The Value of Science: Special Theme
The Value of Science: Special Theme
复制标题
科学的价值：特别主题
DOI：
10.1162/99608f92.4a01213d
复制
发表时间：
2022
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Nunez, Allison
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lane, Julia;Kim, Brian;Kreuter, Frauke;Nunez, Allison
提高可用于证据构建的数据质量一直是许多国家的主要关注点。在美国，在联邦层面，公法 115-435（称为 2018 年循证决策基础法案或“证据法案”）和联邦数据战略的通过激励了政府机构和学术界。正如众议院监督和政府改革委员会在 2015 年指出的那样，“如果没有证据，联邦政府就代表纳税人来说是一个无效的受托人。不幸的是，在许多情况下，联邦决策者无法获得为决策提供最佳信息所需的数据。在这种情况下，各机构无法显示他们管理的计划的好处或影响，也无法确定计划会产生什么（如果有的话）意外后果，或者计划是否可以改进”（HR Rep.No. 114-211, 2015）。从科学投资的经验中可以学到很多关于如何对证据进行投资的知识。大约 20 年前，时任总统科学顾问约翰·马尔堡 (John Marburger) 向国家科学委员会指出：“我完全没有信心提出或回答正确的问题来为行动提供指导。我们有劳动力数据，但我不知道如何使用，而且我们有劳动力问题，其答案似乎不仅仅需要数据”（Marburger III，2011）。联邦政府的回应是通过建立科学与创新政策 (SciSIP) 计划和美国科学技术再投资：衡量国家科学基金会对创新、竞争力和科学研究的影响 (STAR METRICS) 来投资有关科学和工程企业的数据和证据（Teich，2018）慈善基金会，特别是 Alfred P. Sloan 和 Ewing Marion Kauffman基金会——随后投资了密歇根大学创新与科学研究所 (IRIS) 的 UMETRICS 数据基础设施（IRIS，2021；Lane 等人，2015）。
Improving the quality of data that can be used for evidence building has been a major focus in many countries. In the United States, at the federal level, passage of Public Law 115-435, known as the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 or the “Evidence Act,” and the Federal Data Strategy have galvanized government agencies and the academic community. As the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform pointed out in 2015,“Without evidence, the federal government is an ineffective fiduciary on behalf of the taxpayer. Unfortunately, in many instances, federal decision-makers do not have access to the data necessary to best inform decisions. In such instances, agencies are unable to show the benefits or impacts of the programs they administer and cannot determine what, if any, unintended consequences are created by programs, or whether programs can be improved”(HR Rep. No. 114-211, 2015).Much can be learned about how to make investments in evidence from the experience of investments in the science of science. Almost 20 years ago, then Presidential Science Advisor John Marburger noted to the National Science Board:“I am not at all confident that the right questions are being asked or answered to provide guidance for action. We have workforce data that I do not understand how to use, and we have workforce questions whose answers would seem to require more than merely data”(Marburger III, 2011). The response of the federal government was to invest in data and evidence about the science and engineering enterprise with the establishment of the Science of Science and Innovation Policy (SciSIP) program and the Science and Technology for America's Reinvestment: Measuring the Effect of Research on Innovation, Competitiveness and Science (STAR METRICS) at the National Science Foundation (Teich, 2018) Philanthropic foundations—particularly the Alfred P. Sloan and Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation—subsequently invested in the UMETRICS data infrastructure at the Institute for Research on Innovation and Science (IRIS) at the University of Michigan (IRIS, 2021; Lane et al., 2015).