Gordon Research Conferences have, since 1931, provided a place for academics, government, industry, and media representatives to share intellectual exchange in different ways than the usual academic conferences allow. The rules require afternoons free of formal meetings and strictly prohibit publication, quotation, or attribution of the ideas exchanged. The goal is a free flow of ideas to promote creative thinking about "cutting edge" science and pushing beyond the boundaries of what we know. Successful conferences lead to productive new collaborations and new lines of investigation. Recently, the Gordon Committee has added programs in Education and Science and Technology Policy to the traditional Scientific Program. This third Gordon Conference on Frontiers of U.S. Science and Technology Policy therefore affords opportunity for those interested in the workings of science policy to step outside the time-critical environment in which the many decisions affecting science and technology policy are made.

Rather than traverse old ground or duplicate existing programs, we will focus on driving questions and propose hypotheses to be explored. First, what are the distributional impacts of science policy decisions? Do some groups of people generally "win" and others "lose" or does everyone "win?" Science policy cannot be amoral, should not be immoral, and yet does not often reflect on how to be moral. What underlying values drive policy-making, and what values emerge from the results of decisions? Is science policy just another form of politics as usual, differing only in the specifics of interest group politics? Or does science policy involve a special sort of politics, ones with different rules about winners and losers? The political process de facto adjudicates among competing values in ways that are rarely informed by deep or substantive thinking about what we actually think is important.

Second, we will examine science as politics. The scientific method and the doing of science may well follow some insulated "pure" rules of science's own so that the knowledge produced is respected and carries authority and epistemic warrant. Yet every decision to pursue some research rather than other research is intrinsically value-laden and necessarily political. Scientists rarely address this fact explicitly. On the premise that they should, and that thus informed they should become part of the policy-making process, we will ask: how, who, to what end, and based on what values? What role should scientists play in science policy? What role should non-specialists play? How should these roles relate to one another? Recognizing the role of values, how can technical issues best be used in values adjudication? And how can we educate young scientists to become reflective leaders who can guide us to wise decisions?

Third, who, when, and how do we think about what goes on the policy agenda? There is no official science policy agenda-maker, and we typically end up with nothing more than a mantra that "more science is obviously good, produces benefits, and therefore should be funded." Funding wishes almost always drive science policy, and this is not good enough. Policy decisions have consequences, since funding something and not funding something else hurts some just as it helps others. How should scientific values and choices compete? Science is politics in this sense. Science policy has moral consequences. Scientists can play a role in policy-making, but ought not always or only to play the role of lobbyists demanding more funding. What is science policy, who makes it, what role should the scientists play, what are our goals, and what will be considered a success? In the constellation of policy issues, science is rarely at the forefront. Why? Should it be? Or is science policy best viewed as an instrument of defense, transportation, health, welfare, agriculture and other such policies? How do we distinguish between science policy and science budget policy? Should and does policy play different roles for basic and applied science?

The program will open with a lively challenging session setting the framework for further discussions. Morning and evening sessions will explore a range of topics, striving to cross and mix up normal ways of dividing up the world. The meeting at Big Sky Resort outside Bozeman, Montana affords a beautiful setting and an excellent place for a family vacation. Field trips to nearby Yellowstone National Park provide opportunities to do field examinations the impacts of our national park policy and fire and wildlife management. And since we will be staying in the historic Chet Huntley lodge, we can reflect on interactions between science and the media in shaping science policy and reactions to policy decisions.

Planning Committee: Maeve Boland, Barry Bozeman, Matthew Chew, Daryl Chubin, Sidney Draggan, Esther Ellsworth, Donna Fossum, Sybil Francis, Ed Hackett, Peter Kozel, Melanie Leitner, Wil Lepkowski, Joan McGregor, Matthew Metz, Richard O'Grady, Scott Soby, Katherine Turner, Charles Weiss, Lee Zwanziger.

Poster Committee: Matthew Chew, Scott Soby, Rachel Ankeny, Barry Bozeman, Elizabeth Corley, Sidney Draggan, Esther Ellsworth, Jason Robert, Manfred Laubichler, Elizabeth Paris.