Giving preparedness a central role in science and innovation policy

Abstract

Over the last few decades public policy and public management methods have been very much concerned with the management of risk. Risk by definition is quantifiable, or if not quantifiable, something that can be ‘managed’. In contrast, the preparedness perspective places far more emphasis on the need to deal with uncertainty – challenges that cannot be easily quantified, accurately forecasted or managed. Although the distinction between risk and uncertainty is not clear-cut (and is often the troubled area where policy-makers find themselves working), a strong bias towards framing the challenge as ‘manageable’ risk can, in practice, be distinguished from the more important challenge of handling substantive uncertainty. The preparedness perspective stresses the key role of governments in managing the economic, social, environmental and national security consequences of this substantive uncertainty. Preparedness also clarifies why government funding for basic research is so important: basic research, in essence, translates ignorance into risk. We explore the unknown because we want to find out more about it – human beings prefer to face risks than uncertainties because we can (attempt at least) to act rationally in response to measurable risks. Consequently, giving preparedness a central role in science policy would counter-balance and address shortcomings in current science and innovation policy frameworks. Such a shift in emphasis would also make it easier to defend spending on capacity building in public science. In an uncertain world, the ability to respond quickly and effectively to the unforeseen is critical. Indeed, preparedness capacity is critical to setting the innovation objectives that allow us to respond to unforeseen threats. The paper recommends five complementary principles for giving preparedness a more central role in science and innovation policy. (1) Being more realistic and honest about limitations to forecasts and predictions, particularly in complex systems environments where simple Newtonian dynamics of linear cause and effect do not apply. (2) Making a more explicit distinction between risk and uncertainty, and doing more to understand the ‘fuzzy’ grey area between the two, again giving due recognition to the inherent unpredictability of complex systems. (3) Putting more effort into demonstrating how science translates uncertainty into risk and in so doing increases our levels of preparedness. (4) Adopting ‘preparedness friendly’ guidelines for research funding and performance evaluation that utilise ‘risk-facilitating’ portfolio-based investment methods. (5) Doing more to specify how preparedness outcomes are reflected (in the short term) in greater accuracy in the estimated Net Present Value of economic assets and also (in the very long term) the challenge of being fairer to future generations. Show more