Office of Technology Assessment, United States Congress, science, technology, policy
ScienceCheerleader | March29, 2009
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?”
Gerald L. Epstein | Science Progress | March 31, 2009
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.
Eric Meade | The Extreme Future | February 2009
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.”
Steve Mirsky |Scientific American: 60-Second Science |February 19, 2009
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.
Laura Sanders | Science News | March 14, 2009
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.”
Representative Rush Holt prepared the statement below for the session, “Science Advice for Congress: Do we need a new paradigm?” at the recent meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science:
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.