Science of Science Policy and the Great East Japan Earthquake

It is clear that the Great East Japan Earthquake had enormous consequences for human beings.  There are also significant consequences for science in areas ranging from the continued practice of science (due to the scale of the destruction), to public confidence in scientists and yet further to questioning the structure of scientific governance systems.   This presentation will discuss three separate issues from the perspectives of the science of science policy.

1. What have been the broad lessons learned from disasters like this about the design of scientific institutions and systems so that they can prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters.  In particular, as Gene Carpenter has noted, how can scientists incorporate new knowledge and insights into a variety of governmental responses?
2. How can the science of science policy be used to inform understanding about the functioning of science in a particular industry? In particular, as Dan Aldrich has pointed out

a.  What is the balance between potential risks and C02 free-power that come with nuclear power, and will the public be involved in a discussion on this topic?

b.  Will nuclear power supporters continue to insist that the technology is protected by multiple backup systems which cannot fail?

c.  Given the impact of Japan's accident on Germany, Switzerland, and Italy, what will happen to the nuclear renaissance planned by the industry?

d.  When a government repeatedly pushes a technology through policy instruments designed to alter public opinion, is that an appropriate use of state power?

How can we use data to inform policy makers about the impact of infrastructure investments and collaborations on the practice of science?  Natural disasters create a form of natural experiment – in which an exogenous shock is introduced to a social system.  At least three separate shocks occurred with the earthquake: an infrastructure shock; a shock to scientific teams with collaborators in the affected region; and a shock to a particular research area (nuclear power).   This should enable substantive “before and after” – or “difference in difference” – analysis of the relative importance of different components of the scientific system.