To mark its fortieth anniversary, the team behind Issues in Science and Technology launched an ambitious initiative: to understand the people behind the field of science and technology policy, their motivations, and how the profession itself has evolved. Between May 15 and August 15, 2024, the magazine conducted a large-scale survey designed to map out today’s science and technology (S&T) policy landscape — from career trajectories and demographics to the shifting focus and goals of those who shape policy at the intersection of research, innovation, and governance.
The survey was distributed through Issues’ newsletters, social media channels, and via partner organizations such as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Arizona State University; the American Institute of Physics’ FYI platform; and the National Science Policy Network. Naturally, this outreach approach meant that respondents were largely individuals already engaged with S&T policy communities — a factor that may have introduced a self-selection bias. Even so, 784 participants took the time to share their insights. To keep the questionnaire concise, definitions were left open to interpretation, allowing respondents to express their personal understanding of what “doing science policy” truly means. While the survey did not test for statistical significance, the responses still reveal important trends and emerging dynamics in this vital field.
The People Behind Science and Technology Policy
When looking at who actually participates in science and technology policy, gender balance appears to be improving. Fifty-five percent of respondents identified as male, 43% as female, and 2% as nonbinary or preferred not to disclose. Compared to the broader U.S. STEM workforce — where women represent only 35% of workers — these numbers indicate stronger female representation in science policy circles. Interestingly, younger age groups were far more balanced: women made up 64% of participants under age 45, while they represented only 16% of those 65 or older. This pattern aligns with broader national trends showing women now outnumber men in the college-educated workforce.
Respondents came from 40 countries across every continent except Antarctica, with 83% based in the United States. Within the U.S., they represented 46 states and the District of Columbia, confirming that science policy activity is widespread, though still concentrated in traditional research and policy hubs.
Most participants (71%) considered science and technology policy either their full-time or part-time occupation. Nearly three-quarters were employed in just three major sectors: the federal government (27%), universities (27%), and nonprofit organizations (18%). Women were nearly equally represented in each of these three sectors, though they remained underrepresented in corporate and consulting roles. Age distribution across sectors was relatively even, but industry professionals tended to skew older — perhaps reflecting the experience required to navigate technology governance and corporate innovation environments.
Diverse Pathways into a Complex Profession
One of the most striking findings from the survey is the variety of pathways leading to science policy careers. Some enter through academia, others through government, while a growing number now study science policy directly. According to the survey, the most common routes were through university-based research positions and roles at federal or state agencies.
However, career paths differ significantly by age. Younger professionals are more likely to hold formal degrees in science policy or to have entered the field through fellowships, advocacy organizations, or nontraditional policy training programs. By contrast, older professionals often came to policy work after careers in government, think tanks, or legislative offices. This generational divide suggests that formal credentials are becoming increasingly important for those hoping to enter the field today, while earlier generations could transition into policy work through direct professional experience.
In terms of daily responsibilities, most respondents said their jobs involve a mix of activities — typically four or five different functions. The most frequent tasks were “communicating science for policy” and “policy analysis,” reflecting the dual nature of the profession: bridging scientific knowledge and policymaking. Yet, responsibilities vary considerably across employment sectors. For instance, university-based professionals tend to focus on education and research, while those in industry prioritize consulting and applied innovation. Government employees, meanwhile, emphasize interagency coordination and regulatory management.
This diversity underscores that “doing science and technology policy” can mean many different things. Depending on one’s organization and mission, the work may involve drafting legislation, assessing the social impact of new technologies, or translating complex data into actionable policy insights.
Motivations and Values Driving the Field
When asked why they chose careers in S&T policy, respondents most frequently cited two motivations: the desire to influence policy and regulation, and the aspiration to bring science closer to society. These twin goals capture both the traditional mission of policy work — shaping laws and standards — and a modern vision focused on social relevance and public engagement. Interestingly, motivations remained consistent across gender and age, suggesting a shared sense of purpose within the field.
More than half of participants agreed that the field has expanded dramatically over the past five years and has become more international in scope. Fifty-one percent felt that science and technology policy has grown more inclusive and diverse. Younger professionals were the most optimistic group: 56% of those aged 18–34 agreed that inclusivity is increasing, compared to 47% of those aged 75 and older. This optimism likely reflects both the generational shift toward diversity and an expanding range of opportunities for entry-level professionals from varied backgrounds.
Opinions were more divided on whether the field has become more decentralized. While 52% were neutral, professionals working in think tanks or state-level government roles were more likely to perceive decentralization as a defining trend. This may reflect growing regional autonomy in science and innovation policy — as cities, states, and local institutions take a greater role in shaping technology governance beyond Washington, D.C.
Looking Ahead: The Next Frontiers of S&T Policy
When respondents were invited to predict what issues will dominate the next four decades of science and technology policy, two themes consistently topped the list: artificial intelligence and climate change. These topics not only represent pressing global challenges but also embody the intersection of technology, ethics, and sustainability that defines the next phase of policy innovation. Respondents cited AI governance, data privacy, interdisciplinary collaboration, and environmental resilience as areas that will require urgent policy attention.
Still, not everyone felt confident making predictions. A significant number admitted uncertainty, with many writing responses like “I have no idea.” This hesitation reveals something essential about the nature of science policy professionals — their tendency to rely on evidence rather than speculation.
When asked about the greatest obstacles to effective S&T policymaking, participants pointed to familiar frustrations: political polarization, ideological conflicts, and underfunding. Many also highlighted the persistent gap between scientific research and public understanding, bureaucratic resistance to innovation, and the lack of incentives for policy work within scientific institutions. Other responses addressed elitism, lack of diversity, and insufficient recognition for those who bridge disciplines to make science policy more accessible.
One respondent captured the complexity of the challenge perfectly, suggesting that the survey itself asked the wrong question: “Effectiveness means different things to different people in science policy.” This observation reflects a deep truth — that the field’s strength lies in its diversity of perspectives and definitions. For one person, success might mean passing a major piece of legislation; for another, it might mean ensuring ethical AI governance or improving science communication for public audiences.
A Field Still in Motion
As Issues celebrates its 40th anniversary, this survey serves as both a snapshot of a profession in transition and a reminder of its ongoing evolution. Science and technology policy has grown into a global ecosystem — one that relies on collaboration between researchers, policymakers, educators, and communicators. The individuals shaping this field today come from varied backgrounds, but they share a common belief: that scientific knowledge must serve society responsibly and inclusively.
The next decades will likely bring even greater change. The rapid rise of artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and climate technologies will demand new policy frameworks and ethical considerations. Meanwhile, the field itself must continue to broaden access, foster diversity, and adapt to a world where science and society are more interconnected than ever.
In essence, the question is no longer simply “Who does science and technology policy?” but “How can this growing community ensure that science truly works for everyone?”
Leave a Reply