreements and guidelines for use of free software by agencies.

On Saturday, June 13th, we’ll open up a dialogue on the specific topic of how to improve online public participation in agency rulemaking and talk about the new Regulations.gov Exchange site, which is set up specifically to generate brainstorming about how to enhance the quality of participation in rulemaking processes. On this topic, a number of you made suggestions, which included:

·         Feature major rulemakings on Whitehouse.gov so more of the public can participate.
·         Change regulations.gov to be more consumer-friendly, in line with recommendations from the American Bar Association.
·         Augment the regulations.gov “docket” with educational resources to help the public better understand issues and participate.
·         Provide average citizens with the information they need to participate early in the process.
·         Modify the regulatory agenda to encourage timelier, more effective participation. Specifically, eliminate the “Long Term Actions” category.
·         Improve and expand use of tools such as Action Initiation Lists for informing people about regulations under development.
·         Make it easier to stay in touch with the status of rules under development by 1) encouraging or requiring agencies to open dockets much earlier in the rulemaking process or 2) enabling the public to sign up for notifications from regulations.gov as soon as rulemaking is added to the Regulatory Agenda or Action Initiation List.
·         Invite people with expertise to volunteer to be individually contacted to get input on specialized matters during rulemaking.
·         Explain the Office of Management & Budget’s role in rulemaking, specifically demands made on advance drafts of agency rules
·         Allow the public to post anonymously to make it more difficult for institutions to “stack the deck” where there are opportunities to vote or rank ideas.
·         Instantly post comments submitted during comment period.
·         Provide information about rulemakings not required to be in the Regulatory Agenda (e.g. regulations or rules limited to agency organization, management, or personnel matters).
·         Ensure due review of proposed rules by flagging regulations that receive twice as many negative as positive comments.
·         Create a structured approach to match questioners and responders to ensure that a topic receives a response from the citizens most qualified/knowledgeable to give such response.
·         Make the chain of logic for new rules transparent by providing 1) models used, 2) numbers inserted, 3) conclusions drawn, and 4) justifications for the above.
·         Invest in new technologies for analyzing and summarizing comments.

Look for a blog post on participation beginning on June 10th and get involved! We improve citizen participation by demonstrating its effectiveness in practice.

Beth Noveck is Deputy Chief Technology Officer for Open Government.

From Shawn Otto, CEO of ScienceDebate.org (an initiative near and dear to my heart):

Barack Obama pledged to Science Debate that he would “restore the science integrity of government and restore transparency of decision-making…”

He has referred to this pledge several times since, most recently in his speech to the National Academies of Science.  On March 9, the president formally asked the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to make recommendations on how the executive branch can meet this pledge.

The OSTP has opened a public comment period regarding this directive, giving you the opportunity to share your thoughts on what the next steps should be.  Comments are due by Wednesday, May 13.

The OSTP is looking for recommendations on the six issues President Obama identified in his memo:

1. hiring and keeping qualified scientists
2. defining new policies to ensure integrity
3. using “well-established scientific processes” like peer review
4. disclosing scientific findings
5. ensuring that principles of scientific integrity are being adhered to
6. adopting additional policies like whistleblower protections

The OSTP is accepting comments via email and through their blog, here.

Many organizations in Washington will be giving their opinions of what the OSTP plan should entail.  We believe it is important for scientists and other science supporters to be included in that process, and for you to indicate to the White House how science and scientific integrity affect your work, your families, and your communities.

If you’re interested in more background information, visit the scientific integrity site of our friends at the Union of Concerned Scientists here.

If you like our work, please contribute - we are all volunteer, and individually funded.

Thanks — and we hope to see you this weekend in New York!

-The team at ScienceDebate.Org

(Me again: Does anyone else wonder if/when Congress will thaw to the idea of public participation?)

Hot off the press, here’s Holt’s opinion piece on why Congress should restore the Office of Technology Assessment. In it, he wisely cites Obama’s plans to restore science to its rightful place by bringing scientists back into the fold as advisers to the Executive Branch.  However, Holt seems to neglect the other half of the President’s effort: provide opportunities for the public to participate in science policy discussions. After all, scientists are not value-neutral beings and they should not be held responsible for determining verdicts on policy matters affecting our lives….we should have a say in the outcome.  The Executive Branch understands this.  Based on Holt’s op-ed, it’s unclear whether he or the Legislative Branch “gets” this. Hmmm. He seemed to embrace the idea when we first discussed this.

Maybe it all comes down to word count (one hopes)?

Two steps forward, one step back. Stay tuned. I need to go rattle some more cages.

Obama and the executive branch move full-steam ahead with plans to restore science to its rightful place in America. Someone wake up Congress, please!

On April 27th 2009, during remarks at the National Academy of Sciences, President Barack Obama announced the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). PCAST is an advisory group of the nation’s leading scientists and engineers who will advise the President and Vice President and formulate policy in the many areas where understanding of science, technology, and innovation is key to strengthening our economy and forming policy that works for the American people. PCAST is part of the Executive Office of the President and is administered by the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Watch the video

From the NAS website:

The president challenged NAS members to use their love and knowledge of science to inspire American students to pursue careers in science and engineering. In addition, he urged NAS members to “think about new and creative ways to engage young people in science and engineering, like science festivals, robotics competitions, and fairs that encourage young people to create, build, and invent — to be makers of things, not just consumers of things.”

Obama reiterated his commitment to education and announced a national initiative, “Race to the Top,” designed to improve student achievement in math and science and move U.S. students from the middle of the pack to the top on international benchmarks over the next decade.

By Andrew Noyes

Lawmakers should examine the role and responsibilities of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and question whether the 33-year-old office is effective, according to a Congressional Research Service report released Thursday.

Some in the science community, including a panel of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars last year, have called for the office director to be elevated to a Cabinet-level post.

A late December CRS report states that if the adviser has a close relationship with the president, certain science stakeholders may fear politicization. But an adviser who understands the sensitive relationship between the Oval Office and science community may be an administration asset, it said.

An alternative would be for Congress to make the office an independent agency.

While that might provide some distance between the president and the office it but could be viewed as inappropriately distancing the two, the report said.

The science community objected when President Richard Nixon moved the precursor to OSTP to the National Science Foundation.

Before being sworn in, President Obama emphasized the importance of science and technology advice, saying in a December address that “promoting science isn’t just about providing resources — it’s about protecting free and open inquiry.”

In that speech, he stated his intention to appoint Harvard physicist John Holdren as his science adviser, office director and co-chairman of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

He tapped Harold Varmus, the Nobel Prize-winning scientist who ran the National Institutes of Health during the Clinton administration, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology biologist Eric Lander as the Council’s co-chairmen.

Neal Lane, who was President Bill Clinton’s science adviser, urged Obama in a paper circulated Thursday to ensure the OSTP director has the title “assistant to the president” because it indicates his direct access to the commander in chief.

Science advisers to Clinton and President George H.W. Bush all held the title, but John Marburger, who served in the Bush administration, did not.

He also was not confirmed until 10 months after the administration took office, Lane noted.

Technology policy watchers have urged Obama to make the yet-to-be-named chief technology officer for the federal government a high-level official at the White House.