17.309/IDS.055/STS.082  Science, Tech, & Public Policy

General Questions

Q.  Where is the final exam essay pool?

A.  The essay pool is posted on Stellar at 2016 Syllabus and Course Schedule

===================

Q. How long should medium essays in Part I be?   Are they the equivalent of short answer essays on the midterm exam?

A. Questions in Part I require more depth and contain  more elements than the short-answer questions on the midterm exam.   Questions in Part I are designed to elicit essays that are about half the length of essays in Part II.  But as always YMMV.

 

Questions on Part I

Q. On I-1. (B), what does “one mechanism more valid than the other” and “is it difficult/impossible to determine which mechanism is more valid in practice” mean?  What do you mean by valid?

A. The issue reduces to “Can one determine that one of the mechanisms is operating and the other is not?”  Alternately, is it difficult or impossible for external observers to figure out which mechanism is operating?  

=====================

Q.  On I-2  What do “across” and “within” mean?

A:  For across, specify how would you disperse funding across Newtonian, Baconian and Jeffersonian research.   For within, how would you go about ranking Newtonian proposals,  ranking Baconian proposals, and ranking Jeffersonian proposals.

=====================

Q. On I-3. (A), what does “problematic” mean?

A. Constituting or presenting a difficulty.    Please take care to specify what difficulty or difficulties are presented by the element of the Daubert rule that you select.

 

Questions on Part II

Q.  Some of the questions ask for answers advancing or criticizing controversial policies.  How will these questions be graded?  

A.  Graders will focus on the quality of arguments and evidence in your answers and not on the position advanced.    Graders will look for essays that recognize and address potential counterarguments.   As such, it is advisable to think through contrasting positions as you develop essays.

===================

Q. On II-1, should essays include analysis of potential difficulties associated with our favored approach and discuss fixes for potential difficulties?

A.  Yes.  The question asks for justifications of your selection of adversarial or technocratic approaches.  Identification and evaluation of potential flaws and correctives should be part of your justification.  For example, if you favor technocratic approaches, it would be advisable to discuss the potential problem of bias among technocrats and to discuss what institutional arrangements might provide a check on such biases.    For example, if you favor adversarial approaches, it would be advisable to discuss the potential problem of unequal access to funding and information and to discuss what institutional arrangements might mitigate this problem.

=============== Q&A on II-2-B posted on day of exam

Q on II-2-B:  My study group had a question about question II-2-B. It refers to institutions for evaluating "these" claims - is this question specifically asking about gene drives, or about broader scenarios? I ask because it requests that we use cases from class, but I'm not sure if that means use other knowledge assessment cases (e.g. discuss adversarial and technocratic approaches and their merits) or just focus on the case at hand, which e.g. the NAS paper and others give some recommendations on in terms of institutional processes, sort of (like engaging stakeholders and crafting best practices and regulations that can elucidate the effects of gene drives in time).

A: II-2-B reads “Policymakers and publics are seeking clarity on the credibility of claims associated with these positions.  Through what institutions and processes should a credible assessment of these contrasting claims be conducted?  Please reference appropriate cases from class in developing your answer.”  

Your recommendations for institutions and processes for credible evaluation of these contrasting claims on gene drives may be based on examples from cases including but not limited to gene drives. 

For example, you could base recommendations on the NAS gene drive panel, the ad hoc technical experts group (AHTEG) on risks of the UN Convention on Bio-Diversity,  the MIT-Wilson Center multi-stakeholder working groups, Health Effects Institute on PM 2.5, NIEHS-OSTP methyl mercury, American Physical Society panel on Patriot missile,  Inspector General USDA on BSE, GAO on TRW missile defense test,  IPCC on climate change or other in class knowledge assessment cases as a basis for recommendations on how to evaluate contrasting claims on gene drives.  We would also accept references to good relevant cases not treated in class.

===============

Q on II-3 If this question is selected, would I have to cover both A and B?

A.  No.   If this question is selected, your essay should address either A or B.

================

Q on II-4. If this question appears, would I have to cover A and B and C?

A.  No.  If the question appears,  your essay should address A or B or C.

==================

Q. In II-4, what does “welfare” mean?

A. “Welfare” is broadly defined as well-being.   One may choose to focus on narrow definitions of welfare that center on material well-being or to consider conceptions of welfare that take account of individual or group values.  In either case, take care to specify whose well-being is being considered.

==================

Q. If II-5 appears, would I have to cover A and B and C and D?

A. Yes, your essay should treat all of these elements.

==================

Q. On II-5 how should one draw a line between “adaptation” and “non-adaptation”?

A.  While one can debate precisely where to draw the line between these terms,  exemplary cases of adaptation typically involve deliberate information gathering and the use of that information to make timely adjustments in policies.   

===================

Q.  II-5 A.   Is "a cautionary tale of non-adaptation” a case where planned adaptation failed, or where it was not done?

A: It could be either. You may treat cases where planned adaptation could have been beneficial, but the approach was not used and things went wrong.  Or you may treat cases where planned adaptation was used and failed.  

######

Douglas Dockery, Professor of Environmental Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health  

"A Tail of Six Cities: Impact on Air Pollution Today"

Friday 12/2/2016

Talk 4:30-5:00 PM

Socializing 4:00-4:30 and 5:00-5:30

Room 56-614

Center for Environmental Health and Safety Friday Forum

1:30-3:00 PM in E25-111  Deborah Blum on Science Journalism in an Age of Denial
Recommended Reading:
https://www.chemheritage.org/distillations/magazine/duck-and-cover-science-journalism-in-the-digital-age

Lecture Slides posted in Materials/Special Panel on Science Journalism

7:00-8:30 PM in Bartos   Joel Brenner Deb Hurley Danny Weitzner, Starr Forum  on Internet Privacy - Challenges from Governments, Firms and Hackers
Event Information: http://events.mit.edu/event.html?id=16495463&date=2016/11/30

END OF TERM DATES

W 12-14   Last Class / Distribution of Essay Pool

W 12-14  4-5                   Review Session                             Pye Room E40-496

Th 12-15  10-11            Review Session                             Pye Room  E40-496

Fr 12-16  12-1                 Review Session                             Pye Room  E40-496

Fr 12-16  1:30-4:30         Early Exam by permission            32-141

Tu 12-20  1:30-4:30        Final Exam                                     E25-111

 

Questions on How To Prepare

 

Q. How should one prepare for short answer questions?

 

A. Review lecture slides, discussion questions on red slides, and reading questions on the syllabus. Short answer questions are largely from these materials.

 

 

 

Q. How should one prepare for essay pool questions?

 

A. Students are encouraged to form study groups to consult with each other. But do not assign individual questions to individual group members. One learns by developing your own answers to all of the questions.

 

 

 

Questions on How To Answer

 

Q. Does it hurt if answers touch upon issues that may be beyond a narrow interpretation of the scope of the question?

 

A. Not necessarily. But be sure to address all elements of the questions as posed before moving beyond.

 

 

 

Q. What is the ideal length of answers?

 

A. There is no ideal length for answers. At one extreme, do not do a long unstructured “dump” of information in the vicinity of the question. At another extreme, please provide more than a skeletal outline.    One basic bit of advice -- spend your time wisely. Note that the long answer essay and five short answer essays are weighted equally.

 

 

 

Q. Does stylistic elegance count?

 

A. Your essays do not need to be beautiful but should be clear, grammatical, well organized and well supported. 

 

 

 

Q. Should we write essays or outlines?

 

A. You should develop outlines to organize essays. Think about how to structure your answer before you begin writing.

 

 

 

Q. Is it permissible to use examples and cases not mentioned in class?

 

A. Yes. Please provide enough information on the examples that you use so that your TA will be able to evaluate what you are doing.

 

 

 

Questions on Q1

 

Q. Is it permissible to include issues of justice and fairness as part of discussing what should be patentable?

 

A. Yes, it is. Feel free to consider issues of justice and fairness. We will add a note to this question to let everyone know that issues of justice and fairness may be viewed as within the scope of the question.

 

Q. Is it permissible to use the two cases referenced in the question as important elements of an essay?

 

A. The cases may be referenced in many different ways -- as objects of criticism, as baselines to be improved or as exemplars.

 

 

 

Questions on Q2

 

Q. What counts as “command and control regulation”?

 

A. “Command and control regulation” in this question references many kinds of governmental standards and rules – examples include setting vehicle fleet fuel economy standards, nitrogen oxide emissions standards, hours rules for truck drivers, requirements for clinical trials as a conditions of drug licensing. This question asks you to contrast such detailed rules and standards with taxes and subsidies.

 

 

 

Q. What is the definition of “significant” market failure?

 

A. You should take care to state your own criteria for defining a “significant” market failure.   We will add a note to the question to this effect.

 

 

 

Q. Is it permissible to use a portion of one’s Political Economy paper to answer this question?

 

A. Yes, it is, if the paper fits well. But you are now allowed to consult the paper during the exam.

 

 

 

Q. If decentralized Coasian bribes are chosen as the favored approach on the basis of economic efficiency, how does one address the C section of Q2 which asks to discuss political and institutional failures that might hinder implementation of that approach?

 

A. This should not be a big problem because cases where Coasian solutions would successfully address problems are often not the ones that are described as examples of the most significant market failure. Besides, many economists actually do not think that Coasian solutions are economically efficient because of high transaction costs and collective action problems involved in implementing agreements among parties. Also be aware that an economically efficient approach may not be politically viable.

 

 

 

Questions on Q3

 

Q. Should one just discuss the pros and cons of different risk shielding practices, or also express and defend a position?

 

A. One can discuss pros and cons of each, but be sure to take a position explicitly, state what its counter-arguments would be, and respond to them carefully.

 

 

 

Q. This question seems to involve knowledge assessment issues that have not been covered yet.

 

A. One can note the existence of knowledge assessment issues or discuss them, but your essay should not focus on knowledge assessment issues.