Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This paper explores the roles of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) professionals in AI policymaking, addressing the urgent need for informed governance in emerging technologies. With AI's complex sociotechnical impacts, STEM expertise is crucial for balancing benefits and mitigating risks like bias and privacy concerns. Despite their potential influence, the specific contributions of STEM professionals in AI policy remain underexplored. To address this gap, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 STEM professionals who have both educational and professional experience in STEM and policy, and have actively participated in AI policymaking. The data revealed two primary role groups: (1) advisors, gatekeepers, and influencers, who leverage their expertise in STEM and policy to guide stakeholders and actively influence policy decisions, and (2) facilitators and brokers, who facilitate connections and manage the flow of information between stakeholders. This typology highlights the varied contributions of STEM professionals to AI governance and policy development.

Keywords

AI ethics AI policy STEM professionals policy engagement role ethics

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abbott

(1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT64023.2025.00078

Ashford

(1984). Advisory committees in OSHA and EPA: Their use in regulatory decision-making. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 9(1), 72–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224398400900109

Bandola-Gill

Lyall

(2017). Knowledge brokers and policy advice in policy formulation. In Howlett

(Ed.), Handbook of policy formulation (pp. 249–264). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Boehlert

S. L.

(2007). The role of scientists in policymaking. In AAAS-CSPO S&T policy review: Highlights of the 2007 forum on S&T policy (pp. 1–8). AAAS. https://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/students/envs_5100/BoehlertAAAS2007.pdf

Brown

, et al. (2009). Scientific advice to policy making: International comparison. Barbara Budrich. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104405

Brundage

, et al. (2018). The malicious use of artificial intelligence: Forecasting, prevention, and mitigation. arXiv preprint, arXiv:1802.07228.

Burt

(1992). Structural holes. Harvard University Press.

Christensen

(2021). Expert knowledge and policymaking: A multi-disciplinary research agenda. Policy & Politics, 49(3), 455–471. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557320X15898190680037

Clancy

Zhu

(2023). Why should ethical behaviors be the ultimate goal of engineering ethics education? Business and Professional Ethics, 42(1), 33–53. https://doi.org/10.5840/bpej202346136

10.

Craft

Howlett

(2013). The dual dynamics of policy advisory systems: The impact of externalization and politicization on policy advice. Policy and Society, 32(3), 187–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2013.07.001

11.

Creswell

J. W.

Poth

C. N.

(2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications.

12.

Donner

S. D.

(2014). Finding your place on the science–advocacy continuum: An editorial essay. Climatic Change, 124, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1108-1

13.

Elliott

J. R.

Smith

R. A.

(2004). Race, gender, and workplace power. American Sociological Review, 69(3), 365–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240406900303

14.

Faulkner

(2009). Doing gender in engineering workplace cultures II: Gender in/authenticity and the in/visibility paradox. Engineering Studies, 1(3), 169–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/19378620903225059

15.

Funtowicz

S. O.

Ravetz

J. R.

(1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L

16.

Gieryn

T. F.

(1983). Boundary work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests of professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781–795. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095325

17.

Gluckman

P. D.

Bardsley

Kaiser

(2021). Brokerage at the science–policy interface: From conceptual framework to practical guidance. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00756-3

18.

Gual Soler

Robinson

Wang

(2017). Connecting scientists to policy around the world. AAAS.

19.

Gundersen

(2018). Scientists as experts: A distinct role? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 69, 52–59.

20.

Jasanoff

(1998). The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Harvard University Press.

21.

Jasanoff

(2004). The idiom of co-production. In Jasanoff

(Ed.), States of knowledge (pp. 1–12). Routledge.

22.

Kim

Zhu

Eldardiry

(2024). Toward a policy approach to normative artificial intelligence governance: Implications for AI ethics education. IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society, 5(3), 325–333. https://doi.org/10.1109/TTS.2024.3430940

23.

McGann

J. G.

(2007). Think tanks and policy advice in the US: Academics, advisors, and advocates. Routledge.

24.

Meltsner

A. J.

(1976). Policy analysts in the bureaucracy. University of California Press.

25.

Mendoza-Garcia

, et al. (2012). Defining the knowledge and skills that enable engineers to participate in public policy [Paper presentation]. 2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition.

26.

Morley

Kinsey

Elhalal

Garcia

Ziosi

Floridi

(2023). Operationalising AI ethics: Barriers, enablers, and next steps. AI & Society, 38, 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01308-8

27.

National Research Council. (2012). Using science as evidence in public policy. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13460

28.

Nelson

M. P.

Vucetich

J. A.

(2009). On advocacy by environmental scientists: What, whether, why, and how. Conservation Biology, 23(5), 1090–1101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01250.x

29.

Ohly

Sonnentag

Niessen

Zapf

(2010). Diary studies in organizational research. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9, 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000009

30.

Oreskes

(2012). The public wants scientists to be more involved in policy debates. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-public-wants-scientists-to-be-more-involved-in-policy-debates/

31.

Pielke

R. A.

Jr. (2007). The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge University Press.

32.

Renn

, et al. (2019). Making sense of science for policy under conditions of complexity and uncertainty. SAPEA.

33.

Smith

M. L.

(1992). On being an authentic scientist. IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 14(2), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.2307/3564534

34.

Spruijt

Knol

A. B.

Vasileiadou

Devilee

Lebret

Petersen

A. C.

(2014). Roles of scientists as policy advisers on complex issues: A literature review. Environmental Science & Policy, 40, 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.03.002

35.

Stone

Brooks

Brynjolfsson

Calo

Etzioni

Hager

Hirschberg

Kalyanakrishnan

Kamar

Kraus

Leyton-Brown

Parkes

Press

Saxenian

Shah

Tambe

Teller

(2022). Artificial intelligence and life in 2030: The One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence. arXiv preprint, arXiv:2211.06318.

36.

Taeihagh

(2021). Governance of artificial intelligence. Policy and Society, 40(2), 137–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2021.1928377

37.

Tracy

S. J.

(2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121

38.

Zhou

Chen

(2023). AI ethics: From principles to practice. AI & Society, 38(6), 2693–2703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01602-z

39.

Zhu

Martin

Schinzinger

(2022). Ethics in engineering (5th ed). McGraw Hill.

Developing a Typology of Roles for STEM-Trained Professionals in AI Policy Engagement

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References