Reimagining transparency and secrecy in the era of digital data When total data surveillance delimits agency and revelations of political wrongdoing fail to have consequences, is transparency the social panacea liberal democracies purport it to be? This book sets forth the provocative argument that progressive social goals would be better served by a radical form of secrecy, at least while state and corporate forces hold an asymmetrical advantage over the less powerful in data control. Clare Birchall asks: How might transparency actually serve agendas that are far from transparent? Can we imagine a secrecy that could act in the service of, rather than against, a progressive politics? To move beyond atomizing calls for privacy and to interrupt the perennial tension between state security and the public's right to know, Birchall adapts Edouard Glissant's thinking to propose a digital "right to opacity." As a crucial element of radical secrecy, she argues, this would eventually give rise to a "postsecret" society, offering an understanding and experience of the political that is free from the false choice between secrecy and transparency. She grounds her arresting story in case studies including the varied presidential styles of George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump; the Snowden revelations; conspiracy theories espoused or endorsed by Trump; WikiLeaks and guerrilla transparency; and the opening of the state through data portals. Postsecrecy is the necessary condition for imagining, finally, an alternative vision of "the good," of equality, as neither shaped by neoliberal incarnations of transparency nor undermined by secret state surveillance. Not least, postsecrecy reimagines collective resistance in the era of digital data.

Geoengineering, the idea of addressing climate change through large-scale technological projects, is a unique example of a contested emerging technology. It stands out in the degree to which both its scope of possibilities and its premise are characterized by global existential risks. Despite controversy, this field has been shifting toward mainstream consideration. Geoengineering Discourse Confronting Climate Change: The Move from Margins to Mainstream in Science, News Media, and Politics examines the trajectory of geoengineering through critical discourse analysis of three key genres: science policy reports, news media journalism, and congressional hearings. Brynna Jacobson explores how science policy reports from distinguished scientific societies have constructed certain notions of legitimacy around geoengineering as well as how narratives within news coverage have shaped the public discourse and understanding of geoengineering. The book further demonstrates that geoengineering has garnered political support from both major political parties in the United States. Through analysis of discursive conventions within these genres, the author reveals the evolution of notions of normalcy, legitimacy, and imperative around the field of geoengineering.

The Returns to Publicly Funded R&D focuses on the returns to U.S. public-sector investments in R&D and the accompanying new empirical analysis relates specifically to the returns to public-sector R&D expenditures in U.S. Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs). One motivation for studying the rates of return to public-sector R&D is the paucity of existing literature on the topic. However, there are two other important motivations for studying the rates of returns to public-sector R&D: a public accountability motivation and a mandated public policy motivation. Although the analysis of investments in R&D in FFRDCs presented herein is econometrics based, there is however a frequently overlooked program evaluation literature that also offers insight into the rates of returns to public-sector R&D. Examples of the program evaluation literature is presented in Section 3 for completeness as well as to illustrate a broader rate of return concept than that presented in the econometrics-based literature. U.S. legislative actions to increase publicly funded R&D in support of private-sector R&D are discussed in Section 4. For the purpose of providing context, a brief history of FFRDCs in the United States is presented in Section 5. FFRDCs have surprisingly been an overlooked element of the public-sector ecosystem that supports public-sector research. An empirical analysis of U.S. public-sector R&D expenditures in FFRDCs, and the associated scientific publications, is presented and discussed in Section 6. Concluding observations about the themes discussed throughout this monograph are offered in Section 7.

Is technological innovation spinning out of control? Within one week in 2018, social media was revealed to have had a huge influence on the 2016 presidential election in the United States; while the first fatality from self-driving cars was recorded. What's paradoxical about these understandable fears of machines taking control through software, robots and AI, is that often new technology is introduced for the very purpose of improving our control over a certain task. This is what Ezio di Nucci calls the 'control paradox'. Di Nucci also brings this notion to bear on politics: we delegate power and control to representatives in order for our country to be run by a centralised group of experts. However, recent populist uprisings have shown that populations can feel disempowered and neglected by this system. Through the notion of the control paradox, the author shows how this lack of control can be motivating populism and demonstrates that a better understanding of delegation would be a possible solution.

Toward More Effective Science and Technology Advice for Congress traces the historical roots of science and technology advice for Congress and chronicles the creation and evolution of the four organizations that provided this advice over the past half century -- (1) the National Research Council, (2) the Congressional Research Service, (3) the former Office of Technology Assessment, and (4) the Government Accountability Office. Key characteristics for providing effective S&T advice for Congress are defined and then used to evaluate the relative strengths and weaknesses of these organizations today and to identify prospective organizational improvements in each to meet today's needs.

Since the 1950s, under congressional mandate, the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) - through its National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) and predecessor agencies - has produced regularly updated measures of research and development expenditures, employment and training in science and engineering, and other indicators of the state of U.S. science and technology. A more recent focus has been on measuring innovation in the corporate sector. NCSES collects its own data on science, technology, and innovation (STI) activities and also incorporates data from other agencies to produce indicators that are used for monitoring purposes - including comparisons among sectors, regions, and with other countries - and for identifying trends that may require policy attention and generate research needs. NCSES also provides extensive tabulations and microdata files for in-depth analysis. Capturing Change in Science, Technology, and Innovation assesses and provides recommendations regarding the need for revised, refocused, and newly developed indicators of STI activities that would enable NCSES to respond to changing policy concerns. This report also identifies and assesses both existing and potential data resources and tools that NCSES could exploit to further develop its indicators program. Finally, the report considers strategic pathways for NCSES to move forward with an improved STI indicators program. The recommendations offered in Capturing Change in Science, Technology, and Innovation are intended to serve as the basis for a strategic program of work that will enhance NCSES's ability to produce indicators that capture change in science, technology, and innovation to inform policy and optimally meet the needs of its user community.

The Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) - a program of the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology - has sought for more than two decades to strengthen American manufacturing. It is a national network of affiliated manufacturing extension centers and field offices located throughout all fifty states and Puerto Rico. Funding for MEP Centers comes from a combination of federal, state, local and private resources. Centers work directly with manufacturing firms in their state or sub-state region. MEP Centers provide expertise, services and assistance directed toward improving growth, supply chain positioning, leveraging emerging technologies, improving manufacturing processes, work force training, and the application and implementation of information in client companies through direct assistance provided by Center staff and from partner organizations and third party consultants. 21st Century Manufacturing seeks to generate a better understanding of the operation, achievements, and challenges of the MEP program in its mission to support, strengthen, and grow U.S. manufacturing. This report identifies and reviews similar national programs from abroad in order to draw on foreign practices, funding levels, and accomplishments as a point of reference and discusses current needs and initiatives in light of the global focus on advanced manufacturing, Table of Contents Front Matter Summary 1 The Structure and Role of MEP 2 U.S. Manufacturing in Global Context 3 MEP and Lean Manufacturing 4 Development of MEP Center Metrics 5 MEP Center Performance Measures and Evaluations of Program Outcomes 6 New Approach: Next Generation Strategy 7 Foreign Programs to Support Applied Research and Manufacturing 8 Findings and Recommendations Appendixes Appendix A1: Canada's Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP) Appendix A2: Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft: The German Model of Applied Research Appendix A3: Taiwan's Industrial Technology Research Institute: A Cradle of Future Industries Appendix A4: Catapult: Britian's New Initiative in Applied Research Appendix A5: The Carnot Initiative in France Appendix B: An Evaluation of the MEP: A Cross Study Analysis--Jan Youtie Appendix C1: MEP Center Data (FY2010-2011) Appendix C2: Open-ended Responses from Center Directors Appendix D: Bibliography

National Patterns of R&D Resources is an annual report issued by the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) of the National Science Foundation, which provides a national view of current 'patterns' in funding of R&D activities in government, industry, academia, federally funded research and development centers, and non-profits. Total R&D funds are broken out at the national level by type of provider, type of recipient, and whether the R&D is basic, applied, or developmental. These patterns are compared both longitudinally versus historical R&D amounts, and internationally. This report series, which is based on input from several censuses and surveys, is used to formulate policies that, e.g., might increase incentives to support different types, sources, or recipients of R&D than is currently the case. To communicate these R&D patterns, each report is composed of a set of tabulations of national R&D disaggregated by type of donor, type of recipient, and type of R&D. While this satisfies many key user groups, the question was whether some modifications of the report could attract a wider user community and at the same time provide more useful information for current users. National Patterns of R&D Resources: Future Directions for Content and Methods addresses the following questions: (1) what additional topics and tabulations could be presented without modifying the current portfolio of R&D censuses and surveys, (2) what additional topics and tabulations might be presented by expanding these current data collections, (3) what could be done to enhance international comparability of the tabulations, (4) since much of the information on non-profit R&D providers and recipients is estimated from 15 year-old data, what impact might this be having on the quality of the associated National Patterns tabulations, (5) what statistical models could be used to support the issuance R&D estimates at state-level and geographic regions below the national level, (6) what use could be made from the recent development of administrative sources of R&D information, and finally, (7) what graphical tools could be added to the current tabulations to enhance the communication of R&D patterns to the users of this series of publications. Table of Contents Front Matter 1 Introduction 2 What Is *National Patterns*? 3 Users' Needs 4 Statistical Models and Administrative Records as Supplements to Surveys 5 Small-Area Estimation 6 Presentation of Information in *National Patterns* References Appendix A: Acronyms and Abbreviations Appendix B: Workshop Agenda and Participants Appendix C: Biographical Sketches of Steering Committee Members and Workshop Presenters Committee on National Statistics

On May 23, 2012, the Roundtable on Technology, Science, and Peacebuilding convened a workshop at the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) to investigate data sharing as a means of improving coordination among US government and nongovernment stakeholders involved in peacebuilding and conflict management activities. Using Data Sharing to Improve Coordination in Peacebuilding:Report of a Workshop by the National Academy of Engineering and the United States Institute of Peace: Roundtable on Technology, Science, and Peacebuilding addresses the following question: What needs must a data sharing system address to create more effective coordination in conflict zones and to promote the participation of federal agencies and nonfederal organizations in Peacebuilding? In addition, the workshop served as a means to obtain feedback on the UNITY system, a data-sharing platform developed by the Department of Defense (DOD) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The Roundtable was established in 2011 as a partnership between USIP and the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) to make a measurable and positive impact on conflict management, peacebuilding, and security capabilities by bringing together leaders from the technical and peacebuilding communities. Its members are senior executives and experts from leading governmental organizations, universities, corporations, and nongovernmental organizations. Its principal goals are: 1. To accelerate the application of science and technology to the process of peacebuilding and stabilization; 2. To promote systematic, high-level communication between peacebuilding and technical organizations on the problems faced and the technical capabilities required for successful peacebuilding; and 3. To collaborate in applying new science and technology to the most pressing challenges faced by local and international peacebuilders working in conflict zones. The Roundtable is strongly committed to action-oriented projects, and the long-term goal of each is to demonstrate viability with a successful field trial. The Roundtable has selected a portfolio of high-impact peacebuilding problems on which to focus its efforts: 1. Adapting agricultural extension services to peacebuilding, 2.Using data sharing to improve coordination in peacebuilding, 3. Sensing emerging conflicts, and 4. Harnessing systems methods for delivery of peacebuilding services. Table of Contents Front Matter 1 Introduction, Overview, and Themes of the Workshop 2 Defining the Challenges of Coordination 3 Overcoming Challenges to Sharing Information 4 Using Data for Impact 5 Demonstrating Data Sharing: The UNITY System Appendix A: Agenda Appendix B: Attendees

While nations have always competed for territory, mineral riches, water, and other physical assets, they compete most vigorously today for technology-based innovations and the value that flows from them. Much of this value is based on creating scientific knowledge and transforming it into new products and services for the market. This process of innovation is complex and interdisciplinary. Sometimes it draws on the genius of individuals, but even then it requires sustained collective effort, often underpinned by significant national investments. Capturing the value of these investments to spur domestic economic growth and employment is a challenge in a world where the outputs of innovation disseminate rapidly. Those equipped to understand, apply, and profit from new knowledge and technical advances are increasingly able to capture the long-term economic benefits of growth and employment. In response to this new, more distributed innovation paradigm, the National Academies Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy (STEP) convened leading academics, business leaders, and senior policymakers from Germany and the United States to examine the strengths and challenges of their innovation systems. More specifically, they met to compare their respective approaches to innovation, to learn from their counterparts about best practices and shared challenges, and to identify cooperative opportunities. The symposium was held in Berlin and organized jointly by the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW) and the U.S. National Academies with support of the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) and the American Embassy in Berlin. Both U.S. and German participants described common challenges on a wide variety of issues ranging from energy security and climate change to low-emissions transportation, early-stage financing, and workforce training. While recognizing their differences in approach to these challenges, participants on both sides drew out valuable lessons from each other's policies and practices. Participants were also aware of the need to adapt to a new global environment where many countries have focused new policy measures and new resources to support innovative firms and promising industries. Meeting Global Challenges: U.S.-German Innovation Policy reviews the participants meeting and sets goals and recommendations for future policy. Table of Contents Front Matter I: OVERVIEW Overview II: PROCEEDINGS DAY 1 & Welcome--Gert G. Wagner Opening Remarks for Germany--Georg Schutte Opening Remarks for the United States--The Honorable Philip Murphy Keynote Address--John Fernandez Panel I: Current Trends in Innovation Policy Keynote Address--Werner Hoyer Panel II: Competition and Cooperation in a Global Economy Panel III: Human Resources, Competition for Manpower, and the Internationalization of Labor Panel IV: Growing Universities for the 21st Century Roundtable: Competition and Cooperation: Systematic Challenges DAY 2 & Panel V: Helping Small Business: Current Trends and Programs Panel VI: Early-Stage Finance and Entrepreneurship Panel VII: Policies and Programs for CO2 Reduction Panel VIII: Building Electric Vehicle Industries Panel IX: Medical/Biomedical Innovation for the 21st Century Panel X: Policies and Programs to Build Solar Industries Roundtable: Energy Change: What Are the Consequences for the German and U.S. Innovation Systems? Closing Remarks III: APPENDIXES Appendix A: Agenda Appendix B: Bibliography

The growing use of nuclear medicine, the potential expansion of nuclear power generation, and the urgent needs to protect the nation against external nuclear threats, to maintain our nuclear weapons stockpile, and to manage the nuclear wastes generated in past decades, require a substantial, highly trained, and exceptionally talented workforce. Assuring a Future U.S.-Based Nuclear and Radiochemistry Expertise examines supply and demand for expertise in nuclear chemistry nuclear science, and radiochemistry in the United States and presents possible approaches for ensuring adequate availability of these skills, including necessary science and technology training platforms. Considering a range of reasonable scenarios looking to the future, none of these areas are likely to experience a decrease in demand for expertise. However, many in the current workforce are approaching retirement age and the number of students opting for careers in nuclear and radiochemistry has decreased dramatically over the past few decades. In order to avoid a gap in these critical areas, increases in student interest in these careers, in the research and educational capacity of universities and colleges, and sector specific on-the-job training will be needed. Concise recommendations are given for actions to avoid a shortage of nuclear chemistry, nuclear scientists, and radiochemists in the future. Table of Contents Front Matter Executive Summary 1 Introduction 2 Defining Nuclear and Radiochemistry Expertise 3 Academic Basic Research and Education 4 Medicine 5 Energy and Power Generation 6 National Security 7 Environmental Management 8 Summary of Supply and Demand for Nuclear and Radiochemistry Expertise 9 Approaches to Assuring U.S. Nuclear and Radiochemistry Expertise 10 Committee Recommendations Appendix A: Study Statement of Task Appendix B: Biographical Information Appendix C: Public Meeting Schedule and Guest Speakers Appendix D: Questionnaire Descriptions Appendix E: 2008 Nuclear and Radiochemistry Faculty List Appendix F: Data Collection from National Laboratories Appendix G: Positron Emission Tomography Radiopharmaceuticals Appendix H: Chemistry Department Chairs Appendix I: Commercial Nuclear Power Plants

Chemistry graduate education is under considerable pressure. Pharmaceutical companies, long a major employer of synthetic organic chemists, are drastically paring back their research divisions to reduce costs. Chemical companies are opening new research and development facilities in Asia rather than in the United States to take advantage of growing markets and trained workforces there. Universities, especially public universities, are under significant fiscal constraints that threaten their ability to hire new faculty members. Future federal funding of chemical research may be limited as the federal budget tightens. All of these trends have major consequences for the education of chemistry graduate students in U.S. universities.
To explore and respond to these intensifying pressures, the Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology held a workshop in Washington, DC, on January 23-24 2012, titled "Graduate Education in Chemistry in the Context of a Changing Environment." The workshop brought together representatives from across the chemical enterprise, representing leaders and future leaders of academia, industry, and government. The goal of the workshop was not to come to conclusions, but to have an open and frank discussion about critical issues affecting chemistry graduate education, such as the attraction and retainment of the most able students to graduate education, financial stressors on the current support model and their implications for the future model, competencies needed in the changing job market for Ph.D. chemists, and competencies needed to address societal problems such as energy and sustainability.
Challenges in Chemistry Graduate Education: A Workshop Summary is organized into six chapters and summarizes the workshop on "Graduate Education in Chemistry in the Context of a Changing Environment."