U.S. federal research funding is generally justified by promises of public benefits, but the specific natures and distribution of such benefits often remain vague and ambiguous. Furthermore, the metrics by which outcomes are reported often do not necessarily or strongly imply the achievement of public benefits. These ambiguities and discontinuities make it difficult to assess the public outcomes of federal research programs. This study maps the terms in which the purposes and the outcomes of Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) -a relatively young and innovatively structured federal research agency-have been discussed and reported. I find that ARPA-E’s creation and funding have been justified with reference to a broad repertoire of economic, environmental, and national security values, but that the agency has been evaluated only through intermediate scientific and economic metrics and study of internal organizational structure. I suggest that these means of assessment elide ARPA-E’s lack of the financial scale, long time horizon, built-in customer, and radical vision which have been historically important to high-impact federal innovation, and I recommend the tracking of metrics more directly related to ARPA-E’s public value purposes as the agency grows older. This discussion illustrates the inadequacy of currently widespread metrics and conventional wisdom for the design and assessment of societally relevant research.

美国联邦研究资助通常以公共利益的承诺为理由，但这些利益的具体性质和分配往往仍然模糊不清。此外，报告结果的指标通常不一定或强烈暗示公共利益的实现。这些含糊不清和不连续性使评估联邦研究计划的公共成果变得困难。本研究描绘了讨论和报告高级研究计划署能源 (ARPA-E)（一个相对年轻且结构创新的联邦研究机构）的目的和成果的术语。我发现 ARPA-E 的创建和资助在经济、环境和国家安全价值的广泛范围内是合理的，但该机构仅通过中间科学和经济指标以及对内部组织结构的研究进行评估。我建议这些评估方法可以避免 ARPA-E 缺乏财务规模、长期范围、内置客户和激进的愿景，这些在历史上对高影响力的联邦创新很重要，我建议更直接地跟踪指标与 ARPA-E 的公共价值目的相关，因为该机构的年龄越来越大。这一讨论说明了当前广泛使用的衡量标准和传统智慧对于社会相关研究的设计和评估的不足。内置客户和激进的愿景在历史上对具有高影响力的联邦创新很重要，我建议随着该机构的发展，跟踪与 ARPA-E 公共价值目的更直接相关的指标。这一讨论说明了当前广泛使用的衡量标准和传统智慧对于社会相关研究的设计和评估的不足。内置客户和激进的愿景在历史上对具有高影响力的联邦创新很重要，我建议随着该机构的发展，跟踪与 ARPA-E 公共价值目的更直接相关的指标。这一讨论说明了当前广泛使用的衡量标准和传统智慧对于社会相关研究的设计和评估的不足。