Abstract
Science indicators are increasingly used in policy-making. However, failure to relate interpretations of specific measures to the historical development of science can lead to errors in assessing past investments and in prioritizing future investments. This article outlines some of these sources of error, and argues for the more systematic use of historical evidence in the formulation of science policy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Acknowledgements
Feller’s work was supported by Department of Energy–Office of Science Award DE-AC02-ER 30318 and by grants from Atlantic Philanthropies. Gamota’s work has been supported by the DOE. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the OECD Workshop on Measuring the Impacts of Science, held in Montreal in 2004. We have benefited considerably from discussions with William Valdez and Paul Stern and the comments of Minerva’s Editor, Roy MacLeod, and referees.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Irwin Feller, an economist, is a Senior Visiting Scientist at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. His research includes studies of the economics of academic R&D, the assessment of interdisciplinary research, and the relationship between performance measurement and science and technology policies.
George Gamota, a physicist, is President of STMA, LLC. He has written extensively on technology assessment and forecasting, emerging technologies, and science policy. Recently, he led a review of New Zealand’s New Economy Research Fund (NERF), and is a foreign reviewer of the Japanese Science & Technology (JST) Corporation’s research programmes.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Feller, I., Gamota, G. Science indicators as reliable evidence. Minerva 45, 17–30 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-006-9017-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-006-9017-8