ED 092 001

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCYPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

HE 005 560

Rosenthal, Albert H.; And OthersScience Leadership for Tomorrow. The Role of Schoolsof Public Affairs and Universities inkMeeting Needsof Public Science Agencies.National Association of Schools of Public Affairs andAdministration, Washington, D.C.National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C.Nov 7346p.National Association of Schools of Public Affairs andAdministration, 1225 Connecticut Ave" N.W.,Washington, D. C. 20036

MF-$0.75 HC-$1.85 PLUS POSTAGE*College Role; Educational Needs; *Higher Education;Leadership; Mantoier Utilization; *Public AffairsEducation; *Resource Allocations; *ScientificManpower; Scientific Personnel; Universities

The role of schools of public affairs anduniversities in meeting needs of public science agencies is discussedin this report. Following the purposes and methodology of this study,emphasis is placed on the manpower needs in science agencies ofFederal, State, and local governments; university resources forscience policy and administration; and combining resources to meetneeds. Recommendations suggest that: (1) Well-trained personnel andeffective management of Federal programs are vital to achieve thepurposes of the public agencies. (2) The National Science Foundation(NSF) should be asked to consider the use of existing programs or theestablishment of a new mechanism to strengthen university resourcesto help provide well-trained manpower and to conduct relevantresearch to improve the effectiveness of Federal, State, and localscience agencies. (3) The director of the NSF should be requested tobring this need before appropriate Federal agencies so that they maybe asked to use existing programs as appropriate. (4) The NationalAssociation of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration Committeeon Science Policy and Administration jointly with the Council ofState Governments should develop a specific grant proposal for aprogram designed to meet the needs outlined in this report and tosubmit this proposal to the NSF and other appropriate Federalagencies. (Author/MJM)

I

Pd

Science Leadershipfor Tomorrow

The Role of Schools of Public Affairsand Universities in Meeting Needs of

Public Science Agencies

Report of the NASPAA Committee onScience Policy and Administration

With Support From The National Science Foundation

Albert H. RosenthalRobert F. Wilcox

Frank Marini

\ny opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressedherein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the

views of the National Science Foundation

November, 1973U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.

EDUtetItON LYALFPRE tNATIONAL INST11111E OF

EOUCAtiON1144., Ny )4,45 AE EN RE 4R00.)(1.0 EIC4CTIY AS RI (Cori° FROM44,1 PERSON Cc OR.C,,t,W Z041'.0..) ORIGIN.1.1.44`) PC),ACSO) %it NOR OPINIONSSt..41E 0 DO NOT NEU- SSAR.LY R E PRE

.)1' GI :i CIAl 1):)1101441. I NSti11.11E OFC.,1.41.1)4 Po,.T.ON CC S1OLIC,Y

Contents

Preface Clyde Wingfield

I. Purposes and Methodology Albert H. Rosenthal

Manpower Needs in Science Agenciesof Federal, State and LocalGovernments Robert F. Wilcox 7

III. University Resources for SciencePolicy and Administration Frank Marini 16

IV. Combining Resources to Meet Needs fl. Clyde Reeves 29

V. Conclusions and Recommendations Albert H. Rosenthal 32

Appendices

1. Draft of Proposal 35 .

2. Marini Questionnaire Letter 37

3. Table of Responses 38

iii

Preface

As a member of the NASPAA Executive Council for the past severalyears, I have been interested in learning of the active work of theCommittee on Science Policy and Administration through the annualreports of the Chairman, Dr. Albert H. Rosenthal.

In my present rote as President of NASPAA, as well as serving asPresident of an institution of higher learning, I am highly pleased thatthe Committee has conducted an extensive research, consultative,and discussion program during the past two years and has developedthis concise and thoughtful Report.

The program proposed is sound and designed to meet an impor-tant need in a significant field, The following pages fully substantitatethe need for attention and support by federal, state, and local publicscience agencies to achieve increased university activity in this field.Several of the leading; Schools of Public Affairs and Public Adminis-tration are particularly competent and interested in developing orexpanding programs in this area. Jointly with the COUrCli of StateGovernments, the National Association of Schools of i'ubVc Affairsand Administration stands ready to contribute its resources towardthe achievement of the objectives outlined in the following Report.

I wish to express my personal appreciation and that of NASPAA tothe editors and contributors of this Report, Dr. Albert H. Rosenthal,Dr. Robert Wilcox, Dr. Frank Marini, and Mr. H. Clyde Reeves of theCouncil of State Governments. We are grateful to the NationalScience Foundation for the grant which underwrote the conduct andpublication of this study. We are indebted particularly to Messrs.Frank tlersman, Clarence Ohlke, Robert Crawford, and Rich Stephensof the National Scienc.. Fryindation who provided guidance andstimulation throughout the course of the project.

CLYDE I. WINGFIELD

President, NASPAA, andPresident. Bernard Baruch CollegeCity University of Ne.' York

V

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dr. Albert H. Rosenthal

Director and Professor, Division of Pubiic Administration since 1968, andDirector, Program for Advanced Study in Public Science Policy andAdministration, University of New Mexico, since 1%9. He received hisdoctorate-in Government at Harvard in 1c,49 and an honorary doctorate oflaw s from the University of Denver in 1973.

His career represents a unique combination of both the teaching andpractice of Public Administration. He served as an official with the SocialSecurity Board, the Department of State, and for 13 years as RegionalDirector of CHEW in Denver. In 1970-71. he served as Head, Office of PublicUnderstanding of Science, National Science Foundation. He was Directorand Professor of the Graduate School of Public Administration at theUniversity of Denver and Professor of Public Administration at the Univer-sity of \tin nesota prior to coming to the Universit) of New Mexico. He isthe recipient of the Rockefeller Public Service Award, the Denver CivicAward, and the New Mexico Distinguished Public Service Award.

He serves as a member of the Executive Council of NASPAA, has beenChairman of the NASPAA Science Policy and Administration Committeesince 1970, and has served two terms on the National Council of ASPA. He isthe editor of a recent book, Public Science Policy and Administration, theauthor of The Social Programs of Sweden, and has published numerousarticles in this field, He currently serves as a consultant to several federaland state government agencies.

Dr. Robert F. Wilcox

Dr. Robert F. Wilcox joined the faculty of the University of Colorado inSeptember, 1972, as Dean of a new Graduate School of Public Affairs.During the year preceding his arrival in Colorado, Dr. Wilcox had been inWashington, D C. on an assignment as Head of the Office of PublicUnderstanding of Science of the National Science Foundation. He receivedthe Doctorate of Political Science from Stanford University in 1950.

For some twenty years before going to Washington, Dr. Wilcox had been onthe faculty of California State University, San Diego, as Professor of PoliticalScience and later as Professor of Public Administration and Urban Studies.He served as chairman of the Political Science Department, head of thePublic Administration program, and directoi of the School of PublicAdministration and Urban Studies. In California he was active in publicaffairs, serving on a variety of consultative and leadership posts in state andlocal government.

vi

He is currentls sers mg a second term on the National Council of theAmerican Society for Public Administration and in 1970-71 he was p,9sidentof the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Admini , lion.He is a member of the National 'Academy of Public Administration. He is theauthor of a book, monographs, and articles, and has contributed chapters toseveral recent books.

Or. Frank Marini

Dean. College of Arts and Letters, San Diego State University. He receivedhis doctorate from the University of California (Berkeley) in 1966.

From 1970 to 1973 he seas Director of Puolic Administration Programs andAssociate Dean of the \foxy% ell School of Syracuse University.

He is the editor of Toward a New Public Administration, the forthcomingImages of Classical Democratic Theory, and numerous articles and reports.He has been Managing Editor of the Public Administration Review since1967, is On the Executive Committee of NASPAA, and serves on a variety ofCommittees and Boards in the area of Public Administration.

Mr. H. Clyde Reeves

Director. Technical Assistance of the Council of State Gov ernments. Hereceived his Master of Arts degree from the University of Kentucky, andreceived an MSPA from Syracuse University.

He served as Commissioner of Revenue of Kentucky, Executive VicePresident of the University of Alabama for Huntsville Affairs, Professor ofPolitical and Administrative Sciences, University of Alabama in Huntsville,and Consultant to the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Rela-tions and the Committee for Economic Development.

vii

Purposes and Methodology inDevelopment of Report

Albert H. Rosenthal

Bat kground and Purposes of Study-

On Tune 22, 1971, the Committee on Science Policy and Adminis-tration of the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs andAdministration submitted a proposal to the National Science Foun-dation for the purpose of supporting a "Planning Conference on theDevelopment of University Programs in Public Science Policy andAdministration."

The request pointed out that a number of universities are in theprocess of establishing or extending programs in Public SciencePolicy and Administration, and that other institutions are seeking toinaugurate programs in this field. These programs, directly related tothe interest and concerns of the National Science Foundation,include:

1. The conduct of research on problems of Science Policy andAdministration;2. The development of institutional capacities for work in thisfield, with particular attention to local, state, and regional basedscience prograMs;3. The utilization of university capacities to provide research andconsultative services for state and local science advisory groups;4. The development of an interdisciplinary curriculum to

a. prepare highly-qualified young people for careers in PublicScience Policy and Administration

b. augment the educational background of mid-career scien-tists and engineers to prepare for leadership positions in thisfield;

5. The sponsoring of seminars and colloquiums, bringing togetherstudents, faculty, scientists, government leaders, communicationspecialists, and lay leaders to discuss common problems andconcerns in this area; and,

6. The development of appropriate methodologies and programsto increase the awareness of the contributions of science andtechnology to Society.

METHODOLOGY AND SCOPE OF PROJECT

The original proposal requested modest funds to convene aconference or a series of conferences of members of the NASPAAScience Policy Committee together with key officials to addressthemselves to four major topics:

1. The ascertainment of needs of federal, state, and local ScienceAgencies and suggested means by which university Schools ofPublic Affairs or other Schools or Departments may assist inmeeting them.

2. Tile description and assessment of the several types of univer-sity programs in Public Sciet.,:e Policy and Administration and anexamination of present needs and future potentials.3. The role and potential of Schools of Public Affairs, togetherwith other university resources, in providing support for state andlocal science programs and in developing approaches to wideningpublic understanding of science and technology.4. The formulation of recommendations and the publication of a

report summarizing the findings in the areas outlined above andrecommending methods of supporting university programs in thisarea.

GRANT AWARD

On October 7, 1971, the National Science Foundation approvedthe proposal and awarded a modest grant for the purposes statedabove. On July 6, 1973, the grant was extended to December 31, 1973.

2

A( MINES ND1 RI AO N

One of the basic purposes of the NASPAA Committee on SciencePolic\ and Administration has been the stimulation of panel discus-sions in this field at regional and national ASPA conferences. As thedirect result of proposals and arrangements by this Committee, fourpanels sere set up for the Regional ASPA Conference held in LasVegas. Nevada, on October i(1- it , 1970. Six panels were set up for theNational ASPA Conference held in Denver, April, 18-21, 1971. Panelssere also planned and conducted for the Regional Conference held

in Phoenix, Arizona. on November 11-13, 1971. Significant activitywas reflected at the National Conference of ASPA, held in New YorkCity on March 21-25, 1972, where seven panels were conducted inthis field. The heads or deputy heads of several major scienceagencies participated in several of these panels. Six panels in SciencePolicy and Administration were heri at the National ASPA Confer-ence in Los Angeles in April, 1973.

CONIN1I THE MEETINGS HEW

Meetings of the NASPAA Committee were held either immediatelyprior to or during the conferences in Las Vegas, Denver, Phoenix,New York City, and Los Angeles. At each of these meetings attentionwas given to the topics covered by the NSF Grant.

In lieu of the original plan of convening one large conference onthis subject, the Committee, in consultation with interested NSFofficials, decided to convene several smaller "working meetings" andto develop for discussion at these meetings the papers and recom-mendations which would ultim)tely constitute the Report of theCommittee. It was proposed that the Report focus on the observedneeds in this field of federal, State, and local government scienceagencies in obtaining or developing personnel with administrative aswell as scientific capabilities and the present resources and develop-mental possibilities for providing advanced courses for graduatestudents by several universities to meet the observed needs. Conse-quently, in addition to the meetings noted above, five specialmeetings of the NASPAA Committee on Science Policy and Adminis-tration have been held to achieve the objectives stated.above, asfollows:

1. The first meeting was held in Washington, D.C., at ASPAheadquarters on December 2, 1971. The NSF Grant provided fundsfor the transportation of two members of the Committee. At thismeeting, preliminary plans and assignments were developed.

2. During the NASPA A Conference in New York City on March 20,1972, a panel session was presented in which the several types or"models" of programs in Schools of Public Affairs and Administra-tion were presented and discussed. This complemented the panelheld during the ASPA Conference later in the week in whichleading figures in these fields sere asked to discuss the "needs" ofpublic agencies in this area. By this arrangement, several key NSFofficials attended and participated in the NASPAA Conference.

3. The third meeting sponsored by the Committee was held inDenver on June 14, 1972. Eight members of the NASPAA Commit-tee, two senior NSF officials, and two advisors attend the Denvermeeting. They included: Dr. lames Carroll, Ohio State University;Dr. Brewster Denny, University of Washington; Dr. Frank Marini,Syracuse University; Dr. Lloyd Musolf, University of California atDavis; Dr. Frank Smith, University of Houston; Dr. Robert Wilcox,San Diego State University; Mr. Clarence Ohlke, National ScienceFoundation; Dr. frank Hersman, National Science Foundation; Mr.John Magruder, Department of Transportation; Mr. Mort Stern,Denver Post; and, Dr. Albert Rosenthal, University of New Mexico.Dr. Frank Marini, then of Syracuse University, and Dr. RobertWilcox, then at San Diego State. presented working papers whichwere discussed fully and changes recommended by the group. Mr.Clarence Ohlke and Dr. Frank Hersrmin of the National ScienceFoundation presented suggestions for further work by the Com-mittee. At this meeting, it was suggested that specific recommen-dations be formulated and that, because of the series of smallmeetings held, the NASPAA Committee should now formulate itsReport rather than seek to sponsor a larger conference.

4. Immediately prior to and during the National ASPA Conferencein Los Angeles, members of the Committee met to review drafts ofthe Report. Subsequent to these sessions, Mr Clyde Reeves of theCouncil of Stale Governments expressed an interest in exploringwith the Council of State Governments its potential for participat-ing in developing the capacity of universities to provide qualifiedstaff personnel and to undertake research projects for state andlocal science advisory agencies. Members of the Committee andNSF officials who participated in the discussions strongly sup-ported the adoption of this proposal.

5. The fifth meeting was held in Denver, Colorado, August 23 and24, 1973, as a working meeting of a subcommittee consisting ofOrs. Wilcox and Rosenthal and Mr. Clyde Reeves of the Council ofState Governments. The subcommittee sought to edit previousdrafts of the Report, including decisions made at earlier meetings

4

of the Committee and suggestions received from Committeemembers bs mad, ,1 d prepare an up-to-date draft of the Report.

One of the most significant activities of the Committee, conductedunder the leadership of Dr. Frank Marini, then at Syracuse University,consisted of the formulation and circularization of a questionnaire tomember Schools of the National Association of Schools of PublicAffairs and Administration to determine the "state of the art" and toascertain quite specifically the resources and interest evidenced bythese schools in contributing or in desiring to contribute in meetingthe manpower needs of public agencies in the field of science policyand administration. This inquiry and its results have been collatedand are described and interpreted by Dr. Marini in Section III of thisReport.

Vhile this Report represents the work and thinking of a number ofour Committee members and advisors, three members of theCommittee, Dr. Robert Wilcox, Dr. Frank Marini, and myself asChairman, undertook to write specific sections of the Report. TheCommittee requested that Mr. Clyde Reeves include a sectionrelating to the needs of the states and indicating how the Council ofState Governments might participate in the Program to increase theinteraction of state governments in science and technology utiliza-tion.

The Recommendations have been circulated quite widely in draftform and include the considered views of members of the Commit-tee and other leading figures in science policy and administrationthroughout the United States.

Significant contributions in the deliberations of the Committeehave been made by Dr. Frank Hersman, Mr. Clarence Ohlke, Mr.Robert Crawford, and Mr. Rich Stephens of the National ScienceFoundation, The several presidents of NASPAA during the tenure ofthis Committee, Dr. Laurin Henry, Dr. Robert Wilcox, Dr. MorrisCollins, and Dr. Clyde Wingfield, have given leadership to this work.Mr. Seymour Berlin, Executive Director of ASPA, and Mr. DonBlandin, Staff Director of NASPAA, have ably provided essentialcoordination and administrative services.

To each of the participants and particularly to my colleagues, Drs.Wilcox and Marini, and to the National Science Foundation for itsinterest and support, we are deeply grateful. Dr. Lloyd Musolfcontributed particularly to the statement of Recommendations. Ourthanks to Miss Betty Wollerman who typed the manuscript and to theUniversity of New Mexico Printing Plant for its publication.

In the succeeding pages, the NASPAA Committee on SciencePolicy and Administration presents its findings in four major areas:

5

1. Ntanpcner needs in science agencies of federal, state, and local

governments;

2 Univ ersity resources and needs in providing services to publicscience agencies at federal, state, and local levels;

3. The interest and role of the Council of State Governments; and,

4, Conclusions and recommendations.

u.

Manpower Needs in Science Agencies ofFederal, State, and Local Governments

Robert F. Wilcox

Science policy is concerned with decision-making in the scientificand technologiCal aspects of society's problems. It includes thesetting of priorities and the working out of plans for implementingneeded action. Administration, in addition to being involved inpolicy making, emphasizes the effective implementation of plans insuch public sector fields as environmental preservation, transporta-tion, housing, energy needs and others., all of which have anincreasing scientific and technical input.

The need for education and training in science policy and ad-ministration cannot be defined in quantitative terms. Unfortunately,manpower planning is in a backward state in this country, even insuch clearly - defined occupational areas as law, medicine, teaching,engineering, and the basic sciences. The marketplace is the principaldeterminant of demand while universities, in an uncoordinated way,determine the supply. Thus we have no choice but to deal in a1;,wrat, non-quantitative way with the role of the university.

HIE ItInRt Sf161(1

One approac h to defining the need for university programs inpublic ,c'rence policy and administration would be to tally therlInther ut scientists, engineers, and technicians who hold executive

1-1,m,Neridt positions in the federal service but who have had littleho exposure to the study of public affairs. More will be said on this

point later. The broad scope of the education/training task is

7

indicated by the fact that federal expenditure for research anddevelopment is on the upswing. It is difficult to discover the trend ornote its scope and significance because R & D funding is scatteredthroughout the federal budget.

Congress and the Administration are supportive. of science andtechnology, particularly in relation to their potential to contribute to .4solving the problems of society. This support has been manifestedrecently in the following ways:

1. the present administration is seeking to develop a morestrategic approach to our national R & D investment;

2. The FY 73 federal budget seeks to accelerate the nation's effortsto .turn science and technology to the service of man throughemphasis on solving important civilian problems;.3. A new effort has been proposed to boost federal investment indevelopment of civilian R & D capacity through creative technolo-gies vs Nile continuing a major R & D effort in national security;

4. The FY 73 budget proposes an increase of 1OO, million dollarsthe first stage of a 2 billion dollar R & D investment over the nextfive years.

The long-term prognosis is that R & 0 is here to stay, and that therole of the scientist-executive and engineer-executive in governmentwill become more important. Increasingly, science and technologywill touch all aspects of government.

There is additional evidence to be found in several different areasof the federal government. Each major department/agency has ascience/technology component, and the title of Assistant Secretaryfor Science is now a familiar one. The President's Message on Scienceand Technology, delivered in March; 1972, announced his decision todraw more on the capabilities of the high technology agenciesNASA, AEC, and the Bureau of Standardsto deal with domesticproblems and long-range national goals in addition to traditionalmissions.

The President's message also called on each agency to sponsorresearch related to its mission and responsibilities and to develop tieswith such ultimate users of technology as states and cities. Manyformer NASA and Dot) scientists and engineers are now working forcivilian agencies, applying science and technology to urban andenvironmental problems.

In view of these trends, the universities have a responsibility whichhas been defined by Dean Don Price in testimony before the HouseCommittee on Science and Astronautics in 1970.' Dean Price said,". . To develop this essential connective link between science and

8

politics, the civilian departments will need support from Congressand the President . 1 he departments will have to undertake theslow and painful job of developing staff of this kind. And theuniversities will need to help, since neither education in the basicsciences nor education in the older approaches to administration iscapable 01 producing the intellec tual skills necessary to synthesizethe two. These are essentially synthesizing skills.1pplication.skills,among career officials in federal departments and agencies...2

EXECUTIVE POWER

Unfortunately, we do not have the data we need on the entirefederal establishment. Thanks to the U.S. Civil Service Commission,we do know something about the executive manpower structure.)We must realize that in looking at federal executives, we are lookingat only part of the picture. There are many more managers in grades13 through 15, than there are in the executive categories, and it wouldbe necessary to do same extrapolation.

The CSC definition of an executive is any full-time employee of anexecutive branch whose salary equals or exceeds the beginning salaryof the General Schedule, grade 16. These are about 11,000one-halfof one per centof the total federal civilian employment. The largestsingle concentration is in Defense, 1,671; NASA, 749; HEW, 576;Commerce, 446; and Transportation, 417. Nearly 50% of the total(46%) are in scientific and engineering occupational groupingsbio-science, physical science, etc.

Well over 50% of scientists and engineers in supergrade positions(GS 16 and above) are managers or supervisors rather than individualworkers. Over one-third of scientist and technical positions amongsupergrades are involved in public issue activities, i.e., carrying outduties in, accordance with the program philosophy to top agencymanagement.

The needs of the future, as far as federal executives are concerned,are indicated by statistics complied by CSC. The composite picture oftoday's federal executive is that he is a career appointee, male, 53years of age, having 26 years of service, and eligible for retirement infour years. The average age among scientists is 52; sixty-four per centof scientists are over 50, twenty-five per cent of them were eligible forretirement in 1971, filly-three per cent will he eligible for etirementby 1976. Clearly., a new crop of scientific and technical executives isemerging.

Vhat is the age of appointment to the first executive position?Eighty per cent of scientific executives are appointed at age 40 or

9

after; 51% at age 4'i or after. There is ample opportunity to reach thesepeople atter they have completed their professional education andbefore their appointment to executive positions. Also, there areconsiderable numbers of scientists in executive positions whocontinue academic work after entering government service. Forty-two per cent completed some post-graduate work, while 20%received graduate degrees. The pattern of carrying on the educationalprocess is present. It needs more policy/management input. .

Evidence of the problem we face in identifying the nature of thepublic service executive's role is to be found in a study, recentlycompleted by the National Academy of Public Administration, of theconversion of specialists into managers. The universe studied wasmade up of scientists and engineers in the National institutes ofHealth and NASA. Senior management officials were unaware of ortended to ignore the importance of the transition process, theproblems associated with it and the importance of relevant trainingfor management, the study found. The authors say: "These data (onperformance of management functions) strongly suggest that one ofthe problems in the transition of scientists and engineers rests inunrealistic opinions and negative attitudes as to the role of manage-ment functions in the pool of individuals from which managers willbe drawn." 4

STATE C;011ERNNIENTS

The federal government, rather than the state, has been the primaryuser of science and technology in public sector programs. Stateofficials generally have looked to Washington for leadership andassistance when an emerging public issue appeared to requireinvolvement of scientists and/or engineers. The report of a studygroup on technology assessment had this to say: "This generalconditioning over a period of three decades has tended to obscurethe importance of the impact of science and technology upon publicprograms and their processes at the state level."5

A finding of this same study group deserves quotation herebecause it reflects a general attitude which constitutes an obstacle tostate government-university relations.6

The general attitude among State officials and the public thatscience arid technology are either irrelevant or beyond thescope of State action has resulted in what some have called theabsence of "technological enterprise" in State government.Generally States finance a minimum of research and develop-

10

ment to he st.onsored or conducted by State agencies. Theseprograms are amongt he first to be reduced in the annual searchfor funds to meet the pressing public needs. The States spent amere Sr° million collectively of their funds on research anddevelopment in fiscal year 1970less than one per cent ofFederal expenditures. I he results of Federal research projectsappear to be untapped by State agencies. What is missing inmost States is the formal structure and the institutional arrange-ments to support inter-agency cooperation and coordination,and to facilitate more productive liaison with Federal agencies.Even where science advisory or coordinating mechanisms areactive, they do not receive either the political attention or thesupport that could make them more effective.

Fortunately, William D. Carey has made a recent study of relation-ships between state governments and state universities. His work wasdone in connection with a comprehensive survey made by theCouncil of State Governments on the role of technology in meetingstate and local needs. This section of the paper is based largely on Mr.Carey's study and quotes directly from his report!

As the new federalism gains momentum, a number of "how to doit" questions are beginning to confront the states in public finance,economic research, planning, and a number of other fields. States arein need of qualified scientific and technical advisors in order to helpthem make choices. They can employ individual experts, go tooutside consultants or look to the university's resources.

Mr. Carey points out that ". . . as a rule, however, state universitiesare given low marks by officials in weighing their contribution to thepractical problems of governance." This generally negative view isunderstandable since the basic university mission is not oriented toproblem- based, quick-response technology. Preferences of facultiesare ,-iot easily organized for action. As Mr. Carey points out, ". . Theincentives and rewards for performing public service roles arefrequently absent or slight."

Generally, according to Mr. Carey, state officials can be dubious ofthe value of university research.

. . . The present governor of Connecticut on taking officeterminated a State Research Commission. His objectives wereeminently pragmatic: to strike at the state's unemploymentproblem and to stimulate industrial.innovation. The fault of thedefunct Research Commission, in the Governor's eyes, was itspreoccupation with research, "without regard to whether or notthat research resulted in a boost to Connecticut's industry,"

11

Fuming to the potential of state universities, Mr. Carey said theevidence supports a judgment that:

. the state universities have a major potential to bringapplied science to the service of state governments, and thatthis potential is mit being tapped effectively. Throughout thecountry, universities are struggling to find the resources to setup interdisciplinary centers to focus on a spectrum of publicproblems. There is a new orientation toward the idea of theuniversity as a problem-solver, an institution which is con-cerned with the delivery of knowledge to users. How firmlycommitted they are as institutions is uncertain. Teaching is stillthe primary' mission of the university; the public service rote issubsidiary and fragile.

Among Mr. Carey's recommendations, the following are mostsignificant for our purposes:

First, there is a need for bridging institutions, such as PublicTechnology Centers "to focus public 'seed money' upon the integra-tion of university, industrial, and governmental skills in applyingpublic technology to critical needs of state government." Second,state legislatures should recognize and legitimize the consultativefunction of the state university faculty. Third, states should look atthe basic charters of their institutions of higher education for the"purpose of strengthening their public service roles and missions,and to include protections for faculty members against sanctions orloss of preferment as a result of participation in matters of publicpolicy or controversy at the request of any agency of stategovernment."

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Local government holds great potential for a significant universityrole in science policy and administration. Individual urban problemareas to which science and technology can contribute are as follows:

EnvironmentAir, noise, and visual pollution, poor land use.Ec onomy Lingering recession and associated unemployment,declining basic industry.

HealthPoor distribution of health and medical facilities, risingcosts, widespread public dissatisfaction, the scandal of the munici-pal hospital in such localities as New York and Washington.

HousingThe discrepancy between demand and supply, increas-ing costs arid use of outmoded techniques.

12

Water, Power, EnergyWasteful consumption leeding to scarcityand shortage,.

TransportationUse of a single mode of transportation, theautomobile, which defeats the need for mass transit.

Other WWII) pies can be cited in education, communication, andeven in the operation of local government itself. However, therelationships and interactions among these components of the urbansystem seem to be inadequately understood by researchers andprogram people alike. There is I:ttle understanding of the urbansystem, the interrelationships of its component parts, because eachproblem is attacked by specialists. Similarly, there is little recognitionof many of these serious problems on the part of the general urbanpublic or of the interactions and interfaces between components.Aside from air pollution, relatively few members of local communi-ties are particularly concerned with environmental problems. Mostdisturbing, though, is the fact that little effort or progress has beenmade toward correction on the part of local and regionalgovernment. Aside from some air and water pollution improvementefforts, not many improvement programs are underway in theproblem areas.

A survey of science-technology advice in loco' governmentsindicates a potential opportunity for university faculty, provided thatthey can be more persuasive than they have been in the past in theirdealings with local government officials.8

. the cities claim their need for advice is great in the field ofenvironmental pollution control, underscoring the importantrole which biologists, geologists, and chemists should beplaying in local government. This would indicate that if citiescannot employ individuals in these professional fields, theymust rely on outside sources whether they be science advisoryunits, consultants, or state or federal agencies, for advice infunctional areas such as environmental pollution control.

Few criteria or guidelines have been developed for rank-orderingpriorities in the attack on urban problems, assuming there is a will toattack them. Both elected officials and career executives are reluctantto adopt innovative procedures or attempt to implement improve-ment programs when there are large uncertainties as to impact onother problem elements or areas. The element of potential risk isgreat. We may ask why research and development should beundertaken when implementation is highly doubtful.

Research, except in a few highly specialized and highly focusedareas such as health and traffic safety, is not considered to be a

13

tunction of lust government. -Typically, no such item as researchappears in Ioi it government budgets. They don't do research(although some is bootlegged by federal funding) because it is notconsidered to be a legitimate function of local government. Localgovernments do not feel they have the resources to devote toresearch and development.

Fortunately, there is research on local problems, such as that of theUrban Observatories, but there is evidence that much of the researcheffort currently undertaken on many urban and societal problemareas-consists of that which scientists and researchers find challeng-ing, and elso will further the body of knowledge and be publishable,i.e., academic research. Relatively little of this research can be utilizedin the search for practical solutions to the very real problems of urbangovernments. For the most part, university researchers are not thosewho have a commitment to and understanding of local government.

What is the role of the university in science policy and administra-tion relating to local government? Its role is to build bridges, as in thecase of state government, to encourage faculty participation, andmake it easier for them to work with local government. There must bean agency in the university to take care of the involved paper work indrawing up contracts and meeting the varied logistical requirementsof a research or consulting project. Even more important is the task ofeducation. The university should build awareness on the part of localelected officials and top career management people of the potentialof science and technology to assist in the solution of problems.Educational programs would encourage in-house research in localgovernment, with consultation provided by university faculty. Bring-ing local government people onto the campus would expose them tointerdisciplinary workshops and symposia and increase their sophisti-cation in science and technology.

The most compelling argument on behalf of the School of PublicAffairs/Administration is that it is the one interdisciplinary programon the campus with an orientation to the public service. It is the oneturf on which specialists can meet and bring their expertise to bearwith a problem orientation or focus. The faculty members of suchschools may be specialists by training and in their interests, but alsothey are generalists, interested in working across boundaries and inapplying varied knowledges to specific problems. f he School ofPublic Affairs is the only agency in the university that can perform thevery necessary broker function in science policy and administration.

14

FOOTNOTES

National Sc len«, Polity, hearings facture the Subcommiltee on Science Researchand Deselopment of the Committee on Science and Astronautics. U.S. House ofkcpresentat ts es, 91st Congress, 2nd Session, U S. Co s ernment Printing Office,Washington. D C . 1970 p 12

National wme Pat v. Op (it t) lb

I Bureau of Exec uti.e \1anposver. U S Cis i1 Sers ice Commission, Charactensbcs ofthe federal fsecwive. Washington, D.C., November, 1%9; see also Nicholas 1.

Oganovis and llomld H Lvich, "Human Resources for Science Administration,"Chapter 3 in Albert PI, Rosenthal (kid ), Public Scieme Pub( s, and Administration,Untset sits. of Ness Mexico Press, 1973.

lamps I Bas ton and Richard L. Chapman, The Transformation of Scientists andEno-wets Into .A/onagers, the Notional Academy of Public Administration, Washing-ton. C . lune, 1971, p 42

s Technology Assessment in State Covernment, A Report on a Working Conferenceand Recommendations for At an, National Academs. of Public Administration,\\ hington. I) C , September, 1972, p

6 /hid

1"A Stronger Role for State Unisersities" in Nasser to the States 1\fobiliting Publiclechmilogs

Urban Data Sets ice, International City Management Association, November, 1970,Vol 11.p, 31

15

University Resources forScience Policy and Administration

Frank Marini

Two important trends are underway which taken together consti-tute the catalyst for the concern of this committee. On the one hand,there is an increasing recognition of the need for quality training forthe public service, high-levet education and research for the solutionof public problems, and better education in public affairs generally.On the other hand, there is an increasing recognition that develop-ments in science and technologyand the social impact, promise,and problems of these developmentsare very inadequately under-stood. When these two trends are perceived together it is logical toask how they might be related and what might be the most fruitfulrelationship between developments in education for Public Affairsand developments in the realm of science and technology.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

There are recent developments in science and technology whichare directly related to the developments in Public Affairs education.Among these are:

1. There is a growing belief that much of the knowledge,technology, and science which is needed as graft or nutrient to astronger. healthier Public Affairs educational enterprise is alreadyin existence and that the main problems have to do with

a. 'packaging" and "delivering" knowledge from one sector tothe other;b. developing the linkages between sectors of knowledge sothat the relevance of matter to be transferred may be noticed;and,

16

c. developing structures, roles, and behavior patterns in andaround the world of Public Affairs education which facilitatetruly interdisciplinary problem-oriented cooperation.

2. In a closely related point, there is growing belief that there is a

paradoxical relationship between many of the problems of oursociety and the area of science and technology: whereas some ofour public problems ought, it seems, to.be capable of ameliorationby developments in science and technology, it also seeriis thatsome of them are Caused or aggravated by developments inscience and technology. There are a variety of responses to theparadox, but the one that most interests us here is the growingawareness that somehow the world of technological and scientificenterprises must be linked more closely to that of Public Affairseducation.

3. Increasingly, it is realized that technology transfer must involvedeveloping a capacity at all levels of of our federal policy tounderstand and employ technology in the solution or ameliorationof public problems.

4, .A direct implication of the above point is that public adminis-trators and policy makers at all levels of government must betrained and educated in ways that make them sensitive to theopportunities of tec hnological developments and in ways thatenable them to assess and to employ technological knowledge.

WHAT /5 THE ROLE AND POTENTIAL OF SCHOOLS OfPUBLIC AFFAIRS IN MEETING ASCERTAINED NEEDS IN THEAREA OF PUBLIC SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY?

A significant question which concerns us here may be stated as:"What is the role and potential of schools and programs of PublicAffairs in meeting needs in the area of public science and technol-ogy?" The committee has attempted to articulate some models whichindicate possible contributions of Public Affairs schools andprograms to the needs of public science and technology: Some ofthese models are taken more or less directly from descriptions ofcurrently operating programs, some are extrapolations of ideas whichwe know are being tried, and some, to the best cf our knowledge, are"made up" (though the "made up" ones are, in the nature of things,mostly constructed of components and themes which have beenencountered somewhere). In committee discussions we found our-selves focusing on those experiments and models which committeemembers had personai experience with or knowledge about, and wesundered a hether this was a ;imitation or distortion worth troublingabout. This has been discussed in committee and in a variety of

17

meetings with individuals from the wider public affairs community.The advice we have received and the conclusion we have reached is

.,that the committee need feel no obligation to deprive itself of theexperience of its members and that we ought to discuss thepossibilities and models from the base of our best knowledge.Nevertheless, the committee decided to circulate a letter of inquiry toall members of the National Association of Schools of Public Affairsand Administration in order to have some knowledge of theorganizational rudiments and direction of programs in the area ofScience and Technology within member institutions.

Replies were received from twenty-two institutions. We havegrouped these institutions into three divisions: (1) Public SciencePolicy and Administration Programs; (2) Minimal Public SciencePolicy and Administration Program; and, (3) No Public Science Policyand Administration Program. We may briefly indicate the informationgleaned about institutions in each of these groups:

1. Public Science Policy and Administration Programs (defined as:schools or programs which offer a number of courses in this areaand/or have relevant graduate fields of specialization)

Seven institutions have Public Science Policy and Administrationprograms. Within this group:

a) Six indicated specific units related to this area of study.b) Of the five which indicated the type of training, three were

primarily pre-service, and two were in-service.c) All seven institutions indicated that they would expand in

this area if additional funding were available.d) All seven institutions indicated that they would expand

research efforts, especially in areas such as: technological assess-ment in the energy area and in bio-medical fields; evaluativeresearch on existing programs for providing science/technologyadvice to policymakers; case studies on successful innovations inNASA, DoD, etc.; management approaches to grants; and, socialmanagement of technology.

2. Mintal Public Science Policy and Administration Program(defined as: has offered course work, has had faculty research inthe area, and/or has students interested in the area)

Seven institutions have some involvement in Public Science Policyand Administration, but their involvement is considerably short of aprogram in the area. Within this group:

a) Two have a unit directly related to Science Policy andAdministration in some unit of the university (but not in the PublicAffairs or Public Administration unit).

b) Two indicated that their involvement is primarily pre-service

18

training; two indicated that their involvement is both pre-serviceand in-service training: and three offered no indication of type ofprogram.

c) Three indicated recent research activities, and indicated adesire to expand this research activity if funding were available.

d) One indicated that it would not be expanding in this areaeven with funding; four indicated that funding would enableexpansion and development; one indicated a significant possibil-ity for reduction in the existing program.

3. No Public Science Policy and Administration Program.

Eight institutions indicated that they have no program involvementin this area. Within this group:

Two indicated the possibility of developing such involvement,especially if funding became available; one indicated that it wouldnot develop in this area due to other priorities; and five gave noindication of intent.

GRAMM rf PROGRAMS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

A School or Program of Public Affairs can respond flexibly to theneeds of science agencies through mid-career programs which areorganized in traditional program and semester-sequences or througha variety of specially-designed "short courses," programmed learningpackages, telecommunications and magnetic recording teaching,flexible learning modules, etc.

"Model A" represents a "typical" School of Public Administrationor Public Affairs which emphasizes graduate programs for studentscoming directly from the completion of undergraduate degrees.majoring in Political Science, Economics, or Business Administration.

-Model 8," below, represents a program which mainly deliversadvanced public administrative knowledge to those whose back-grounds are principally technological and scientific; if the "com-prehensive school" model were to have as a component theessentials of 'Model B," it would be responding appropriately to thisaspect of the mid-career need as it relates to science and technology.

The other mid-career educational delivery opportunitydeliveringrelevant technological and scientific knowledge to those alreadyexperienced and educated in public administrationis in many waysthe "mirror image" of "Model [3," but it is different enough so that adiscussion of it may indicate something of the usefulness ofnon-traditional educational formats, In its consultation activities, asc hoot or program of Public Affairs could be expected to encounterspecific needs in specific agencies which could be responded to bytechnological or scientific knowledge. The mid-career educational

19

delivery of the school or programs of public affairs could consist oftraining sessions at the work place, specially designed evening orweekend sessions, intensive sessions of a week (or -as many weeks asare needed and can be spared from the regular job), semester oryear-long training in regular courses or specially designed courses,etc: Some universities offer credit-bearing courses which utilizespaced three-day weekend sessions (usually eight hours a day onFriday, Saturday and Sunday once a month or so) for the educationalneeds of public administrators who are employed full time. OneSchool of Public Affairs has responded to the training needs of thestaff of a public seaway project by-designing intensive courses whichare taught during the months when the seaway is frozen. Still otherschools and programs of public affairs offer numerous "intensivesemester" courses regularly. Although such courses are usuallydeSigned for specific training needs rather than degree purposes, inmost cases they can be utilized to achieve a degree while improvingone's job capacity. Although most courses such as these have beendeveloped to deliver public administration knowledge to specialistsof one kind or another, there is no reason why schools and programsof public affairs and administration (in cooperation with otheruniversity units, especially Engineering and Sciences) should notutilize the same educational packaging and delivery systems. tosupply technological and scientific knowledge to public administra-tors.

Set forth below are summary descriptions of four different modelSor formats of public affairs programs which can contribute to thestudy of public science policy and administration.

MODEL. A: Comprehensive Schools of Public Affairsand Public Science and Technology

It is useful, when discussing optimal Public Affairs education, tofocus upon a model extrapolated from the handful of so-called"Comprehensive Schools of Public Affairs (or Public Administra-tion)," Not all valuable programs will be situated in such schools. Asa matter of fact, specifically-targeted programs perhaps will be asprofitably undertaken at schools which do not aspire to be "compre-hensive"the virtues of the smaller programs lie chiefly in enhancingflexibility of experimentation and variegation of our experience inPublic Affairs Education. A comprehensive school could be orga-nized in any number of ways. For example, the School of PublicAffairs might have some of the social science departments of theuniversity within it, it might have departments within it whichduplicate departments within the wider university, it might havesome social science departments within it and some elsewhere in the

20

university structure, or it might have an interdisciplinary faculty notdivided into departments and standing apart from the departmentalorganization of the rest of the universityother arrangements canalso be conceived. The comprehensive School of Public Affairs couldreadily include a program in Science Policy and Administration,staffed by several faculty members particularly qualified in this field.

The "umbrella degree" in such a School would probably be the\IPA, though at some schools there might be a variety of relatedmasters programs such as Masters of Urban Affairs, Masters of PublicPolicy Analysis, etc. The usual basic requirement is that students takecertain analytical tools and that they choose from a "Chineserestaurant type list" to make up a core of Public Administrationcourses. The student may emphasize a specific function, jurisdic-tional level, or problem area, even in the selection of courses (bygoing heavily into, say, budgeting and quantitative analytical tech-niques, while taking the minimum in other core areas). In a 40 hoursMasters, for example, a. student might have 16 credit hours to"specialize" over and above whatever specialization he has workedinto his core. For an MPA student with a science and technologyinterest, these 16 hours could be used to build understanding in thearea of science and technology. Such a student would presumablyalso be encouraged to direct selection of core courses toward hisspecific objective (e.g., managing complex technological projects;working on problems at a local government level, etc.). There isnothing to prevent a student from combining a Metropolitan Studies,Urban Transportation, Urban Planning, Health Delivery Systems, etc.prograM with the science and technology program. The implicationsfor "transfer"-relevant training are obvious.

MODEL B: A Program for Advanced Study inPublic Science Policy and Administration

(Based on the design of the University of New Mexico Program forAdvanced Study in Public Science Policy and Administration)

This program focuses specifically on the need for advancedinterdisciplinary training for upper mid-management people whohave been trained in technical or scientific fields. In principle, thesame model could be adapted to deliver technical or scientificexpertise to mid-managers who were trained in some other field (sayHealth Planning) when the technical developments could profitablybe transferred to the field in which the manager is presently working.The important thing about programs such as this is that they must bedesigned upon a clear perception of the needs and they must have a"self-correcting" capacity or a "live link" to the area and agencies for

21

which they are attempting to train. the program which is serving asthis model has a built-in linkage h relevant agencies yy.hich helpsinsure "relevance" in curriculum and research topics.

Program Ohio( tives The program has two specific objectives:

(1) On the basis of graduate research to add to , and make readilyavailable, an additional body of knowlege concerned with theformulation and administration of public policy in the field ofscience; and,

(2) To develop and provide a graduate-level interdisciplinarycurriculum and research program in Public Administration-Science,leading to the Master of Arts degree.

In an effort to make sure that the efforts in pursuit of theseobjectives had "real world" relevance, the program was designedwith extensive consultative processes with relevant agencies. Theconsultative processes, resultant curriculum, and organizationalstructures may be detailed as follows:

Three types,of consultation were undertaken to obtain informationconcerning real-life needs and problems on which to develop thecurriculum. These include:

(1) Consultants: A number of visiting consultants were brought tothe campus for periods of two to five weeks to advise on variousaspects of the curriculum.

(2) Questionnaire: A research program was undertaken by theUS. Civil Service Commission, in cooperation with the Universityand included the dissemination and collation of a questionnairesent to some 400 practicing science administrators. Among thequestions asked were: "What courses in your formal academictraining have helped you the most in your present post?" and"What courses taken in your formal academic work would havehelped you the most in the successful accomplishment of yourpresent duties ?" The answers to these and other questions werecollated and served to guide in the development of the detailedcurriculum.

(3) Regional Advisory Committee: To involve the major scienceagencies in the region and to obtain continuous counsel in thedevelopment of the program from leading science administrators,a Regional Advisory Committee was established, composed of theheads and deputy heads of the major science agencies in theregion. At each meeting of the Regional Advisory Committee, adistinguished speaker has been asked to talk on some phase ofPublic Science Policy and Administration. In addition, the curric-ulum being followed is presented and consultative advice isobtained from the members of the Committee. At several

22

meetings, the t. turent fellows in the program have been invited toattend and paint iodic in the discussionsMembers of the RegionalAthisory Committee ha%,e been available individually to serve aslecturers and have provided frequent suggestions and adviceconcerning the c urriculum.

CURRICULUM

On the basis of the consultation outlined above, the specificcurriculum for a Iwo-semester Masters program has been developed.'The curriculum is fairly tightly constructed; it includes courses in thefunctional areas of administration (budget, personnel, organizationand behavior), public science policy and administration, researchmethodology and research project, and an elective course which maybe selected from anywhere in the university's offerings. The curric-ulum is interdisciplinary in design and is taught by an interdisciplin-ary and interschool faculty,

Each student is required to select and initiate advanced research ona specific topic in the field of Public Science Policy and Administra-tion. The research project culminates in the thesis required for theMaster of Arts Degree. The topics range from "Roles of Scientists andUniversities in Research. and Development Contracting," to "LateralOrganization Patterns in Science Agencies."

STRENG If S Of SUCH A PROGRAM

The program which provides the basis for this model has been inoperation for over five years at this writing.? These years of operationhave provided clear evidence of the need for this type of program.The participation by agencies which, even during tight budget years,have found it possible to send participants to the Program at the costof full salary and, in some cases additional expenses, providestestimony of the usefulness of the Program. The active participationof members of the Regional Advisory Committee and their enthusi-astic support of the Program further testifies to the need andimportance of this type of educational activity,

fhe interdisciplinary nature of the program isas is true with mostSchools and Programs of Public Affairsone of its strongest points.The provision of courses cutting across department and school linesaffords a much closer "match" to the real-life needs of the governmerit agency at federal, state, and local levels. Since most of theparticipants come with advanced degrees and expertise in one of thefields of science or technology, the interdisciplinary program affords

23

supplement to their education in I he Social Science and Administra-tive areas.

Since the Program seeks to prepare people for top posts in thefuture, Abe value of advanced graduate courses in the Program isevident. Most of the participants are selected by their agencies on thebasis of evident ability and performance on the job in their technicaland professional field,. The "track record" indicates that mostemployees are advanced to higher, more responsible positionsfollowing the successful completion of the Program.

The evaluative feedback from former fellows, their supervisors andagencies, has been particularly helpful. The close and continuouslink of the Program with its "clientele" and relevant agencies isamong its strongest points.

This, then, is Model 8an educational program focusing specif-ically upon'the advanced educational needs of those who are alreadyin roles in Public Science Policy and Administration agencies.

MODEL C: A Program forSpecific Technology Transfer

In general, any particularly desired technological transfer could beused to design a program and the idea is transferable from cne

particular policy or problem focus to another. In the description ofthis model, the transfer of technology to deal with urban problems isdiscussed for several reasons: 1) similar to the earlier argument infavor of focusing first on "comprehensive schools," there is a sense inwhich something so broad as "urban problems" encompasses orallows one to easily see the relevance of more specific problems suchas transportation or health care delivery; 2) the "urban transfer" ideahas been discussed and tried at a number of institutions; and, 3) therehas been a great deal of talk about the desirability of technologicaltransfer to deal with urban problems.3

This sort of "transfer" program should have the same basicelements as most university programs: a research component, atraining component, and a consultative component. All can take the"problem solving" mode.

The research function of such a program should specifically dealwith likely "transfers" and "follow up" on transfer-potentialsdiscovered in the training function. Let us speculate as to a fewresearch questions: Is there a likelihood that urban housing or urbantransportation problems are amenable to any of the problem-solvingtechniques or technical developninfs, inventions, and apparata ofthe "space industry"? Is there a likelihood that packaging, delivering,etc., developments in various biological-medical research efforts canbe brought to bear upon health care delivery problems? A medical

24

doctor of some renown has described his rather fortuitous acquaint-ance and later collaboration with d petroleum engineer which led thetwo to collaborate in critical areas where the human body andcomponents of oil pumping apparata are alikeran we make suchcollaboration more likely and more collaborative? There is an orderof questions which can easily he overlooked. these are questions asto how interdisciplinary collaboratiOn can be encouraged, whatmakes transfers "work," what arrangements facilitate the imaginative"transposition" which is part of the transference creativity, etc.-These,and many more, are the sort of questions upon which collaborativeteams of diverse backgrounds ought to be encouraged to work.

The training function of a "transfer- program is supportive of theresearch function in a variety of ways. An easy way to conceptualizethe training function in this kind of program is to assume that thestudent "intake" is primarily those highly trained in a technical orscientific field (say, aerospace engineers), or individuals who haveacquired an advanced degree in some scientific or technical field, orindividuals who have acquired a sophisticated understanding ofsome tec hnical or scientific field. A part of a program which might fitthe model under discussion has been described thus:

the first five students in such a program, all of whom hadmasters degrees in science or engineering, spent eighteenmonths working with the county manager and his departmentheads. . . . The students were judged by the university on theirability to transfer technology into appropriate parts of thecounty administrative structure. Their dissertation basically wasan account of how they did this, the problems they faced, etc.'

It was indicated earlier that the output (reports back to theiracademic programs, dissertations, etc.) of such a student assignmentis a valuable input into the, research-consulting function of theenterprise. But consider also the other advantages: understanding of"relevance" is in a "face-to-face," common problem-solving, on-the-job situation. Not only would the student gain some insight intowhat his technical training would have provided him with for makingmany problems disappear, but also the county administrators andemployees with whom he worked would come to a better under-standing of the potential and limits of technical skills and apparata.

The consultative function of "transfer" program would work inthe way suggested by the training arrangement just described and byearlier remarks about consultative linkages between university unitsand governmental agencies. It is likely, Moreover, that a transferprogram, if it were given a chance to build and define itself, couldperform a function similar to that a county agricultural agent

25

performs with reference to his particular "transfer-research-consultation" function. Such a programas with those discussedearlierwould be the "point of first contact" with the universitycommunity for governmental actors and agencies with problems.

MODEL D: A "Close the Culture Gap" Program

In correspondence cited earlier, Richard E. Stephens pointed in thedirection of "Model D" with these words:

It seems to me that one of the real contributions that schoolsof public affairs can make in the application of science andtechnology is to help breach the so-called "two cultures" gap.By this l mean we need to find ways to give the prospectivepublic administrator and the politican a better appreciation ofthe contributions of science and technology to society and thelimitations therein. Administrators, particularly in localgovernments, need to know more about the behavioral makeupof scientists and engineers. For example, how do scientists dotheir "thing"? What motivates them? What are their biases,favored approaches, predilections? What does it mean when ascientist says something is "technically feasible"? We must findways to familiarize both the scientists and administrators witheach other's behavioral environment; call it sensitivity training ifyou will. The best way to start this acculturation is when bothare still in school, but this certainly could be part of a midcareerprogram, The purpose here is certainly not to educate each inthe fundamentals of the other's discipline but simply to throwsome light on the landscape.

The felt need to close the "two cultures gap" is frequentlyexpressed and one approach to this need has been mentioned aboveunder the discussion of the undergraduate interdisciplinary functionsof the comprehensive school model. The "closing of the gap" task,though, in many ways is the most complex (and perhaps the mostimportant) of the various tasks discussed for programs thus far. Theproblem is not simply to take the technically-educated person andeducate him in the humanities and social sciences (and the otherway around), but runs deeper than this into one of the main (andmost neglected) educational roles in a society such as ours.

Many undergraudate students are exposed to a sequence ofcourses entitled "Introduction to Humanities," "Western Civiliza-tion," or some such, and some never recover from such exposure.Frequently, the faculties of Art, Literature, History, Music, etc, allwork hard at these courses. Students do not become artists, but they

26

can become acquainted with some broad concepts, history, andmeaning in the Humanities. Later, they may neglect this aspect of lifeand creativity, but they know it's there, understand something of whyit is important, and presumably know that they are neglecting it. Itmay be that something like this "general introduction" into the areaof Science and Technology is needed for every undergraduatestudent.

In the memo cited earlier, Norman Balbanian eloquently expressedsome of the rationale for this type of a program.

We live in a complex, mterdependent, technological society.The improvements which technology has made in our collectivecapacity to cope with our naturai environment are surelybeyond measure. Nevertheless, in the minds of many today, theadverse effects of technology on our social and physicalenvironment are beginning to counterbalance a significantshare of its benefits. No one will deny that our society today isfaced with a growing number of severe dilemmas in whichtechnology is heavily involved. If we are to find creativesolutions to these dilemmas, then one of the necessary condi-tions is that our educational system must produce individualscapable of understanding both their socio-political and theirscientific-technology sides.Our educational system in the past has been quite successful inproducing many categories of specialistseconomists, en-gineers, biologists, political scientists, nuclear physicists,sociologistswho have carried the development of their profes-sions to high levels of competence and specialization. Yet, ifone looks at the integrated effects of their accomplishments,one sees, along with the salutary, such disastrous consequencesas the destruction of the natural environment, the growingdevastation of war, andin the midst of material affluenceagradually deteriorating quality of life.

The traditional education of engineers has prepared them todevelop and produce technological products and processes..without acknowledging responsibility for possible harmful con-sequences for the environment, or for social, political, andcultural impact. At the same time, most non-engineering highereducation has managed to avoid the introduction of muchtechnological content, leaving otherwise well-educated personsmore or less illiterate with respect to technology. One conse-quence of this is a growing fear, particularly among humanists,of approaching "technocracy"a political system in whichnominal decision makers are unable to understand sufficiently

27

the tcchnologir at content of issues and hence must referpolitical dec isions to technical (non-accountable) specialists.

The other points to which Richard Stephens and Norman Balban-Ian allude are also important. Cooperative programs across the twocultures' barrier must be encouraged, There is no necessity fordes eloping such a program within a school of public affairs, but thereare considerable advantages to such an arrangement or to anarrangement which involves schools and programs of Public Affairsin an interschool program in this area. A fair amount is beingdeveloped along these lines; but surely more is needed.

CC),\ICLUSIC)N

A sketch as brief as this can hope only to point to some of the tasksa school or program in Public Affairs can do in the area of PublicScience and technology. Much more can be developed within suchschools and programs which would be related to the needs outlinedearlier in this report.

It is clearly the unanimous and considered belief of the membersof the NASPAA Committee on Science Policy and Administration andof the NASPAA Executive Committee, that the Schools of PublicAffairs and Administration are both willing and able to respond tomeeting the manpower and research needs of public scienceagencies at federal, state, and local levels. As indicated in theconcluding section, Recommendations, the major needs are thosewhich call for adequate and long-range financial support to providethe means of developing the faculty and related resources essentialto the conduct of an effective advanced educational program.

FOOTNOTES

I. a f or further information, see pamphlet, "Program for Advanced Study in PublicScience Policy. and Administration," University of NOV Mexico (latest printing, March,19731, al artabte. at the 1)1%Ision of Public 'Administration, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87131.

A caveat should be recognized. the assumption that technology is the solution forans urban problem is probably naise or too narrow. Therefor?, to jump to theconclusion that a 90-dar cram course in urban problems.ys'ill seise to convert a current,urp!us :n technological expertise (say an aerospace engineer") into .a purveyor ofmeaningful solutions to urban problems is probably unwise.

Letter to Frank Marini from Richard E. Stephens. Program Manager, Office of PublicUnderstanding of Science, dated tune 5, 1972, describing a program at the Drexelinstitute of Technology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

28

Iv.Combining Resources to Meet Needs:

State Government-University Interactionin Science and Technology

H. Clyde Reeves

Director of Technical AssistanceCouncil of State Governments

No one knowledgeable about state government would overlookthe importance of science and technology in providing necessaryinformation for informed policy decisions by governors and statelegislators. With increased interest in the environment and, at thesame time, the necessity for growth and employment needs in manyareas, the significance of strengthening state resources in this fieldhas become critical.

A real contribution to meeting this need has been provided by theNational Science Foundation in stimulating and supporting thedevelopment of state and local science advisors and advisory bodies.However, an important ingredient and linkage have been missing.This grows out of the fact that in most areas, there is not an organizedcapacity established in universities to provide qualified staff,research, trained and knowledgeable personnel to provide thesupport for the state and local science advisory bodies. Even in thosecases where the capacity exists, there is needed an organizationstructure that is articulated and responsive to meeting state needs.

In many areas, the schools or programs of public administrationand public affairs have made a significant contribution in providingyoung people who are seeking to make state government a career.The university programs have provided essential support for thedevelopment and strengthening of state merit systems and inproviding essential resources for state training programs to upgradeexisting personnel.

29

Similarly here, I he concept of adding to the capacities of universityprograms in public- administration and public affairs in the field ofpublic science policy and administration affords a logical Means ofmeeting slate government needs in this area. As indicated in themodels outlined above in Professor Marini's paper, several types ofexisting programs exist in universities throughout the COuntry. Whilediversity may be useful in a number of areas, Model 13, providing a

graduate interdisciplinary course for both pre-service and in-servicestudents and affording ongoing research capacities, appears to meetthe needs in most state as well as federal and local agencies.

The wide range of issues in science and technology faced bygovernors and legislators makes it difficult and prohibitively expen-sive to build in permanent staff capacity for most state advisorybodies. Issues, ranging from siting of a power plant to the transporta-tion of dangerous substances, face governors more and morefrequently.

What is needed is a mechanism which, on an ongoing basis, standsready to tap existing university resources as needed and make themavailable, frequently on short notice, to governors and state legisla-tors and their science advisory groups. Knowledge of state and localadministrative organization and the decision-making process isimperative here.

These are among the reasons we commend the interest and workof the NASPAA Committee on Science Policy and Administration andlook forward to continuing to participate in developing a joint effortby NASPAA and the Council to develop a national program to meetthe needs clearly ascertained in the research by this Committee andconcisely stated in this Report.

The activities of the Council of State Governments, joining withthe National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administra-tion, could include efforts to:

1. Articulate both the planning and administration of the programto meet developing state needs;

2. Provide assistance in the selection of advisory committees forthe conduct of the program;

3. Provide liaison in building necessary linkages between policylevels in state government and universities participating in thisprogram;

4. Assist in the development of regional and national conferencesfor the exchange of ideas and the stimulation of programdevelopment;5. Provide information on state manpower needs to universitiesand information to state governments concerning the availability

30

01 university wailuates and faculty resources to meet these needs;and,

6, Participate with NASPAA in the continuous evaluation ofprogram operation and effectiveness.

It appears highly appropriate for the Council of State Governmentsand the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs andAdministration to call on the National Science Foundation, theEnvironmental Protection Agency, the President's Office of EnergyPolicy, and other bodies to provide long-term grant support toestablish this program as quickly as possible.

The staff of the Council will participate with the Nk-PAACommittee and officials in preparing and seeking approval of specificgrant requests for this purpose.

31

V.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Albert H. Rosenthal

CONCLUSIONS

As indicated in the section above by Dr. Robert Wilcox, entitled"Manpower Needs in Federal, State, and Local Governments," thereis a significant requirement for the preparation of personnel withsome scientific or technological backgrounds in the fields of publicpolicy and administration. This need is emphasized in the book,Public Science Policy and Administration, particulady the chapter byNicholas Oganovic and Harold Leich, then key officials with the U.S.Civil Service Commission, entitled "Human Resources for ScienceAdministration: Can Quality be Enhanced?". Oganovic and Leichpoint out that more than half of all supergrades in the federal serviceare in scientific and engineering fields and that extensive efforts toprovide science-administrative preparation for these key officials aresorely needed.

Present, disparate university efforts to meet these needs havedemonstrated the value of focused activity on graduate programs inthis field. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration in thelate 1960's initiated a program in several universities designed to helpmeet this need. The elimination of this support has resulted in asharp decline of university activity in this area. A few universitieshave maintained reduced programs seeking, in a limited way, to meetneeds in this field. However, with sharply reduced legislative supportin most state universities and declining enrollments in both publicand private universities, only limited university activity is likely unlessnes..., federal programs of support are developed.

The recent development of state advisors and advisory bodies inassisting governors and state and local agencies in resolving critical

32

science policy ksues has simply added dramatically to the observedneeds. The report, Power to the States, published by the Council ofState Governments in 19721 points out some of the significantchallenges and opportunities for progress in state govern.nent in thisarea, Further evidence in this direction is provided in the Report ofthe Committee on Intergovernmental Science Relations to theederal Council for Science and Technology, issued in 1972.2Dr. Frank Marini, in the section above entitled "University

Resources for Science Policy and Administration," provides four"Models" for organization of university resources to help preparepersonnel for what Dr. Reuben Gustayson has called "scienceleadership for tomorrow," Clearly, there is a need and there are bothinterest and available resources in a significant number of universitiesdistributed geographically across the country to make a contributionin this field. The major issue is how to marshal! these resources andarticulate them to help in meeting observed needs.

RE COMN1ENDA DONS

The Committee on Science Policy and Administration of theNational Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administrationsubmits the following recommendations aimed at achieving in-creased cooperation among all levels of government and the univer-sities in the field of science policy and administration and seeking toorganize university resources and interest to provide a more effectivemethod of meeting needs of federal, state, and local ag'enciesworking in this field.

RECOMMENDATIONS

I. Well-trained personnel and effective management of federalprograms are vital to achieve the purposes of the public agencies.Accordingly, the attention of the U.S. Civil Service Commission andthe Office of Management and Budget should be called to the.findings and recommendations of this Committee and leadership bythese agencies should he enlisted in the development of newcooperative relationships between universities and appropriatefederal departments and agencies in order to advance education andresearch in the field of science policy and administration;

11. The National Science foundation, as the leading science policysupport agency, should he asked to consider the use of existingprograms or the establishment of a new mechanism to strengthen

33*

university resour«,s to help provide well-trained manpower and toconduct relevant research to improve the effectiveness of federal,state, and local science agenc ies;

III. The Director of the National Science Foundation, as ScienceAdvisor to the President, should be requested to bring this needbefore appropriate federal agencies so that they may be asked to useexisting programs as appropriate, or to establish new mechanisms bywhich well-trained people and university research resources may beorganized to serve federal, state, and local agencies in the field ofscience policy and administration;

IV. The NASPAA Committee on Science Policy and Administra-tion, jointly with the Council of State Governments, should develop aspecific grant proposal for a program designed to meet the needsoutlined in this Report and to submit this proposal to the NationalScience foundation and other appropriate federal agencies. Thepattern of organization and proposed university activities calling forsupport are outlined in the following pages (Appendix 1).

FOOTNOTES

Power to the StatesMobiltzing Public Technology (Summary Report), publishedby the Council of Slate Governments, Lexington, Kentucky, May, 1972.

2 Public TechnologyA Tool for Solving National Problems. Report of the Committeeon Intergovernmental Science Relations to the Federal Council for Science andTechnology, Executive Office of the President. U.S. Government Printing Office,Washington, D.0 , May, 1972.

34

Appendix 1

GRANT PROPOSAL

Support of University Programs inPublic Science Policy and Administration

Submitted by NASPAACommittee on Science Policy and Administration

The Council of State Go%ernments

PURPOSES OF PROJECT

To develop and support university programs located in the severalregions of the United States designed to accomplish the followingfunctions:

1. Provide staff and research support for state and local scienceadvisory committees and groups;

2, Conduct research involving faculty and graduate students on amulti disciplinary basis on facets of Science Administration withparticular focus on the relations of Science and Technology tomeeting the problems of society;

3. Conduct university graduate programs in Science Administra-tion designed to supplement the professional, scientific, andengineering education of specialists currently in a science agencyseeking to prepare for leadership positions in the future;4. Establish university-sponsored or co-sponsored programs ofmulti-disciplinary research, conferences, special institutes, andstudies seeking to develop a wider publk: understanding ofscience and technology; and,

5. Develop.university interest and capabilities on a multi-discipli-nary basis to provide faculty and student involvement in technol-ogy assessment programs.

ORGANIZA TION

An Advisory Committee will be established by the NationalScience Foundation, consisting of three governors, nominated by theNational Governors Conference through the Council of StateGovernments; and three leading figures in science administrationand three university officials or faculty members recommended bythe National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administra-tion. The Advisory Committee will advise the Foundation on suchmatters as the processes for selection of participating universities,policy issues in implementing the grant, overall supervision of theproject and a continuing evaluation of its results.

35

FINANCIAL SUPPORT ;AND SCHEDULE

For planning purposes, the NASPAA Subcommittee believes thatthe following program schedule represents a realistic beginningtoward the achievement of the purposes stated above. As indicatedbelow, this development program will be reviewed and evaluatedperiodically.

It is proposed that the grant for this program be provided along thelines of the following schedule:

first YearDuring the first year, 6 universities will each be $350,000.provided with a budget of $50,000 and administra- per yeartive funds of $25,000 each will be made availableto NASPAA and the Council of StateGovernments. The major effort during the first yearwill be for planning and development purposes.

Ind-5th YearsThis request envisages the participation of 13 $900,000.universities, including the 6 universities desig- per yearnated for participation during the opening year.The budget for the 2nd through 5th years willinclude support of $100,000 for each universityand $50,000 each for support costs by NASPAAand the Council of State Governments.

ADVISORY COMMITTEES

Each university participating will be asked to establish an advisorycommittee consisting of the heads of science-administrative agen-cies, both federal and state, located in their vicinity. The advisorycommittees will review suggested curricula and participate in provid-ing lecturers and opportunities for research.

REVIEW AND EVALUATION

The Advisory Committee will provide for a continuous review ofthe development of the program and obtain and submit each year tothe sponsoring agency an independent "program audit" by qualifiednon-participating leaders in science-administration.

SELECTION Of PARTICIPATING UNIVERSITIES

The sponsoring agency will be asked to prepare and distributewidely a statement of standards to be used as guidelines in selectingparticipating universities. Universities will be invited to submitproposals expanding existing programs or developing new programsin this field. Consideration will be given to the needs of state and

36

local science and technology advisory. groups as \% ell as those ofIederal agent lc'' in sere( ling the participating universities.

REVIEW FOR CONTINUATION OR POSS /8LE EXPANSION .

1 he evaluation proposed above may be used by the supportingagency in deciding NAhether to expand the number of universitiesparticipating or to continue the program beyond the 5year commit-ment. While this review will be made annually, sufficient experienceshould be obtained by the third year of operation to guide the futuredeeiopment of the program.

Appendix 2QUESTIONNAIRE LETTER

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY

THE MAXWELL SCHOOL OF CITIZENSHIPAND PUBLIC AFFAIRS

SYRACUSE, NEW YORK 13210

OFFICE OF THE DEANMAXWELL HALL

October 23, 1972

Dear Colleague:

As .a member of NASPAA's Committee on Science Policy andAdministration, I have agreed to describe some ways in whichSchools of Public Affairs/Public Administration do (or can) relate toneeds in the area of Science Policy and Administration. The modelsof programs in this area which committee members have discussedso far are basically those which are represented at our own schools or-about which we happen to know. I would like to expand ourinformation a little beyond this prior to writing our report.

tVe cannot catalog all relevant programs, but I would like to hearfrom as many NASPAA members as possible before I attempt to setout different ways programs in our schools might relate to the needsin this area.

In connection with this project, it would be most helpful if you couldcommunicate some brief details of any program in the area ofScience Policy and Administration which you have at your institu-tion. The questions in which we are particularly interested are:

37

I. In w hat way is your School or Program involved in PublicScience Policy and Administration?2. How is the relevant unit in your school structured and, briefly,what have been its activities in the last couple of years?3. Is your program chiefly "inservice" or -preservice" in itstraining efforts?4. What have been your recent research activities in the area ofPublic Science Policy and Administration?5. Would you have reasonable expectations of adding or expand-ing programs in this area if funds were available? What form wouldsuch growth likely take?6. What sort of research agenda (specific topics) would you liketo develop and undertake?

Any additional information you would like to supply would, ofcourse, be helpful, We have an early deadline on our committeereport, though, and information received after November 15, 1973cannot he utilized.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Frank MariniAssociate Dean

Appendix 3

Table of Responsesfrank Marini's Survey ofPublic Science Policy and Administration Activities

of Selected Universities*Total

Number of Number ofUniversities Universities

I. Public Science Policy and Administration Programs 7

Specific Programs1. American University2. University of Oklahoma3. Princeton University

1 University of Washington5. Syracuse University6 University of New Mexico

38

6

Number oftinAetones

Pre-Servit v 3

I Unisersity 01 Oklahoma2. Princeton Unisersitv3. Ssracu-.e UnISercsh,

En-SersiCe 2

I. Um% ersit s of Southern California2. University of Ness Meloco

SVoutil Expand if Funds ,Available 7

I. Ss racuse Unisersity2. Unisersity Of Ness \levico3. University of Oklahoma4 Princeton Unisersity5. University of Washington6 Unisersity of Southern California7. American Unisersity

II MinimalSpecific Programs 2

I Harvard Unkersity2. University of Virginia

Pre-Service 2

1. Northern Illinois University2. University of Virginia

Would Epand if Funds Available 3

1. Baruch College2. Northern Illinois Unisersity3. Unisersity of Virginia

III. No Public Science Policy and Administration Programs

Possible DevelopmentT. University of South Dakota2. San Diego State Unisersity

No Activity1. Unisersity of Nebraska, Omaha

No Interest1. Tufts University2. University of Virginia3. California State University, Chico4. University of Illinois5. Pennsylvania State University.

2

TotalNumber ofUf111,Cr5 ities

Total 22

*Since considerable time has lapsed since this data was gathered, since manyinstitutions did not respond, and since some of the responses on some items weredifficult to assign precisely to one of our categories, the table should be considered assuggestive of the situation rather than definitive

39

NASPAA Committee on SciencePolicy and Administration

List of Members and Locations

Dr Albert fl Rosenthal, ChairmanDirector and Proti.issorDisision of Public Administration

msersits of Ness Mexico

Dr Robert HillerUrns ersit of California, Berke les

Dr lohn Brand], Direr forboo] ot Attain.,

limsersity of Minnesota

Dr fames Carroll, DirectorPublic Administration ProgramStains ell Sc hootssractise Line. ersits

Dr Albert H Rosenthal, ChairmanDirer for and ProfessorDo, ision of Public AdministrationUnnersus or \ e1,{ it'k/C0

Dr C. I. flews, DirectorGraduate Program in Public

AdministrationTexas Christian Li nisersity

Dr illiam Brinckloe, ChairmanPublic AdministrationCnisersity of Pittsburgh

Dr Keith Califs% elltic hoot of Public and Ens ironmental

AftairsIndiana Unisersity

Dr Morris \% If Collins, IrDean, College of Public Affairsthe American Unisiersits

f971-74

Dr. Morris W II Collins, Jr.Dean, College of Public Affairsthe American Unisersity

Dr Roll N B HaugenProtessorUnisersity of Sermont

Dr Donald Kash, Directorien( e and Public Policy Programs

Limy ersity of Oklahoma

Dr Frank Marini, DeanCollege of Arts and lettersProfessor of Public Administration

and Urban StudiesCalifornia State Unisersity,

San Diego

/97) -74

Robert T DiehlCalifornia Institute of

Technology,/ PPasadena

Dr. .Allen C Haile, DirectorPublic AdministrationPepperdine Unisersity

Dr Samuel Humes, DirectorGraduate Program in Public Attars

and AdministrationNova Unisersity

Dr Don E Kash, DirectorScience and Public Pali( s ProgramsUno.ersit. of Oklahoma

(Jr Frank Slarini, DeanCollege of Arts and LettersProfessor ot Public Administration

and Urban StudiesCalifornia Slate Unisersity,

San Diego

Ch de I WingfieldPresident, NASPAAPresident. Bernard M

Baruch CollegeCity t.inh.er,11 of

ess Yolk

FA OFFICIO

(Jr Lloyd .Musolf, DirectorInstitute of GosernMental AffairsUnisersity of California, Davis

Dr Michael Reagan, ProfessorGraduate School of AdministrationUnisersity of California, Riserside

(Jr Frank SmithDirector of Research and

Sponsored Ai Its it iesUnisersity of Houston

Or Robert F. Wilcox, DeanGraduate School of Public AffairsUnisersily of Colorado

Dr. Lloyd Musolf, DirectorInytilute of Governmental ,AffairsUnisersity of California, Davis

Dr. Thomas Pahl, Acting DirectorCenter for Got emmental ServicesIndiana State University

Dr. Joseph W. Slander, DeanGraduate Research and StudiesUnisersity of Dayton

Dr. Robert F Wilcox. DeanGraduate School of Public AffairsUnisersity of Colorado

Or Ric hard E. lody, DirectorCenter for Urban StudiesWichita State Unisersity

Don Si MandinStaff Director, NASPAAVs ashington, I) C

40