Agenda Setting in Emergent R&D Policy Subsystems: Examining Discourse Effects of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act

The literature on government responsiveness to societal issues is extensive but provides a mixed assessment of effectiveness. We examine this issue in the case of policy addressing effective and safe management of research and development in the emerging field of nanotechnology. Specifically, we examine the agenda setting effects of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (the Act), a piece of legislation designed to be implemented by a network of actors in the nanotechnology research and development policy subsystem. We adopt a public values lens in our examination of discourse related to societal concerns. Policy documents from Congress, an agency, and federal funding recipients are examined. Findings suggest a narrowing of public values discourse around more specific societal concerns in the documents crafted after the Act was passed.

[1]  Johan P. Olsen.  The Ups and Downs of Bureaucratic Organization , 2008 .

[2]  Henry Mintzberg.  Patterns in Strategy Formation , 1978, International Studies of Management & Organization.

[3]  Erik Fisher,et al.  The public value of nanotechnology? , 2010, Scientometrics.

[4]  Bryan D. Jones,et al.  Policy Punctuations in American Political Institutions , 2003, American Political Science Review.

[5]  G. Maricle,et al.  Prediction as an Impediment to Preparedness: Lessons from the US Hurricane and Earthquake Research Enterprises , 2011 .

[6]  Mihail C. Roco,et al.  Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology: Maximizing human benefit , 2005 .

[7]  J. Sargent,et al.  The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Overview, Reauthorization, and Appropriations Issues , 2010 .

[8]  Scott E. Robinson,et al.  A Decade of Treating Networks Seriously , 2006 .

[9]  Michael Howlett,et al.  Managing the “hollow state”: procedural policy instruments and modern governance , 2000 .

[10]  Bryan D. Jones,et al.  Policy Punctuations: U.S. Budget Authority, 1947-1995 , 1998, The Journal of Politics.

[11]  Toon Kerkhoff.  Public values and public interest: Counterbalancing economic individualism , 2009 .

[12]  Ryan Meyer,et al.  The Public Values Failures of Climate Science in the US , 2011 .

[13]  Barry Bozeman,et al.  Public‐Value Failure: When Efficient Markets May Not Do , 2002 .

[14]  W. Patrick McCray,et al.  Will small be beautiful? Making policies for our nanotech future , 2005 .

[15]  Mary K. Feeney,et al.  Public Values and Public Failure: Implications of the 2004-2005 Flu Vaccine Case , 2007 .

[16]  H. Hotelling.  Analysis of a complex of statistical variables into principal components. , 1933 .

[17]  Mihail C. Roco,et al.  From Vision to the Implementation of the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative , 2001 .

[18]  Matthew Potoski.  Designing Bureaucratic Responsiveness: Administrative Procedures and Agency Choice in State Environmental Policy , 2002, State Politics & Policy Quarterly.

[19]  Rudolph Rummel,et al.  Understanding factor analysis , 1967 .

[20]  J. Hall.  Incremental change in the Australian health care system. , 1999, Health affairs.

[21]  B. Jones,et al.  Agendas and instability in American politics , 1993 .

[22]  Jason W. Osborne,et al.  Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. , 2005 .

[23]  Mihail C. Roco,et al.  The US National Nanotechnology Initiative after 3 years (2001–2003) , 2004 .

[24]  Catherine P. Slade.  Exploring Societal Impact of Nanomedicine Using Public Value Mapping , 2010 .

[25]  Catherine P. Slade.  Public Value Mapping of Equity in Emerging Nanomedicine , 2011 .

[26]  Paul A. Sabatier,et al.  Themes and Variations: Taking Stock of the Advocacy Coalition Framework , 2009 .

[27]  D. Guston,et al.  Anticipating the ethical and political challenges of human nanotechnologies , 2007 .

[28]  Catherine P. Slade,et al.  Retrospective View of the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative , 2012 .

[29]  Paul A. Sabatier,et al.  Toward Better Theories of the Policy Process , 1991, PS: Political Science & Politics.

[30]  Mihail C. Roco,et al.  National Nanotechnology Initiative - Past, Present, Future , 2007 .

[31]  Johan P. Olsen,et al.  The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life , 1983, American Political Science Review.

[32]  Walter D. Valdivia.  The Stakes in Bayh-Dole: Public Values Beyond the Pace of Innovation , 2011, Minerva.

[33]  David H. Guston,et al.  Real-time technology assessment , 2020, Emerging Technologies: Ethics, Law and Governance.

[34]  Barry Bozeman,et al.  Public Value Mapping and Science Policy Evaluation , 2011 .

[35]  Roop L. Mahajan,et al.  Contradictory intent? US federal legislation on integrating societal concerns into nanotechnology research and development , 2006 .

[36]  M. Mintrom,et al.  Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusion of innovation , 1997 .

[37]  Michael D. Cobb,et al.  Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust , 2004, Emerging Technologies: Ethics, Law and Governance.

[38]  David H. Guston,et al.  Innovation policy: not just a jumbo shrimp , 2008, Nature.

[39]  Duane T. Wegener,et al.  Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. , 1999 .