Election 2016: What does it mean for science, technology, and innovation?

Michael Bennett, Bob Cook-Deegan and Diana Bowman

In this special episode of the futurethink podcast, Heather Ross and Andrew Maynard have an unplanned (but recorded) chat with colleagues Michael Bennett, Bob Cook-Deegan, and Diana Bowman. They discuss the possible implications of the 2016 presidential election results on the near future of science, technology, research, and innovation.

Show Notes
• The Master's of Science and Technology policy program at Arizona State University prepares graduates to work on the intersection of science policy and politics. Check it out here: sfis.asu.edu/degree/science-technology-policy-0

• The Disruptive Innovation Festival is an online, open access event for thought leaders and entrepreneurs exploring the changing economy and where we go from here. Find out more here: www.thinkdif.co/big-top-tents/ari…te-university-asu

• What does the 2016 Presidential election mean for the future of science and technology policy?

• Some areas of scientific research are expected to remain untouched, such as the Precision Medicine Initiative (www.nih.gov/precision-medicine-…tive-cohort-program), the cancer moonshot( www.cancer.gov/research/key-init…iative/task-force), Alzheimer’s research (www.nia.nih.gov/), the Brain Initiative (www.braininitiative.nih.gov/), and CERN (home.cern/).

• Scientists must now practice what they preach through responsible innovation and use public engagement as a tool to engage people who feel disenfranchised.

• Closing notes: We must confront the distrust of expertise. How can experts re-frame the issues?
o Propose--don’t preach. 
o Listen. 
o Shared value in democracy.