According to Sadowski’s technology post, The Much-Needed and Sane Congressional Office That Gingrich Killed Off and We Need Back,  OTA was started because “Congress recognized that it could not afford to wander blindly forward without an organization that would bridge technical expertise and political decision-making.”  To prevent “capture by a particular political party,”  OTA was overseen by a balanced bipartisan congressional Board with six Members from both the House and the Senate.

Sadowski pointed out that  OTA released over 750 studies on an “impressive range of topics,”  including the environment, national security, health, and social issues.

The dismantling of the agency in 1995 “on the Gingrich Republican’s altar of slashed budgets” was “an unfortunate blow,” according to Sadowski.  However,  “there has been vocal support by many prominent scholars and politicians to either re-fund it or establish a similar method of technology assessment.”

“High turnover and lack of experience in congressional offices are leaving staffs increasingly without policy and institutional knowledge, a Washington Times analysis of a decade of House and Senate personnel records shows — leaving a vacuum that usually is filled by lobbyists,” according to this blog post.

As policy questions more frequently hinge on the nuances of technical matters, members of Congress are operating without the researchers and topical experts on which they have relied to cast informed votes. With the shuttering of the Office of Technology Assessment, a 200-member congressional support agency that closed in 1995 under House Speaker Newt Gingrich, members who are largely lawyers and rhetorical masters are asked to differentiate between competing proposals that only scientists might be able to evaluate effectively.

The technology office researched and summarized scientific and technological matters, ranging from acid rain to wireless phones, for members who, with an average age of 64 in the Senate and 58 in the House, are legislating on matters such as the Internet, which most spent much of their lives without. Typical of its work products was a decades-ago warning on the effect of technology on copyright law, a question lawmakers contentiously grappled with this year. “It helped us to … better oversee the science and technology programs within the federal establishment,” said then-Rep. Amo Houghton, New York Republican, who served nine terms before retiring in 2005. The role of CRS, which provides research on topics beyond science and technology, has also been rolled back.

OTA published several reports about technology and copyright law, including: Copyright and Home Copying: Technology Challenges the Law, Finding A Balance: Computer Software, Intellectual Property and the Challenge of Technological Change, and Intellectual Property Rights in an Age of Electronics and Information.

Records show that a many congressional staff leave for better paying positions at lobbying firms,  where they prepare policy papers to influence their former colleagues – but with the interests of their new employers in mind, according to the article.

“Staff are incredibly vulnerable to this,” according to Daniel Schuman, a former Congressional Research Service (CRS) lawyer who now studies policy at the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation.  “They’re trying to do a very complicated job with limited resources.”

The Sunlight Foundation, in this blog post,  calls on the House Legislative Branch Appropriations Committee to take measures to improve transparency and openness.  Its recommendations  include reinstating the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), as well as improving public access to legislative information in THOMAS, continuing to fund the Office of Congressional Ethics, requiring  the Congressional Research Service to publish its reports online, frequently updating the  Constitution Annotated (CONAN) online,  making reports to Congress from federal agencies  available online, and publishing House spending information in a data-friendly format.

According to the Sunlight Foundation Blog, the House has promised “to implement common-sense transparency measures this session.”

The Scientific American recently asked its readers what questions they would like U. S. presidential candidates to answer, according to this blog post.  This survey is part of  The Citizens Agenda’s effort to have election coverage reflect  the interests of the citizens.

In summarizing his readers’ interests  Zivkovic said, “…all the questions are trying to get at this core issue: are the candidates reality-based?”

The largest number of questions submitted by Observations’ readers were about science education and the role of government in science.  Among many questions about funding for science education and research was one about OTA, “Will you support re-establishment of the Office of Technology Assessment to aid officials in proper evaluation of complex scientific issues? If not, why?”

Other science topics nominated for discussion are evolution and climate change.

In his  blog, “Republicans vs. Science: Ranking the Candidates,” Thompson evaluates the science and technology  policies of the Republican candidates.    Newt Gingrich had the highest ranking – even though, as Speaker, he abolished the Office of Technology Assessment, “a move reminiscent of Nixon abolishing the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy,” according to Thompson.

Bruce Bartlett also points out Gingrich’s inconsistencies in his N.Y. Times  Economix blog, “Gingrich and the Destruction of Congressional Expertise.” He said that professional Congressional staff members – especially those with technical expertise – had been an obstacle to Mr. Gingrich’s “grandiose schemes.”  “To remove this obstacle, Mr. Gingrich did everything in his power to dismantle Congressional institutions that employed people with the knowledge, training and experience to know a harebrained idea when they saw it,” according to Bartlett.

“In addition to decimating committee budgets,” Bartlett added, “he also abolished two really useful Congressional agencies, the Office of Technology Assessment and the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. The former brought high-level scientific expertise to bear on legislative issues and the latter gave state and local governments an important voice in Congressional deliberations.”

Lorelei Kelly, in her Huffington Post article, “Dumb By Design: Gingrich’s Lobotomy of Congress and Today’s Dysfunction,”  mentions Gingrich’s  Contract for America,  which “wiped out the shared system of expert knowledge and analysis inside Congress. The bill made Congress dumb — on purpose. ”

The resulting brainpower losses included the Office of Technology Assessment,  the bipartisan Democratic Study Group, the Arms Control and Foreign Policy Caucus, and shared committee staffs.

Similar sentiments were echoed in:

Government Executive’s  Fed Blog, “ Defunct Agency Still Missed,” by Charles S. Clark;

the  Washington Post’s  Federal Eye, “When Congress wiped an agency off the map,” by Ed O’Keefe;

“Closing a federal agency and making Congress dumber — thank Newt Gingrich” posted in Under the Mountain Bunker; and

Econbrowser, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the beancounters,” by Menzie Chinn.

Washington Insider discussed the amendments to the 2012 Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill  including one submitted by Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ)  to re-establish OTA:

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2551:
SEC. 211. There is appropriated, for salaries and expenses of the Office of Technology Assessment as authorized by the Technology Assessment Act of 1972 (2 U.S.C.471 et seq.),  hereby derived from the amount provided in this Act for the payment to the House Historic Buildings  Revitalization Trust Fund, $2,500,000.

According to Climate Science Watch blog   Michael Halpern of the Union of Concerned Scientists, as well as a number of other scientific,  transparency, public health, and public interest groups, urged members to support Holt’s amendment.

The ASBMB Policy Blotter  blog post pointed out that that OTA “was a leader in practicing and encouraging delivery of public services in innovative and inexpensive ways.”

The amendment was voted down 176 to 235.  The results of the roll call vote can be seen here.

Prof. Leschine recently spoke about the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico at a hearing of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

In his testimony, Leschine said that inadequate risk assessment and underfunding of technologies for prevention and response have added to the problem.  Leschine directs the School of Marine Affairs at the College of Environment of the University of Washington.

Massive amounts of dispersants have been injected into the oil plume  with very little understanding about their effect on the environment,  Leschine added.

In his testimony Leschine pointed to an OTA report saying:

In 1990, shortly after the Exxon Valdez spill, the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment prepared at the request of the Congress a Background Paper, Coping with An Oiled Sea: An Analysis of Oil Spill Response Technologies. The report, strongly influenced by events then still unfolding in Prince William Sound, warned that future spills could easily overwhelm the technologies we had. It also cautioned that we can’t prepare for every contingency. The risk will never be zero. It found that industry had focused its efforts on preparing for small, relatively easily controllable spills in harbors and sheltered areas, and that it had likely oversold its ability to respond to major spills. Major spills in open water had up to that point seen recovery rates of no more than 10% of oil spilled, 6-8% in the case of Exxon Valdez, despite billions spent on response. I believe that this picture has not changed much today.

The OTA report found that the relative rarity of major spills was a major impediment to a sustained effort that would yield a higher-impact technology development program. The good news, perhaps, it also found the problem to be less a matter of needing dramatic engineering breakthroughs and more one requiring simply good engineering and sustained attention. It highlighted the need for good design and maintenance, training in deployment and use, and pre-positioning of response equipment in adequate quantities and types to deal with the really big events, like now. The report focused on technology to be sure, but also on decision-making, logistics, and training. Soft technologies, in other words.

In my view, OTA’s findings remain largely valid today, twenty years later. In many ways we are better prepared, but progress has been in fits and starts, issue attention cycle at work in my view. A robust approach to filling the tool kit, with the right hard and soft technologies, is needed.

This blog post,  About the long term effect of giant oil spills, says that past large oil spill have had few long-term effects. It provides a bit of  history about  oil spills saying, “Hundreds of tankers and oilers were sunk during WWII — 333 identified in the Pacific.  Many burned or spilled their oil when sunk.  Many remain on the seabed still loaded with crude oil or oil products.”

Also discussed is IXTOC I, a well blowout that  occured in 1979,  which spilled between 139 to 428 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. The blog provides links  to several documents about  IXTOC I  including a 1990 OTA background paper, Coping with an Oiled Sea, which lists  it as the largest oil spill since 1967.

OTA had been asked to study the issue in response to the 1989 Exon Valdez spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska.  In the foreword of the 1990 paper OTA Director, John H. Gibbons, says:

Cleaning up a discharge of millions of gallons of oil at sea under even moderate environmental conditions is an extraordinary problem. Current national capabilities to respond effectively to such an accident are marginal at best. OTA’s analysis shows that improvements could be made, and that those offering the greatest benefits would not require technological breakthroughs –just good engineering design and testing, skilled maintenance and training, timely access to and availability of the most appropriate and substantial systems, and the means to make rapid, informed decisions. One must understand, however, that even the best national response system will have inherent practical limitations that will hinder spill response efforts for catastrophic events– sometimes to a major extent. For that reason it is important to pay at least equal attention to preventive measures as to response systems. In this area, the proverbial ounce of prevention is worth many, many pounds of cure.

Scientific justification for medical treatments  is an ideal, or perhaps a marketing tool,  not a reality, according to this blog:

Doctors like to point to the “impressive” efficacy of their treatments in real serious diseases, like cancer, and doctors (and drug companies) are emphatic about asserting that anyone or any company that says (or even suggests) that they have a treatment that might help people with cancer are “quacks.” However, do they maintain this same standard when evaluating their own treatments?

The British Medical Journal and a report by OTA found little evidence to support common medical treatments, according to the blog.

The OTA report referred to was “Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of Medical Technologies” (1978). One  statement from that report has been quoted in many publications:  “It has been estimated that only 10 to 20 percent of all procedures currently used in medical practice have been shown to be efficacious by controlled trial”.  However, the last few words of that quote are often omitted.

In the report OTA points out that modern methods complement the older techniques of evaluating  medical technologies:

Traditionally, clinical experience, based on informal estimation techniques, has been the most important. Other techniques, such as epidemiological studies, formal consensus development,and randomized controlled clinical trials, however, are being used increasingly. The last technique, especially, has gained prominence (in the past 20 years) as a tool for assessing efficacy and safety.

OTA wasn’t asking  that treatments by “quacks”  be held to the same low standard as more traditional doctoring.  Their emphasis was on getting better data overall.  In the report, OTA says:

Given the shortcomings in current assessment systems, the examples of technologies that entered widespread use and were shown later to be inefficacious or unsafe, and the large numbers of inadequately assessed current and emerging technologies, improvements are critically needed in the information base regarding safety and efficacy and the processes for its generation.

According to a blog post, “Congressional staffers need access to timely and top quality science advice on the issues before their Members.”

To achieve this, U.S. Representative Rush Holt (D-NJ), a Science Debate co-chair, is working with the Union of Concerned Scientists(UCS)  to re-instate OTA.  UCS has written a letter from scientists ready for your signature.

In 1978, the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee asked OTA to study ocean disposal of nuclear waste.   In 1979, several Senate and House Committees asked that OTA expand its study to include all modes of disposal of high-level radioactive waste.   At that time, comprehensive high-level waste management legislation introduced in both Houses started a round of hearings and debates that spanned nearly four years

OTA’s Congressional Board (TAB) at that time included several members who were dealing with radioactive waste issues in their committees: Representatives Dingell, Udall, and George Brown. At their request, TAB asked OTA not just to summarize the technical information, but to provide an understanding of how pieces of the issue fit together and to contribute toward a resolution of the problem.

Requests from Congress for interim information from OTA began as early as 1979 when the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works asked for an analysis of issues associated with the interim storage of spent fuel. OTA responded with a detailed letter, the first of many documents (legislative analyses, staff papers, testimony, etc.) that OTA contributed to the development of comprehensive nuclear waste legislation.  The final report was deferred while OTA provided highly-focused inputs to the legislative process as the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) evolved, according to the project director, Thomas Cotton.

The 1982 Summary was unusual for OTA in another way.  It presented only one set of policy options rather than the range of options usually found in OTA reports. According to the Summary:

In conducting the study, OTA analyzed a wide range of views-from
the technical community, Federal agencies, the nuclear industry, the environmental community, State and local officials, and the lay public. As a result of that effort, OTA identified the basic elements of an integrated high-level radioactive waste management policy that responds to the key concerns of the major affected parties. For that reason, we believe it could form the basis for the consensus needed to break the stalemate on waste disposal.

OTA presented the findings of the study October, 1981, in testimony before the committees sponsoring the draft legislation – the Energy and Natural Resources and the Environment and Public Works Committees in the Senate and the Science and Technology Committee in the House.  The Summary was issued in April, 1982, at the time of the floor debates on Senate’s bill.  According to the 1982 Summary:

OTA’s fundamental finding is that, if history is not to repeat itself over and over again, and the stalemate on nuclear waste is not to continue, a comprehensive policy is needed that commands the support and addresses the concerns of all major interested parties, makes a formal Federal commitment to developing several disposal facilities according to a firm and conservative schedule, and guarantees the financial and managerial resources required to meet that commitment.

With passage of NWPA, OTA reviewed the draft of the full report and decided to update it to reflect the passage of the Act and new technical information.  The implementation of NWPA became the focus of the final report, which was published in 1985 as Managing the Nations Commercial High-Level Radioactive Waste (with its own summary).

“Many moons ago, Congress relied on facts, science, and other evidence to guide its thinking and make decisions,” according to this blog.  One source that provided  sound information to Congress was OTA, Madia said.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is pushing to reinstate OTA in the 2011 budget. Information about their effort is available at UCS’s website. UCS’s  letter to Congress supporting reinstatment of OTA has been signed by dozens of organizations interested in good government.  UCS  has also drafted a letter for scientists to send to their representatives in support of  OTA’s renewal.

A blog post discusses a push by scientists, engineers and  Rush Holt (D-NJ), to “resuscitate” OTA.  Francesca Grifo from the Union of Concerned Scientists, testifying before the House Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee, said that having sound technical advice can save money by improving policy decisionmaking. Grifo’s testimony is available here.

According to Tech Insider:

Grifo’s organization estimates that the office cost Congress about $20 million annually but, since its extinction, the federal government has squandered billions of dollars on failed systems, including virtual fences to guard the U.S-Mexico border and baggage screening equipment.

Grifo points out in her testimony that other agencies that advise the Congress – the National Academies, the Congressional Research Service, and the Government Accountability Office – have important and related missions but “they cannot meet these needs and replace what the OTA was able to do.”

Rush Holt (D- N.J.) testified at a hearing of the House Legislative Branch Subcommittee on Appropriations according to this blog post.   Holt pushed to re-fund OTA because  Congress needs  science and technology advice now more than ever, according to The Hill.

The Subcommittee  chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said, “I want there to be more clear bipartisan support from the subcommittee, so we’re a long way from getting there, and we have to make sure that leadership is supportive of it,”  Yager reported.

The Washington Post is sponsoring “America’s Next Great Pundit Contest.” The Post received 4,800 entries from people who hoped to write better commentary than they had been reading.   The Post selected ten entries to move to the next level of the competition. The winner of the contest will be  hired to write a weekly column.

Among the ten finalists was the Nobel Prize -winning physicist, Burton Richter,  who opined about  the need for Congress to  re-establish the Office of Technology Assessment. He pointed out that a 1974 OTA report, “Drug Bioequivalence,” is relevant in recent discussions of health care costs.  He also recommended  one of his favorite OTA reports, “Renewing Our Energy Future,” which discussed the potential of secondary sources for biofuels.

According to Richter, “A new OTA will not settle all the arguments because there are political dimensions to major technical issues, but at least it can help Congress arrive at a common starting point for complicated legislation.”

Kevin Drum of Mother Jones News kindly provided a  summary of the columns at “Pundit Watch” for those wishing to save a little time.

This blog entry introduces Darlene Cavalier, the Science Cheerleader, who advocates “ensuring that adults grasp how science influences their daily lives.”  She is also an advocate for re-establishing OTA.

The Science Cheerleader invites people to sign a petition to re-open OTA.  It can be found here.

Speaking on March 2, 1972 in support of the legislation that created OTA, he said:

Technology Assessment refers to matters of the utmost importance and urgency to those of us in the Congress and to each of our citizens.  Like it or not, science and technology have become central to our civilization, to our economic strength, to the preservation of our environment, and to the quality of our lives.

What citizen does not have vital data on himself stored in some computer memory cell?  Who is not at the mercy of far-reaching power blackouts and brownouts?  How many citizens are impervious to the transportation snarls that strangle our cities?  What family will not someday be dependent on the outmoded medical technology which prevails in far too many of our hospitals?

Which one of us doesn’t daily take some chemical additives with his food?  Or hasn’t used some medication which FDA hasn’t yet certified as effective?  Who doesn’t breathe the pollution in our air?  Or regret the filth in our rivers and streams?

We live in a world increasingly shaped by man, and technology is the principal tool he uses to shape it.

He favored OTA as a way of assuring that new technological developments would be “channeled so as to achieve the maximum benefit for humanity.”  The transcript of the hearing can be found here in the archive.  (The quote above is from pages 35-36.)

Senator Kennedy was the first chairman of  OTA’s Technology Assessment Board and served on its Board throughout OTA’s entire existence, until the agency was disbanded in 1995.

Near the end of OTA, on July 20, 1995, Senator Kennedy again spoke on the floor of the Senate in defense of OTA:

In the years ahead, as we move into the 21st century, there will be even greater need to rely on OTA for impartial assessment of technology-related policies.  The world of science and its impact on public policy are becoming more complex, not less.  Technology is central to every aspect of American life, from biotechnology to law enforcement, from agriculture to education.  It would be a serious mistake to limit our ability as a legislature to evaluate and respond to the scientific and technological challenges facing Congress, the Administration, and the Nation.

This blog post highlights former OTA analyst Sunil Paul’s recent initiative, Gigaton Throwdown , which asked, “What would it take to aggressively scale up clean energy to have a major impact on job growth, energy independence, and climate change over the next ten years?”

The project involved dozens of people  and asked how a single technology could reduce carbon dioxide emissions and  greenhouse gases  by a gigaton (1 billion metric tons) by the year 2020.

“The markets for clean technology involve a coordinated effort in three principal areas: technology, policy, and capital. Each of these plays a role in scaling technologies, clean or otherwise, and each of these “levers” must be pulled in proper sequence so as to create sustained, orderly markets that can exist without subsidies.” Makower said.

The report concludes that seven of the nine technologies analyzed  have the potential today to scale up rapidly and massively by 2020.  “We sort of already get the technology pieces of it,” Paul said.   “And we know there is a lot of capital sitting on the sidelines that is ready to invest given the right kind of long-term opportunity.” What’s needed now, he says, is political leadership and action.

The complete Gigaton Throwdown report and more can be found  at the initiative’s  website.

According to a AAAS Policy Alert, Andrew Wyckoff has been appointed as director of the Science, Technology and Industry Directorate (STI) of the  Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).   The Directorate’s mission is to provide analysis of science, technology and industry to inform government decisions about  growth, employment and well-being.

Wyckoff, a former OTA staffer,  has been a key science and technology analyst for OECD in Paris for almost fifteeen years.

The Soviet Union, Cuba, and the United States brought the world to the brink of a nuclear disaster in October, 1962, as a result of the distortions of misinformation, miscalculation, and misjudgment of their political leaders, according to McNamara, a former Secretary of Defense and former President of The World Bank.

“In this age of high-technology weaponry, crisis management is dangerous, difficult, and uncertain.  Therefore it is crisis avoidance that is important,” McNamara said.  The combination of human fallibility and nuclear weapons carries a very high risk of destroying not tens or hundreds of thousands of lives but of destroying nations.

Stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them, according to McNamara, would require some form of collective security action by a multinational institution such as the United Nations.

“To begin with the council should agree to prohibit the development, production, or purchase of any of those weapons,” he said.  Any country violating that ban should be subjected to strict economic sanctions and if sanctions failed, then U.N. military action would be necessary.  Countries currently possessing these weapons- including the United States- would be subject to international inspections and control, and would be asked to approve a treaty prohibiting their first use.

McNamara said that a system for collective action would allow reductions of military spending and the huge savings could be used to address the pressing human physical and infrastructure needs across the globe.

“If development that meets the needs of all social groups is to occur, if democracy is to spread, there must be … a relatively equitable distribution of resources.   That is not occurring today,” McNamara said.  He pointed out that in many parts of the world, military expenditures strengthen the political influence of the armed forces at the expense of the civil groups and economic systems function primarily to befit a relatively limited number of people.

“I think the international community needs to identify ways in which it can reward those countries that reduce security and related expenditures in favor of development,” McNamara said.  He strongly urged linking financial assistance to developing countries to their movement toward optimal levels of military expenditures.

” If together we are bold, if east and west and north and south dare break out of the mindsets that have guided …our actions for the past four decades, we can reshape international institutions,  …we can reshape relations among nations,  …and we can dramatically reduce military expenditures, which have been a derivative of those relationships and we do so in a ways which will lead to a more peaceful world, a more prosperous world, for all of the peoples of this interdependent world, McNamara said.

“It’s the first time in my adult life that we have had such an opportunity.  Pray God we seize it,” he concluded.

OTA’s Forum on Technology and Governance in the 1990′s was hosted by the Technology Assessment Board for Congress on January 27, 1993.  Robert McNamara’s full presentation and others with questions and answers are available at the OTA Archive.

Welcome and Opening Remarks:

Dr. Roger Herdman – Director, OTA

Congressman George E. Brown, Jr. – Chair, Technology Assessment Board

Senator Edward M. Kennedy – Technology Assessment Board

International Security (15:20)

The Honorable Robert M. McNamara-

Former Secretary of Defense

Former President, The World Bank

International Security (cont’d.)

International Security (cont’d.)

International Security Q & A (1:40)

Congressman George E. Brown, Jr. – Chair, Technology Assessment Board

International Security Q & A (cont’d.)

Introduction (4:30)

Dr. Roger Herdman – Director of OTA

Congressman Amo Houghton, Jr. – Technology Assessment Board

Sustaining the Global Environment (7:50)

The Honorable Gro Harlem Brundtland-

Prime Minister of Norway

Chair, World Commission on Environment and Development

Sustaining the Global Environment (cont’d.)

Sustaining the Global Environment Q & A (12:10)

Sustaining the Global Environment Q & A (cont’d.)

Introduction:

Dr. Roger Herdman – Director, OTA

Congressman Don Sundquist – Technology Assessment Board

Congressman John Dingell – Technology Assessment Board

Economic Competitiveness in America (5:00)

Dr. Laura D’Andrea Tyson-

Chair-designate, President’s Council of Economic Advisors

Introduction (4:50)

Congressman Don Sundquist – Technology Assessment Board

Remarks (43:25)

Dr. John H. Gibbons, former Director, Office of Technology Assessment

Introduction

Congressman Don Sundquist – Technology Assessment Board

Senator David Durenberger – Technology Assessment Board

Healthcare (3:30)

Dr. Arnold S. Relman-

Professor of Medicine and Social Medicine, Harvard School of Medicine

Editor-in-Chief Emeritus, New England Journal of Medicine

Healthcare Q & A (48:00)

Congressman Don Sundquist – Technology Assessment Board

Introduction

Congressman Don Sundquist – Technology Assessment Board

Senator Orrin G. Hatch – Technology Assessment Board

Education (4:50)

Mr. Derek Bok -

President Emeritus, Harvard University

Education Q & A (50:00)

Congressman Don Sundquist – Technology Assessment Board

According to a Department of Defense press release,  Dr. Ashton Carter was sworn in as Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics  on April 27, 2009.   Before returning to Washington,  Dr. Carter was chair of the International and Global Affairs  faculty at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and Co-Director of the Preventive Defense Project (with former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry). In 1984,  Dr. Carter prepared a report for OTA, Directed Energy Missile Defense In Space.

A column about measuring the size of underground nuclear blasts by their seismic waves refers to a 1988 OTA report, “Seismic Verification of Nuclear Testing Treaties,” that suggested that it might be difficult to detect a nucleat test smaller than 5 kilotons.

In the two decades since that report, verification has improved and now smaller blasts can be detected, the article says.

A blog entry about starting new blogs mentions OTA and says, “I’m starting a blog about dead federal agencies.”

President Obama announced the members of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) at the National Academy of Sciences, according to a White House press release available here.  The council advises the President and Vice-President in areas of science, technology, and innovation.

Rosina Bierbaum, an expert in climate-change science and ecology and former OTA employee, was appointed to the council.  She is currently Dean of the School of Natural Resources and Environment at the University of Michigan.  At OTA,  she directed a 1991 study Changing by Degrees: Steps To Reduce Greenhouse Gases,  a study on climate change with reports to Congress in 1993: Preparing for an Uncertain Climate—Vol. I and Preparing for an Uncertain Climate—Vol. II, and other studies.

President Obama announced his intent to nominate Tara O’Toole as Under Secretary for Science & Technology, Department of Homeland Security, according to a White House press release.   Tara O’Toole is currently the CEO and director of the Center for Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, an independent organization that works to improve the U.S. response to biological threats.  She is also a professor of medicine and of public health at the University of Pittsburgh.  At OTA,  she was a project director of the study, Dismantling the Bomb and Managing the Nuclear Materials (1993) and participated in several other studies.

Rep. Rush Holt testified at the House Legislative Branch Appropriations hearing Tuesday, asking the subcommittee to reinstate OTA in the 2010 budget.

“It was part of Congress. It spoke our language,” Holt was quoted as saying in the  Roll Call article. “It understood our peculiarities — how Members worked and our schedule.”

In an op-ed article,  Rep. Holt makes the case that it is time for Congress to restore an important science resource to its rightful place – referring, of course, to OTA.  Holt points out that since very few members of Congress are scientists, they need their own source of science advice. He said:

While members of Congress do not suffer from a lack of information, we lack time and resources to assess the validity, credibility, and usefulness of the large amount of scientific information and advice we receive as it affects actual policy decisions. The purpose of the OTA was to assist members of Congress in this task. It both provided an important long-term perspective and alerted Congress to scientific and technological components of policy that might not be obvious.

Holt mentioned that OTA wrote comprehensive reports in the 1990s on issues that the Congress and the President are preparing to address today, for example: clinical preventive services, patient cost-sharing, health care in rural America, and health technologies. OTA also reported to Congress on energy efficiency, including how to save energy on transportation.

A blog entry points to several articles that are calling for OTA to be restarted, and says that OTA should be brought back because “…Congress is literally flying blind. There is no body of consensus information that our legislators can use for the purposes of decision-making; but there is a heck of a lot of nonsense being fed to them constantly.”

The Science Cheerleader recently met with Rep. Holt and Congressional Fellow Will O’Neal to talk about reopening OTA. She discusses their meeting in her blog post.  The Science Cheerleader points out, “The Executive Branch (Obama) has no shortage of science and engineering advice on policy issues as well as programs to open bidirectional conversations with the public on key policy issues. Why shouldn’t Congress have the same resources available to them?”

An article gives a brief history of OTA and argues that the Congress needs technical support much more today than when OTA was orginally created.  The article also points out that OTA is not just for scientists:

Ironically, the scientific community’s strong support for OTA may have created the false impression that OTA primarily served to support scientists. This is like saying that television weather announcers primarily serve to support professional meteorologists—which is, of course, precisely backwards. Meteorologists already know the weather. The role of television weather announcers is to take meteorological forecasts, turn them into language the rest of us can understand, and enable us all to make better plans. The scientific community supported OTA not because it benefitted scientists directly, but because it enabled members of Congress to make better decisions about policy issues with significant scientific and technological components.

A blog entry says that the new administration marks a change in our society’s views of the future and a chance to renew support of programs that that engage in active foresight.  A few such programs from the 70′s were mentioned:  the Office of Technology Assessment and The Congressional Clearinghouse for the Future.  According to the blog,

In 1974, the House Select Committee on Committees stipulated that each standing committee “shall review and study on a continuing basis undertake futures research and forecasting on matters within its jurisdiction,” a rarely observed requirement that remains on the books to this day.

The entry says, “Regardless of what specific values emerge during the next four years or beyond, it is clear that the U.S. is ready for a new approach to the future that envisions and creates the type of world we would like to give to our children.”

A podcast about science advice to Congress from a session at the AAAS annual meeting says, “Time to bring back the Office of Technology Assessment.”  Statements by Rep. Rush Holt and Lou Branscomb offered reasons for restoring OTA.

In a column (interview) about the state of U. S. science, Rush Holt (D-NJ) says he is troubled that many people have a bad attitude about science.  He said, “This attitude is seen with the latest stimulus package, where people go on the House floor — members of Congress — and ridicule the idea of funding science. They did!”

To explain why he thinks that science is important, Holt said,

It is from science that we get the innovation that provides productivity and growth for the future economy, so it is critically important for our economic well-being. It also adds to our quality of life in material ways. But I think most scientists still feel that there is a higher calling to what they do, that understanding how things work is an end in itself, and it’s a glorious end in itself.

Where legislators get their science information, according to Rep. Holt:

Well, in many cases, they don’t. They get it from whoever was the last person to visit their office, who may or may not know anything about science….

We should return to vibrancy the Office of Technology Assessment, which was abolished 14 years ago now. OTA was a terrific resource for anticipating the [scientific] questions that were coming up. It worked very well, and we can restore it just as it was, to very good effect.

About plans to reinstate OTA, Holt said, “I try again every year. I’m trying again this year.”

The accelerating pace at which technology touches every aspect of our lives means that every decision we make in Congress increasingly is influenced by science and technology. While we do not suffer from a lack of information on Capitol Hill, we do not have the time and resources to gauge the validity, credibility, and usefulness of the large amount of information and advice we receive in order to make knowledgeable, well-reasoned decisions on a widerange of issues. The purpose of the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) was to assist Members of Congress in this task.

As a forward-looking entity, OTA both provided an important long-term perspective and alerted Congress to scientific and technological components of policy that might not be obvious. By 1995, for example, OTA already had written on such topics, now current, as “Electronic Surveillance in a Digital Age” and the “Potential Environmental Impacts of Bioenergy Crop Production.” More reports like “Losing a Million Minds: Confronting the Tragedy of Alzheimer’s Disease and Other Dementias” might help Congress navigate health care reform. And the additional information that could have been gathered since the 1995 report “Innovation and Commercialization of Emerging Technologies” might have helped guide Congress more effectively through our current economic crisis. A clear appreciation of the current science and technology involved in each of these topics is even more important today than when these assessments were first written.

According to a survey of the 535 members of the 111th Congress, the membership includes three physicists, one chemist, six engineers, and one microbiologist. Most members of Congress avoid science at all costs, but even the handful of trained scientists cannot master the particulars of every issue. The OTA was not there especially for the scientists or exclusively the nonscientists. It was there for all of Congress. Every member needs access to unbiased technical and scientific assessments finished in a timeframe appropriate for Congress, written in a language that is understood by Members of Congress, and crafted by those who are familiar with the functions of Congress. The issues have grown more complex, but our tools to evaluate and understand them have not kept pace.

When OTA was disbanded, Congress gave itself a lobotomy. Our national policies have suffered ever since. In the years since the demise of the OTA, no group or combination of groups has been able to assume OTA’s place as the provider of scientific and technical assessment and advice to Congress. It is important to recognize that policy decisions are value judgments that cannot be made by the balance of facts alone. But it is critical that policymakers have the facts they need to make wise choices. In the absence of OTA, we have not gotten the information – or the analysis – we need to do the people’s work. We need the help that only an office like OTA, one that is of Congress and for Congress, can provide.

Technology assessment was first discussed in the House Subcommittee on Science and Astronautics. According to the report,

The committee began serious work on the assessment concept in 1965, and on October 17, 1966, the Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development published a report which examined the consequences and secondary impacts of technical innovations. This report was the first to use the term “technology assessment,” and the  authors cited technological unemployment, toxic pesticides, pollution, exhaustion of resources, the disposal of radioactive wastes, and invasions of personal liberty by electronic snooping and computer data banks as examples of the potentially dangerous consequences of technology. In view of these unforeseeable impacts, the subcommittee concluded that an “early warning” system for both the good and bad results of technology would be of great use to Congress.

In describing why this office should be a part of Congress the report noted,

The proposition of this Act is that the Congress is the proper national forum for deliberating and deciding upon conflicting goals, values, priorities, resource allocations and the distribution of benefits, risks, and costs, all of which are involved in technology assessment.  To carry out these responsibilities, The Congress should be one of the best informed institutions is this country.  Technology assessment alone will not achieve this desired state, but it does offer significant improvements to the current system.

This report is part of a growing colletion of historic documents found  here in the OTA Library.

A recent magazine column scores technology predictions for 2008 and makes new predictions for 2009.  One of the predictions is that a cabinet-level technology officer will be created in the new administration, which is based upon an idea floated by President Obama during his campaign.   Pointing out the need for such an office, the column states, “Since the Congress dismantled the Office of Technology Assessment more than a decade ago, the federal government has been forced to deal with rapidly evolving technologies with little or no independent guidance and no central point from which to make national policies to advance technology utilization. I’m all for changing that.”

A newsletter article discusses a recent Stanford study by Mark Z. Jacobson comparing ten ways to generate electricity and two ways to make ethanol fuel.  When analyzing the study, the author asks “Where is the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment when you need it?”

Rush Holt, (D-NJ), U.S. House of Representatives:

“Reinstating the Office of Technology Assessment: A View from Congress”

Christopher Hill, George Mason University:

“Science and Technology Information for Congress: Can Wikipedia Do the Job?”

David Goldston, Harvard University:

“Alternatives for Providing Reliable Technical Advice to Congress”

DISCUSSANT: Granger Morgan, Carnegie Mellon University

MODERATOR: Gerald L. Epstein, Center for Strategic & International Studies

Congress faces policy decisions that often hinge on complex technical content. At the same time, lawmakers are deluged with scientific information of widely disparate quality and have little in-house ability to evaluate it. The Congressional Office of Technology Assessment provided rigorous, bipartisan, scientific and technological advice to Congress for nearly two decades before being eliminated in 1995. This session will focus on how to effectively place scientific and technical information into a policy context, analyze it, and communicate it to policy makers and the public.

At the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS),

Saturday, February 14, 2009, 8:30AM-10:00AM

Hyatt Regency, Columbus Room AB, 151 East Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois

For further information, please contact the organizers:

Tony Fainberg, Institute for Defense Analyses; (tfainber@ida.org)

Gerald L. Epstein, Center for Strategic and International Studies; (gepstein@csis.org)

A blog post suggests that  the U.S. healthcare system can improved by organizing providers,  improving quality,  reforming reimbursements, and researching cost-effectiveness.

As to cost-effectiveness research, Health Reformer says,  “…. have Medicare look not only at the clinical effectiveness of tests and treatments, but also at their cost-effectiveness–an idea that has been banished from American political discourse since the demise of the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment in the early ‘90s.”

You can check out several excellent reports on the cost-effectiveness of health care from the OTA archive:

A  1994 report, Identifying Health Technologies that Work – Searching for Evidence,  is a comprehensive update about what works.   Chapter 6, a history of the federal role in health technology assessment, may be of current interest.

A 1988 report, The Quality of Medical Care: Information for Consumers,  is a great compendium on how medical care can be evaluated.  It combines a conceptual framework,  dimensions to consider, and an analysis of possible indicators of the quality of care provided by physicians and hospitals.

A 1986 report, Payment for Physician Services: Strategies for Medicare, lays out a relevant process for analyzing how we pay for heathcare (even though the policy context is dated).  It evaluates some innovative payment methods, for example, bundling services into a package that is paid for at a flat rate or paying for a greater scope of services by capitation.

This column discusses the beneficial role of recombinant bovine somatotropin, or bovine growth hormone, in the U. S. dairy industy.  The use of the hormone stimulates milk production resulting in more efficient milk production.  He points to the many studies which show that  the milk or meat of treated cows is not affectd by this hormone.  These conclusions have been affirmed by many reviews including one by the Office of Technology Assessment in its May 1991 report, U. S. Dairy Industry at a Crossroad: Biotechnology and Policy Choice.

According to this website, “Arati Prabhakar joined U.S. Venture Partners in 2001 after 15 years of working with world-class engineers and scientists across many fields to brew new technologies.”  The article outlines her career, which she began as Congressional Fellow at the Office of Technology Assessment.

A blog entry about restoring OTA says that, “…now is the crucial time for Congress to restore this agency and give Congress an independent view of science and technology rather than depending on industry scientists for science advice.”  It also conducts a poll, “Do you think the Office of Technology Assessment should be restored?”  To see the results click here.

A blog post says that “with so many options for coordinating or institutionalizing advice, recommendations, and reform, the incoming Obama administration has a long history to consider, and a plethora of options at hand.”  It mentions attempts to revive the  Office Of Technology Assessment, which is “sorely needed,” and the new FAS database of OTA reports.

A blog entry predicts that the new administration will have a new approach to the future and will revive the tradition of  government foresight.  It mentions several forward-looking programs from the 1970′s, including the Office of Technology Assessment, Congressional Clearinghouse on the Future, and a 1974 requirement of the House Select Committee on Committees that each standing committee undertake futures research and forecasting.

An article about the threat to some of our country’s greatest achievements by a recent lack of investment in the infrastructure of government.    It makes three suggestions for the new Congress:  1) create a new office similar to the disbanded Office of Technology Assessment -perhaps the “Office of Long-Range Analysis,” 2) set in place updates to decisions to be “triggered” later by new information, and 3) find the courage to look into the future and tackle the issues coming at us.

A 1990 OTA report, Electronic Bulls and Bears: U.S. Securities Markets and Information Technology,  notes that “Computer-assisted trading strategies can cause short-term price volatility, or spread selling or buying pressure from one market to others.”  The report was written in response to requests by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House Committee on Government Operations to assess the role of communication and information technologies in the securities markets.

OTA said, “Futures and options markets are criticized for developing products that are suspected of increasing the likelihood of a market crash. These problems call for a re-examination of public policies including changes in the regulatory structure.”  The report also states, “The private sector cannot achieve, without government assistance, some of the necessary adjustments to keep American markets strongly competitive and to protect American investors and financial systems.”

In another 1990 report, Trading Around the Clock: Global Securities Markets and Information Technology, OTA describes the forces encouraging the development of international securities markets, the obstacles that must be overcome, and the major sources of unnecessary risk.  The report describes three possible international regulatory schemes and states, “Effective response to a major securities market break will in the future require international as well as domestic actions. The central issue may be how to prevent a liquidity crisis from becoming a solvency crisis.”

In a 1984 report, Effects of Information Technology on Financial Services Systems, OTA described new technologies and other changes in the financial service industry and warned that in large amounts of funds were being moved from accounts that are insured and closely supervised to accounts that offer higher return but have little, if any, Federal protection.  This report was part of a study requested in 1982 by the House Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs; the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.  The committees requested OTA to study the impacts of information processing and telecommunication technologies on financial service systems.

A real estate blog entry discusses “prudent avoidance” of  electric and magnetic fields and credits an  OTA report, Biological Effects of Power Frequency: Electric and Magnetic Field. This May 1989 background paper (p. 77) suggests several approaches to  risk assessment and regulation of electric and magnetic fields.

A Sweetwater County library, Wyoming, blog mentions the FAS OTA Archive.

This blog post discusses examples of how some political leaders have used “…the work of scientists to cloak private interests in what is ostensibly value free analysis.” What may be needed is more value added science, exemplified by OTA’s and the National Academy of Sciences’ work which is  “… the product of a dialogue among diverse actors–hard scientists, social scientists, and value based interests alike.”

An article about nuclear power plants and laser isotope separation refers to a 1977 OTA report, Nuclear Proliferation and Safeguards Appendix Volume II Part 2.

A blog post about the history of Oak Ridge has a few biographical notes about John H. Gibbons, Director of OTA from 1979 to 1993.

A blog post about globalization, neoliberalism and agricultural biotechnology policy refers to a 1991 OTA report,  U.S. Dairy Industry at a Crossroads: Biotechnology and Policy Choices.

By Philip H. | The Intersection | September 2, 2008

This blog post mentioned the OTA Archive and discussed some ideas about how to communicate science to Congress.  Referred to several OTA reports on issues that are still being debated:  a 1990 report, Replacing Gasoline: Alternative Fuels for Light Duty Vehicles and Preparing for an Uncertain Climate Volume I and Volume II published in 1993.

A blog entry credited OTA for their worldwide leadership in technology assessments in the health care field in the 1970′s,  providing politicians with an evaluation of not only the medical technologies and procedures but also the organizational structures in which medical services are provided.  European countries (Sweden, the Netherlands, France, and Britain) later developed similar programs in the 1980′s.

A blog post about the failure of the Congress to reinstate OTA says, “While the OTA may have died on the altar of partisan ideology in 1995, its revival today seems to be inhibited by a bipartisan failure to understand why it’s needed.”

Read more about Rep. Rush Holt’s (D-NJ) recent efforts to reinstate OTA here.

The amazing thing is that, thirteen years later, OTA is mentioned in the press almost every day.  It shows that former Congressman Amo Houghton (R-New York) was right when he said, “Those of us who have used OTA reports know that most of them have long shelf lives. The really important issues–the issues OTA worked on–do not get solved and go away in one Congress.”   from In Memoriam: The Office of Technology Assessment, 1972-95

The memo continues as follows:

Congress needs its own source of unbiased technical expertise, and OTA is an institutional innovation to meet that need. But even more than a technical or institutional experiment, OTA is an experiment in how to make democracy work.

It is not just a matter of whether Congress can utilize technical information and advice. The crucial point is whether Congress can do so in the full glare of public scrutiny–and with the full participation of the varied public groups that have a stake in the outcome of the decisions.

Later on in the memo Sen. Kennedy mentions the topics OTA decided to examine:

-How should we allocate our resources to energy R&D?

-How economical is solar energy for the generation of electric power?

-What are the economic, social, and environmental impacts of drilling for offshore oil and gas? Of the use of deep water ports?

-How can we strengthen the technology of our fisheries industry?

-How can we strengthen overall food technology systems? What is the impact of the energy shortage on fertilizers and food production?

-How can we assure the nation adequate supplies of materials resources?

-What is the impact of automated mass transit technology–not only on movement of people and goods, but on jobs and the economy in general?

-How can we use our high technology products to strengthen America’s international competitive position?

This document is the first in a series of material from the OTA library. You can also find today’s document here on the OTA library page. Check back regularly as we add to this section of the site.

In response to an expressed need to be better informed about goings-on within the Office, we present to you Volume 1, Number 1 of the “OTA NEWSLETTER”

At this early stage, we intend to publish the Newsletter in two parts. Part one will feature business-related matters and may later be distributed to select audiences outside OTA. The second part will contain matters of an in-house nature.

To see at all nine editions of the OTA Newsletter click here.

The disturbing incidents of ‘friendly fire’ deaths suffered by the United States and its allies in the Persian Gulf War focused new attention on an old problem. U.S. forces shooting at their own units caused 24 percent of U.S. combat deaths in the war. The fraction of losses due to friendly fire, or fratricide, seemed extraordinarily high and caused considerable public concern and international friction. The OTA report, Who Goes There: Friend or Foe?, explores the causes of friendly fire and some of the remedies that might be found in new technology, training, and doctrine.

Click here to read the full 1993 OTA report, “Who goes there: friend or foe?”

More report briefs will be posted on this page in the coming days.

The press release says:

The ongoing project to map human genes will almost certainly expand the number of DNA-based tests for genetic disorders by an order of magnitude over the next decade. How health insurers view such tests will affect their use, says the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA).
An OTA background paper issued today describes the results from a 1991 OTA survey of U.S. health insurers’ attitudes toward genetic tests and genetic information – both their attitudes towards genetic information in making determinations of insurability and how they might reimburse consumers for genetic tests.

This press advisory is one of eight newly available documents released in the summer and fall of 1992. Click here to check them out. We’d be happy to collect and scan similar documents if anyone has them.

This business article appeared over the weekend and features the economic ideas of Rob Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Mr. Atkinson worked for OTA in the early 1990s.

Mr. Farrell discusses the impact of war on the American economy. Near the end of his article he says that people should read John Alic’s “Trillions for Military Technology: How the Pentagon Innovates and Why It Costs So Much.” Mr. Alic worked at OTA for over 15 years.

This blog post discusses the benefits and drawbacks of paying for psychotherapy with employer-issued health insurance versus out of pocket funds. Ms. Carnabucci cites this 1991 OTA report, “Medical Monitoring and Screening in the Workplace: Results of a Survey“, which found that “almost a third of the employers that maintained employee medical records let their personnel departments read those records without notifying the employee.”

The author reflects on the report, “Science and Technology Policy in Congress“, released earlier this spring by The Keystone Center and the Consensus Building Institute. The report includes a review “of the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), including a look at its origins, its successes and challenges, and its ultimate demise in the mid-1990s.”  Phillip wonders, “do we really need to revive the Office of Technology Assessment?”

Dr. Johnson has a new blog post on children that are technology-dependent, or in other words they rely on technology in order to stay alive. He says:

“How many of these children are there in the community?…The only comprehensive data I could find for the USA are twenty years old, when a study (This 1987 OTA report, Technology Dependent Children: Hospital Vs. Home Care) from the federal Office of Technology Assessment estimated the total as 50,000 children (or about 5/100,000 persons) were technology-dependent, 2,000 of these needing ventilators.”

U.S. Vulnerability to an Oil Import Curtailment, September 1984
“This report responds to a request by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for an analysis of the U.S. oil replacement capability in the event of an oil supply shortfall of indefinite duration.”

Oil and Gas Technologies for the Arctic and Deepwater, May 1985
“This assessment addresses the technologies, the economics, and the operational and environmental factors affecting the exploration and development of energy resources in the deepwater and Arctic regions of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) established in March 1983.”

Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: The Technology and the Alaskan Oil Context, February 1989
“In deciding the future of the ANWR coastal plain, Congress must address a wide variety of issues ranging from the environmental impacts of oilfield exploration, development, and production in an Arctic environment to the economic and national security benefits of potential additional oil production in Alaska…This report presents the results of an assessment of a subset of these issues focusing in particular on: the oilfield technology being used to develop the Alaskan North Slope’s oil resources and the likely configuration of that technology as it might be applied in the future to the coastal plain; and the prospects for future North Slope oil production, especially the likelihood that the flow of oil through the Trans Alaskan Pipeline System will suffer a serious decline during the next decade.”

U.S. Oil Import Vulnerability: The Technical Replacement Capability, October 1991
“Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in August 1990 triggered a long-dormant awareness of this Nation’s vulnerability to disruptions in foreign oil supplies. Amid heightened concern over the potential impacts on U.S. oil supplies of prolonged hostilities in the Middle East, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources asked OTA to update the conclusions of our 1984 report, U.S. Vulnerability to an Oil Import Curtailment…The report’s conclusion that U.S. capability to replace lost oil imports is shrinking should be sobering to those who believe that there are quick and easy technological solutions, or that market forces alone will be sufficient to overcome the substantial economic and social dislocations that could result from a prolonged major oil disruption.”

Click here to read the full post.

Enhanced Oil Recovery Potential in the United States, January 1978
“It is estimated that about 300 billion barrels of discovered oil remain in the United States. However, conventional techniques of extraction can deliver only 10 percent of that oil economically, or about 30 billion barrels. What about the remaining 270 billion barrels? This report assesses the potential of enhanced recovery techniques for freeing more of this oil from the sandstone and limestone formations in which it is trapped.”

Application of Solar Technology to Today’s Energy Needs—Vol. I, June 1978
Application of Solar Technology to Today’s Energy Needs—Vol. II, September 1978
“This report reviews a range of solar energy systems designed to produce thermal and electrical energy directly from sunlight with units small enough to be located on or near the buildings they are designed to serve.”

Energy From Biological Processes, July 1980
“Energy from the conversion of wood and other plant matter represents an important underexploited resource in the United States. As renewable, abundant, and domestic energy resources, these and other sources of biomass can help the United States reduce its dependence on imported oil. The amount of energy supplied by biomass, now relatively small, could expand rapidly in the next two decades— a period when the Nation’s energy problems will be particularly acute.”

Residential Energy Conservation, July 1979
“This report is the result of a request from the Technology Assessment Board that the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) analyze the potential for conserving energy in homes in terms of energy and costs. The report reviews existing and promising technologies, and a broad set of issues affecting why these technologies are or are not used, how their level of use and effectiveness can be improved, and related Federal programs and policies.”

Building Energy Efficiency, May 1992
“Energy issues are of continuing policy concern, due to the crucial role played by energy in environmental quality, economic vitality, and national security. In recent reports OTA has suggested that energy efficiency is a critical component of a comprehensive policy framework to further these issues. This report addresses energy use and efficiency in U.S. buildings, which account for over one-third of U.S. energy consumption.”

Saving Energy in U.S. Transportation, July 1994
“This report assesses an array of transportation policies designed to reduce energy use and describes the intersection of these policies with general transportation problems such as congestion and air pollution.”

Renewing Our Energy Future, September 1995
“This study evaluates the potential for cost-effective renewable energy in the coming decades and the actions that have to be taken to achieve the potential.”

The author discusses technology use in the classroom. One of the references cited is this 1995 OTA Report, Education and Technology: Future Visions.

Ms. Morgan explains a new appraisal methodology called Multicriteria Mapping and discusses how it could be used to create greater transparency in science policy decision making. She suggests that this approach could improve the policy making abilities of the Office of Science and Technology Policy or a revived OTA.

Energy, the Economy, and Mass Transit, October 1975
“OTA examined: (1) the probable effects of changes in energy supplies and prices on transit patronage and the transit industry; (2) the potential role of public mass transit programs in stimulating a depressed economy; and (3) the effect on the economy and urban transit if transit funds were sharply reduced. In addition, the study evaluates alternative transportation policies for responding to various economic and energy conditions and examines within this framework the effect of transit incentives and automobile disincentives on transit patronage and automobile use.”

Gasohol, September 1979
“The Office of Technology Assessment is currently preparing an assessment of energy from biological processes. In the course of this study we have carried out an extensive analysis of alcohol fuels from agricultural products. This technical memorandum presents these findings in response to congressional interest in synthetic fuels. The purpose of the memorandum is to illuminate the technical and non-technical issues surrounding the development of gasohol.”

Synthetic Fuels for Transportation: The Future Potential of Electric and Hybrid Vehicles, March 1982
“This report presents a comprehensive review of the future of electric and hybrid vehicles through the year 2010 in the United States. It discusses the technology, performance, and limitations of probable future electric and hybrid vehicles; the infrastructure necessary to produce and support them; marketability; and finally, effects on the nation if used in large numbers.”

Increased Automobile Fuel Efficiency and Synthetic Fuels: Alternatives for Reducing Oil Imports, September 1982
“The study assesses and compares increased automobile fuel efficiency and synthetic fuels production with respect to their potential to reduce conventional oil consumption, and their costs and impacts.”

“Congress faces several decisions on how to reduce the U.S. dependence on imported petroleum. Two options, increased automobile efficiency and synthetic fuels, are particularly likely to be subjects of congressional debates.”

Replacing Gasoline: Alternative Fuels for Light-Duty Vehicles, September 1990
“Recent interest in alternative fuels for light-duty highway vehicles (automobiles and light trucks) is based on their potential to address three important societal problems: unhealthy levels of ozone in major urban areas; growing U.S. dependence on imported petroleum; and rising emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. This assessment examines the following alternative fuels: methanol, ethanol, natural gas (in either compressed (CNG) or liquid (LNG) form), electricity (to drive electric vehicles (EVs)), hydrogen, and reformulated gasoline.”

The folks over at denialism blog have a new write-up about the Office of Technology Assessment that mentions the OTA Archive project. The full post is available here.

“The last twenty years have been marked by drastic political events and by spectacular scientific and technical breakthroughs (such as in the life sciences) and innovations (such as in the case of the Internet). Just as noteworthy in hindsight, however, is the fact that these years appear as a period in which far-reaching technology visions once again attracted serious attention in parts of the scientific community, among politicians, and in the public. In the current discussions about these visions, which were sparked in fields such as nanotechnology and brain research, both cautioners and optimists predict fundamental changes in society, civilisation, and “human nature”.

The debate about “converging technologies” (CT) has to be seen in this context. It has been driven primarily by research policy actors and by experts from various disciplines, and is part of a more comprehensive political and social discourse on nanotechnology, biotechnology, information and communications technology (ICT), brain research, artificial intelligence (AI), robotics, and the sciences that deal with these topics. “Convergence” is an umbrella term for predictions ranging from an increase in synergetic effects to a merging of these fields, and for demands for government funding of research and development where these fields overlap.

The first CT initiative was started in the United States in 2001 in connection with activities concerning social, legal, and ethical aspects of nanotechnology. The primary participants in this initiative were the National Science Foundation and the Department of Commerce, and it received the support, for example, of some of those in military research. Some of the features of this initiative, which despite its nonofficial character is often viewed as an official government initiative, triggered some very controversial discussions. The subject was even picked up by some of the mass media, nongovernmental organisations (NGO), and private enterprises. For analytical purposes, we can distinguish between:

• A debate that started in the United States, bundled various social conflicts concerning science and technology, and focused on “human enhancement”, i.e., the artificial improvement of an individual’s capacities, and on far-reaching visions of the future of humanity;
• The discussions about CT research policy in a narrower sense and the related scientific and technological activities. Here too the starting point was in the United States, but the main participants driving this field are now located in Europe.”

The entire report (in German) can be found here.
Click here for a brief summary and here for an extended article about this new TAB report posted on nanowerk.com.

Click here to see their post about the OTA Archive.

The Ithaca Journal wrote an article to coincide with the publication of the study, which appeared in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Since then, there have been several different letters (one available here) published by the paper debating the merits of rBST use in dairy cows. Yesterday, a guest editorial by the lead author of the study appeared that cites this 1991 OTA report, U.S. Dairy Industry at a Crossroad: Biotechnology and Policy Choices.  This report features an extensive examination of the policy issues surrounding rBST use.

Which one is your favorite? Does anyone know who originally posted these videos on Google Video?

OTA on OTA (1983)

Office of Technology Assessment (early 1990s)

The first appears in Le Devoir, a newspaper published in Montreal, Canada. My French-speaking sources tell me it is about computerized tomography (CT) scans and the debate about whether the technique is being overused. OTA published several reports (see here, here, and here) about CT scans in the 1970s and 80s.

The second comes from a blog based in India, and discusses the environmental consequences of medical waste incineration in residential areas. This 1988 OTA Report, Issues in Medical Waste Management, is listed in the references.

Mr. Semenza served as an analyst for the OTA in the early 1990s. From the press release:

“DisplaySearch, the worldwide leader in display market research and consulting, today announced that it has appointed display industry veteran Paul Semenza as the company’s Senior Vice President managing the North American and European analyst teams.”

Read the entire press release here.

Total WonKerr

Atomic Archive

TEDBlog

From The Great Beyond, a blog hosted by Nature:

“Washington is full of science-policy wonks who bemoan the loss of the Office of Technology Assessment, which between 1972 and 1995 was the go-to place for smart independent advice for policymakers on science and technology topics. Fortunately, OTA junkies now have an online fix for all their needs.”

From Rhetoric and Rockets:

“Before OTA is reborn I would want to know the following:

• How, exactly, would a revived OTA would function?
• How big would it be?
• Who would participate?
• More importantly (from my semi-mistrustful point of view) who DECIDES who gets to participate?
• What would the new OTA charter look like?
• What steps would be taken to prevent the real or perceived irrelevance of the agency?
• What provisions will be made to ensure that OTA remains a “lean and mean,” think tank type of organization?
• In short, what will OTA supporters do to assure budget hawks that the agency deserves to be reborn when there is already a call to decrease the deficit, balance the budget, and eliminate a great deal of waste elsewhere in the federal government?”

Exploring Interdisciplinarity:

“The Agency, which we as staffers labeled “Congress’ Own Think Tank,” had become official in 1972, and was tasked with taking a long-term look at the implications of technology on all aspects of society. By most accounts, we did a phenomenal job.”

Science Progress / Science Cheerleader

OMB Watch

Sunlight Foundation

George Dimitriou

Bioephemera blog

Bored Science blog

Scientists and Engineers for America

Secrecy News

OTA served as an independent branch of the U.S. Congress that provided nonpartisan science and technology advice from 1972 until it was defunded and forced to close in 1995. The Archive will track efforts to bring back OTA, and individuals can subscribe to receive RSS feeds or email updates as new material is posted. The Federation of American Scientists recently received hundreds of historical documents about OTA that have not been available to the public previously, and plan to highlight them in a regular “Document of the Day” feature. The OTA Archive links to current news articles that mention OTA reports or former OTA staff members. The site also includes a  search engine (on the right) that allows users to quickly and easily find specific content in OTA reports.

FAS will be happy to host or link to any additional documents or commentary related to the OTA. Use the contact tab at the top of this page to send us your comments.

Congressman Rush Holt discusses the Office of Technology Assessment
Interview with the Federation of American Scientists, June 2008

Here’s a blog post that mentions Darlene Cavalier’s recent Science Progress editorial on creating a very public Office of Technology Assessment. Ms. Miller says,

“I’m a firm believer in citizen science as one path to increasing science literacy. Cavalier takes the next step and insists that we begin to take a more prominent role in policy making ourselves. After all, isn’t that what citizens of a democracy are supposed to do?”

This article describes a recent meeting on tropical forestry hosted by The National Urban & Community Forestry Advisory Council (NUCFAC). During the meeting, Teresa Trueman-Madriaga, Kaulunani Urban & Community Forestry Program Coordinator, referenced this 1993 OTA report when discussing Hawaii’s alien pest species problem.

Darlene Cavalier, AKA “The Science Cheerleader”, released two new articles about the OTA. The first appeared last week in Science Progress, and argues the OTA should reopen, but with a twist. She says:

It is time to have a new OTA, but one with citizen participation. Scientists and Congress should trust the public’s capacity to learn, draw conclusions, and contribute. Invite the public to do more, and put a process in place so citizens and researchers can work together to impart sound policy advice to Congress. In short, they should help bridge the divide.

The second post appears today on the blog Science Cheerleader as a direct challenge to citizen scientists- “This question is for you (the public). If Congress opens an OTA with citizen inclusion, will you answer the call to participate?”

The author, the founder and primary shareholder of JPods, a personal rapid transit company based in California, describes his business model and suggests ways that the company and industry will be profitable in the future. In this article, he mentions this 1975 OTA report, Automated Guideway Transit: An Assessment of PRT and Other New Systems.

Mr. Leahy has a new post all about the OTA. In it, he mentions the work of the Science Cheerleader and her efforts to bring back OTA with input from the public. He goes on to mention a number of OTA reports of personal interest, and then discusses his own ideas about OTA.

The author discusses methods of communication in schools and considers how people might communicate in the future. In the post, this 1990 OTA report, Critical Connections: Communication for the Future, is mentioned.

“The J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI), a not-for-profit genomic research organization, today announced that Robert Friedman, Ph.D., has been named the new Deputy Director of the JCVI La Jolla, California facility…Prior to joining JCVI, Friedman was Vice President for Research at The Heinz Center, a nonprofit environmental policy research organization. Earlier he was a Senior Associate at the Office of Technology Assessment, United States Congress (OTA) where he advised Congressional committees on environmental and natural resources policy.”

This article, part of the Life’s Little Mysteries section of livescience.com, describes the hazards of natural disasters. This was apparently written in July of 2007 and has just recently been posted by others (perhaps people interested in the recent floods in the U.S. Midwest). In the article, this 1993 OTA report, Preparing for an Uncertain Climate- Volume 1, is cited and quoted as follows, “despite recent efforts, vulnerability to flood damages is likely to continue to grow”.

Dr. Desai provides some medical information about anthrax and then lists the leading treatment options for an anthrax infection. In the second part of the article, he gives some financial information about the major biotech companies involved in anthrax countermeasure development. In his description of the anthrax threat, he quotes from this 1993 OTA report, “Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction” that says, “(OTA) estimated that 130,000 to 3 million deaths could occur following the release of 100 kilograms of aerosolized anthrax over Washington, DC.”

While this quote is accurate, it is important to keep in mind the caveat that this type of attack would involve “single airplane-loads of…biological weapons, assuming a highly efficient line-source delivery” and that “fatalities could vary greatly under three different weather scenarios”.

The author discusses specific policy issues that might unite skeptics. Before launching into an extended discussion of education policy, he puts in a endorsement of the OTA, “I think most of us could, for instance, get behind a proposal to bring back the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), which used to helpfully advise Congress on all sorts of complex scientific issues that Congressman and their staffs, rarely have much depth of knowledge about.”

The author, a professor at The University of Notre Dame, gives five reasons why the U.S. shouldn’t expand the use of nuclear power in this country to meet growing energy demand. One of the myths she confronts is that “Nuclear Energy will not Increase Weapons Proliferation”, and she supports her claims with this 1977 OTA report and this 1993 report.

Dr. Lockey, a professor at the University of South Florida, explains the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) drug approval process, focusing particularly on the allergy drug Singulair. This 1993 OTA report on pharmaceutical research and development describes the length of time involved and success rate of drug development in the U.S.

The author reviews trends in the use of technology for educational purposes from the 1980′s to the mid-2000′s. The 1988 OTA report, Power On! New Tools for Teaching and Learning, is cited as one of the most influential education policy reports of the time period.

The author praises OTA for being “clearly ahead of their time”. A 1977 OTA report is cited about the use of information technology in medicine.

A blog post about technology, an out-of-control cell phone, privacy, and security. The author references this 1994 OTA report on “Information Security and Privacy in Network Environments“. She also finds this 1995 issue update, which apparently never developed into a full report since OTA was in the process of being de-funded. Science Cheerleader continues to be among those in the blogosphere leading the push to bring back OTA, and you can read more about her ideas here.

Oil shale technology was the main topic of a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing held on May 15. Mr. Snow summarizes the highlights of the hearing, which focused on legislation, environmental issues, and water and energy inputs required to produce and extract oil from oil shale deposits in the western U.S. According to the article Steve Smith, assistant regional director of the Wilderness Society, cited this 1980 OTA report in his testimony.

The author discusses recent research on the efficacy of blood transfusions. This 1978 OTA report on the usefulness and safety of medical technologies is among the cited material.

The author, a former governor of Delaware and Director of the OTA, argues in favor of alternative energy projects in the state.

The authors describe using MRIs to screen patients for diseases of the brain. They say, “The current trend in medicine toward prevention and early diagnosis will continue to improve medical practice. Discovering underlying pathology before overt manifestations has been emphasized to improve cost-effectiveness and reduce morbidity and mortality. Yet for a screening program to be of value to society, it must be applied in the proper context.”

For the full report, click here. A 1984 OTA report on “Medical Technology and Costs of the Medicare Program” is listed among the references.

The author cites this 1983 OTA report in his discussion of the reliability of polygraph tests. Read the full post here.

The author, a former senior official at OTA, urges the American public to use “the power of the purse” to initiate change. See the full post here.

“Rosina M. Bierbaum, professor and dean of the School of Natural Resources and Environment ( SNRE ) at the University of Michigan, has been selected by the World Bank to co-author and co-direct its prestigious World Development Report 2010, which will focus on climate change and development.”

Dean Bierbaum worked on climate change and other issues at the OTA.

Click here to read the full press release.

A car dealership in California is looking for a way to boost sales, and to do so they’re hoping consumers will trade in older, more polluting vehicles for electric cars in honor of Earth Day. Their press release cites this 1994 1992 OTA report on the cost and emissions-savings of retiring old vehicles.

A 1990 OTA report on unconventional cancer treatments is the focus of this blog post.

The author discusses the 2008 elections in the U.S. and reminds us of the role Congress plays in the development of science policy. He argues that eliminating OTA significantly hampered Congress’s ability to use sound science advice to craft federal policy.

A news article on border security mentions a 1983 OTA report about polygraph tests.

“This month, the Alzheimer’s Association issued a new report, 2008 Alzheimer’s Disease Facts and Figures, which contains powerful data about the disease. As reported, 5.2 million Americans live with Alzheimer’s and an estimated 10 million baby boomers – one out of eight – will develop the disease. It is the seventh leading cause of death in the U.S.

Alzheimer’s is a tragic and devastating disease that touches us all in some way. Congress and the President should ensure that the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health have the funding they need to advance research into the disease.

More than 20 years ago, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) – a support agency created to provide Congress with objective and authoritative analysis of complex scientific and technical issues to aid in policymaking – issued “Losing a Million Minds: Confronting the Tragedy of Alzheimer’s Disease and Other Dementias.” This comprehensive and valuable report remains an important resource about the disease and what we need to do to combat it. It is also a good example of why Congress needs to restore funding for the OTA, which was defunded in 1994.”

Sincerely,

RUSH HOLT
Member of Congress

Students at Dickinson College seem to be working on a class project in Chem 111. In their writing about penicillin, several students reference this 1995 OTA report.

The author responds to a 2003 article on recycling, waste, and garbage. In the paper, the author cites a 1989 OTA report on trash in the U.S.

The paper’s editorial board, as part of Sunshine Week, calls for transparency in government, especially among the candidates for president. This editorial mentions Hillary Clinton’s proposal to bring back the Office of Technology Assessment.

In an article about cancer treatments and the American Cancer Society, this 1990 OTA report on unconventional cancer treatments is cited.

Ms. Lavalle discusses cost estimates associated with policies to mitigate climate change. She references a “long forgotten study” by OTA and mentions how it’s hard to find the reports online. Don’t worry- we’re working to change that!

This author is promoting energy produced from biomass (in particular, energy produced by his company). He sites this 1980 OTA report in his article about the potential of this type of fuel.

An article about politics, science, and the 2008 presidential election. The elimination of the OTA in 1995 is cited as evidence of the decreasing influence of science in politics.

The Science Cheerleader wants to bring back OTA- with a twist. Click here to find out more.

Kate Wing discusses unintentional species invasions. Along the way, she reminisces about OTA- “I’ve dug out my well-worn copy of “Harmful non-indigenous species in the U.S.” from my thesis work. Ah, the old Office of Technology Assessment. Sure would be handy to have a non-partisan agency using science to look at technologies these days, but I digress.”

Another commentary about the science debate between representatives from the Clinton and Obama campaigns at the AAAS annual meeting in Boston.  Re-opening the Office of Technology Assessment was among the topics discussed.

Sheril blogs about the science debate held at the AAAS national meeting in Boston. Representatives from the Clinton and Obama campaigns presented the positions of their candidate on various science topics.

Another call to bring back OTA. The post has specific references to the article by Laura Kahn and a blog post from September 2007 by Mark Hoofnagle.

Commentary on a debate held during the AAAS annual meeting, where representatives from the Clinton and Obama campaigns discussed science-related issues facing the next Administration. The possibility of reviving OTA came up during the debate.

An update on the legislative effort to re-fund OTA, circa 2007.

A 1993 OTA report on the proliferation of WMD capabilities gets mentioned in this article.

This article suggests some top animal care stocks for investors. An OTA report (does anyone know what the reference might be?) is cited that claims that animal farm care costs are $25 billion/year and rising.

A post describing the effort to have a presidential science debate in 2008 (update 4/18/08 – it didn’t happen, at least not yet), and criticism for the Democratic Congress for their failure to revive OTA.

Katy Makeig was a Congressional Science Fellow working in the Office of Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ). In this article she describes the legislative effort to bring back OTA. She says, “Some of the most technologically complex issues that have ever faced lawmakers are now before a body — the Congress of the United States — where less than 5 percent of the members have any scientific or technical training.”

A post urging Congress to bring back the OTA.

“The U.K.’s Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) functions something like the late lamented U.S. Office of Technology Assessment, killed off by Newt Gingrich back in the ’90s. They regularly publish brief but fairly comprehensive, interdisciplinary reports with cross-sector relevance on trends in science and technology.”

POST recently published three POSTnotes entitled “Ecological Networks“, “Smart Metering of Electricity and Gas” and “Autism“. The first two POSTnotes for 2008 were on “smart” materials and systems, and synthetic biology.”

To read the whole post, click here

A 1978 OTA report is cited in this article about unnecessary medical procedures.

The Open House Project works “to study how the House of Representatives currently integrates the Internet into its operations, and to suggest attainable reforms to promote public access to its work and members.” Click here for an analysis of a 1992 report on access to material produced for the House of Representatives. Apparently OTA had a partial program to allow citizen access to OTA reports. Anybody care to tell us more about how OTA reports were distributed to the public?

Mr. Grotto reports here that the complete set of material contained on the OTA legacy CDs, as compiled by Bill Craeger et al., are now available in the government archives collection at North Texas University.

A blog post in favor of bringing back the OTA. Some history about the agency is also sprinkled in among the commentary.

During the FY 2008 budget process, legislation was proposed to appropriate money to the General Accountability Office (GAO) to perform technology assessment studies. This article describes the status of the funds in July 2007. (Postscript: In the end, this proposal died.)

A guest editorial by Ralph Nader on “Gingrich, “futurism” and the abolition of the Office of Technology Assessment”.