Paper by Claudio M Radaelli: “How can science have more impact on policy decisions? The P-Cube Project has approached this question by creating five pedagogical computer games based on missions given to a policy entrepreneur (the player) advocating for science-informed policy decisions. The player explores simplified strategies for policy change rooted in a small number of variables, thus making it possible to learn without a prior background in political science or public administration. The games evolved from the intuition that, instead of making additional efforts to explain science to decision-makers, we should directly empower would-be scientists (our primary audience for the games), post-graduates in public policy and administration, and activists for science. The two design principles of the games revolve around learning about how policy decisions are made (a learning-about-content principle) and reflection. Indeed, the presence of science in the policy process raises ethical and normative decisions, especially when we consider controversial strategies like civil disobedience and alliances with industry. To be on the side of science does not mean to be outside society and politics. I show the motivation, principles, scripts and pilots of the science games, reflecting on how they can be used and for what reasons…(More)”
Entering the Vortex
Essay by Nils Gilman: “A strange and unsettling weather pattern is forming over the landscape of scholarly research. For decades, the climate of academic inquiry was shaped by a prevailing high-pressure system, a consensus grounded in the vision articulated by Vannevar Bush in “Science: The Endless Frontier” (1945). That era was characterized by robust federal investment, a faith in the university as the engine of basic research, and a compact that traded public funding for scientific autonomy and the promise of long-term societal benefit. It was a climate conducive to the slow, deliberate, and often unpredictable growth of knowledge, nurtured by a diverse ecosystem of human researchers — the vital “seed stock” of intellectual discovery.
But that high-pressure system is collapsing. A brutal, unyielding cold front of academic defunding has swept across the nation, a consequence of shifting political priorities, populist resentment, and a calculated assault on the university as an institution perceived as hostile to certain political agendas. This is not merely a belt-tightening exercise; it is, for all intents and purposes, the dismantling of Vannevar Bush’s Compact, the end of the era of “big government”-funded Wissenschaft. Funding streams for basic research are dwindling, grant applications face increasingly long odds, and the financial precarity of academic careers deters the brightest minds. The human capital necessary for sustained, fundamental inquiry is beginning to wither.
Simultaneously, a warm, moisture-laden airmass is rapidly advancing: the astonishing rise of AI-based research tools. Powered by vast datasets and sophisticated algorithms, these tools promise to revolutionize every stage of the research process – from literature review and data analysis to hypothesis generation and the drafting of scholarly texts. As a recent New Yorker piece on AI and the humanities suggests, these AI engines can already generate deep research and coherent texts on virtually any subject, seemingly within moments. They offer the prospect of unprecedented efficiency, speed, and scale in the production of scholarly output.
The collision of these two epochal weather systems — the brutal cold front of academic defunding and the warm, expansive airmass of AI-based research tools — is creating an atmospheric instability unlike anything the world of scholarship has ever witnessed. Along the front where these forces meet, a series of powerful and unpredictable tornados are beginning to touch down, reshaping the terrain of knowledge production in real-time…(More)”.
Digital Public Infrastructure Could Make a Better Internet
Essay by Akash Kapur: “…The advent of AI has intensified geopolitical rivalries, and with them the risks of fragmentation, exclusion, and hyper-concentration that are already so prevalent. The prospects of a “Splinternet” have never appeared more real. The old dream of a global digital commons seems increasingly quaint; we are living amid what Yanis Varoufakis, the former Greek finance minister, calls “technofeudalism.”
DPI suggests it doesn’t have to be this way. The approach’s emphasis on loosening chokeholds, fostering collaboration, and reclaiming space from monopolies represents an effort to recuperate some of the internet’s original promise. At its most aspirational, DPI offers the potential for a new digital social contract: a rebalancing of public and private interests, a reorientation of the network so that it advances broad social goals even while fostering entrepreneurship and innovation. How fitting it would be if this new model were to emerge not from the entrenched powers that have so long guided the network, but from a handful of nations long confined to the periphery—now determined to take their seats at the table of global technology…(More)”.
Understanding and Addressing Misinformation About Science
Report by National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine: “Our current information ecosystem makes it easier for misinformation about science to spread and harder for people to figure out what is scientifically accurate. Proactive solutions are needed to address misinformation about science, an issue of public concern given its potential to cause harm at individual, community, and societal levels. Improving access to high-quality scientific information can fill information voids that exist for topics of interest to people, reducing the likelihood of exposure to and uptake of misinformation about science. Misinformation is commonly perceived as a matter of bad actors maliciously misleading the public, but misinformation about science arises both intentionally and inadvertently and from a wide range of sources…(More)”.
Bad Public Policy: Malignity, Volatility and the Inherent Vices of Policymaking
Book by Policy studies assume the existence of baseline parameters – such as honest governments doing their best to create public value, publics responding in good faith, and both parties relying on a policy-making process which aligns with the public interest. In such circumstances, policy goals are expected to be produced through mechanisms in which the public can articulate its preferences and policy-makers are expected to listen to what has been said in determining their governments’ courses of action. While these conditions are found in some governments, there is evidence from around the world that much policy-making occurs without these pre-conditions and processes. Unlike situations which produce what can be thought of as ‘good’ public policy, ‘bad’ public policy is a more common outcome. How this happens and what makes for bad public policy are the subjects of this Element…(More)”.
In Uncertain Times, Get Curious
Chapter (and book) by Elizabeth Weingarten: “Questions flow from curiosity. If we want to live and love the questions of our lives—How to live a life of purpose? Who am I in the aftermath of a big change or transition? What kind of person do I want to become as I grow older?—we must first ask them into conscious existence.
Many people have written entire books defining and redefining curiosity. But for me, the most helpful definition comes from a philosophy professor, Perry Zurn, and a systems neuroscientist, Dani Bassett: “For too long—and still too often—curiosity has been oversimplified,” they write, typically “reduced to the simple act of raising a hand or voicing a question, especially from behind a desk or a podium. . . . Scholars generally boil it down to ‘information-seeking’ behavior or a ‘desire to know.’ But curiosity is more than a feeling and certainly more than an act. And curiosity is always more than a single move or a single question.”Curiosity works, they write, by “linking ideas, facts, perceptions, sensations and data points together.”It is complex, mutating, unpredictable, and transformational. It is, fundamentally, an act of connection, an act of creating relationships between ideas and people. Asking questions then, becoming curious, is not just about wanting to find the answer—it is also about our need to connect, with ourselves, with others, with the world.
And this, perhaps, is why our deeper questions are hardly ever satisfied by Google or by fast, easy answers from the people I refer to as the Charlatans of Certainty—the gurus, influencers, and “experts” peddling simple solutions to all the complex problems you face. This is also the reason there is no one-size-fits-all formula for cultivating curiosity—particularly the kind that allows us to live and love our questions, especially the questions that are hard to love, like “How can I live with chronic pain?” or “How do I extricate myself from a challenging relationship?” This kind of curiosity is a special flavor…(More)”. See also: Inquiry as Infrastructure: Defining Good Questions in the Age of Data and AI.
How to save a billion dollars
Essay by Ann Lewis: “The persistent pattern of billion-dollar technology modernization failures in government stems not from a lack of good intentions, but from structural misalignments in incentives, expertise, and decision-making authority. When large budgets meet urgency, limited in-house technical capacity, and rigid, compliance-driven procurement processes, projects become over-scoped and detached from the needs of users and mission outcomes. This undermines service delivery, wastes taxpayer dollars, and adds unnecessary risk to critical systems supporting national security and public safety.
We know what causes failure, we know what works, and we’ve proven it before. It isn’t easy and shortcuts don’t work — but success is entirely achievable, and that should be the expectation. The solution is not simply to spend more, or cancel contracts, or fire people, but to fundamentally rethink how public institutions build and manage technology, and rethink how public-private partnerships are structured. Government services underpinned by technology should be funded as ongoing capabilities rather than one-time investments, IT procurement processes should embed experienced technical leadership where key decisions are made, and all implementation projects should adopt iterative, outcomes-driven approaches.
Proven examples—from VA.gov to SSA’s recent CCaaS success—show that when governments align incentives, prioritize real user needs, and invest in internal capacity, they can build services faster, for less money, and with dramatically better results…(More)”.
Guiding the provision of quality policy advice: the 5D model
Paper by Christopher Walker and Sally Washington: “… presents a process model to guide the production of quality policy advice. The work draws on engagement with both public sector practitioners and academics to design a process model for the development of policy advice that works in practice (can be used by policy professionals in their day-to-day work) and aligns with theory (can be taught as part of explaining the dynamics of a wider policy advisory system). The 5D Model defines five key domains of inquiry: understanding Demand, being open to Discovery, undertaking Design, identifying critical Decision points, and shaping advice to enable Delivery. Our goal is a ‘repeatable, scalable’ model for supporting policy practitioners to provide quality advice to decision makers. The model was developed and tested through an extensive process of engagement with senior policy practitioners who noted the heuristic gave structure to practices that determine how policy advice is organized and formulated. Academic colleagues confirmed the utility of the model for explaining and teaching how policy is designed and delivered within the context of a wider policy advisory system (PAS). A unique aspect of this work was the collaboration and shared interest amongst academics and practitioners to define a model that is ‘useful for teaching’ and ‘useful for doing’…(More)”.
Exit to Open
Article by Jim Fruchterman and Steve Francis: “What happens when a nonprofit program or an entire organization needs to shut down? The communities being served, and often society as a whole, are the losers. What if it were possible to mitigate some of that damage by sharing valuable intellectual property assets of the closing effort for longer term benefit? Organizations in these tough circumstances must give serious thought to a responsible exit for their intangible assets.
At the present moment of unparalleled disruption, the entire nonprofit sector is rethinking everything: language to describe their work, funding sources, partnerships, and even their continued existence. Nonprofit programs and entire charities will be closing, or being merged out of existence. Difficult choices are being made. Who will fill the role of witness and archivist to preserve the knowledge of these organizations, their writings, media, software, and data, for those who carry on, either now or in the future?
We believe leaders in these tough days should consider a model we’re calling Exit to Open (E2O) and related exit concepts to safeguard these assets going forward…
Exit to Open (E2O) exploits three elements:
- We are in an era where the cost of digital preservation is low; storing a few more bytes for a long time is cheap.
- It’s far more effective for an organization’s staff to isolate and archive critical content than an outsider with limited knowledge attempting to do so later.
- These resources are of greatest use if there is a human available to interpret them, and a deliberate archival process allows for the identification of these potential interpreters…(More)”.
Hundreds of scholars say U.S. is swiftly heading toward authoritarianism
Article by Frank Langfitt: “A survey of more than 500 political scientists finds that the vast majority think the United States is moving swiftly from liberal democracy toward some form of authoritarianism.
In the benchmark survey, known as Bright Line Watch, U.S.-based professors rate the performance of American democracy on a scale from zero (complete dictatorship) to 100 (perfect democracy). After President Trump’s election in November, scholars gave American democracy a rating of 67. Several weeks into Trump’s second term, that figure plummeted to 55.
“That’s a precipitous drop,” says John Carey, a professor of government at Dartmouth and co-director of Bright Line Watch. “There’s certainly consensus: We’re moving in the wrong direction.”…Not all political scientists view Trump with alarm, but many like Carey who focus on democracy and authoritarianism are deeply troubled by Trump’s attempts to expand executive power over his first several months in office.
“We’ve slid into some form of authoritarianism,” says Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at Harvard, and co-author of How Democracies Die. “It is relatively mild compared to some others. It is certainly reversible, but we are no longer living in a liberal democracy.”…Kim Lane Scheppele, a Princeton sociologist who has spent years tracking Hungary, is also deeply concerned: “We are on a very fast slide into what’s called competitive authoritarianism.”
When these scholars use the term “authoritarianism,” they aren’t talking about a system like China’s, a one-party state with no meaningful elections. Instead, they are referring to something called “competitive authoritarianism,” the kind scholars say they see in countries such as Hungary and Turkey.
In a competitive authoritarian system, a leader comes to power democratically and then erodes the system of checks and balances. Typically, the executive fills the civil service and key appointments — including the prosecutor’s office and judiciary — with loyalists. He or she then attacks the media, universities and nongovernmental organizations to blunt public criticism and tilt the electoral playing field in the ruling party’s favor…(More)”.