Congress Wants Your Advice (and Probably Your Money)

In an effort to determine how it can improve how it gets science and technology advice on important issues, the U.S. House of Representatives Science Committee played "Ask the Experts" yesterday in a day long "hearing."

To a man (or woman, whatever the case may be), the experts agreed that there is a gap in the type of science and technology advice that Congress currently receives. Specifically, the witnesses called for Congress to have access to in-depth reviews of policy options and their technical implications. As Dr. Jon Peha, co-editor of the book Science and Technology Advice for Congress and a Professor of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University, put it "there is a fundamental gap in the information available to Congress. There is no consistent source of in-depth assessments that are balanced, complete, impartial, and produced at a time and in a format that is sensitive to the specific needs of Congress."

Of course, for more than 20 years, Congress did have a technology support office--the Office of Technology Assessment--which provided technology forecasting and assessment. Alas, it was defunded and eliminated in 1995 in part because, according to some in Congress, it delivered "redundant" information. Apparently members of Congress who supported the demise of OTA believed they could get better information from lobbyists and contractors, like those defense contractors who supplied former Congressman Duke Cunningham with technology information, among other stuff. Others in Congress felt that the kind of information they were getting didn't fit their political needs, so they opted to shoot the messenger--OTA, in this case. Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ), who testified at the hearing, acknowledged the role of politics, stating that "although we would like to believe that the scientific and technical advice and assessment provided from outside remains politically neutral, this is not necessarily the case."

Whatever you think about the bureaucracies, you can't deny that the OTA was productive. With a staff of less than 200 people and a budget of under $22 million, the OTA was the smallest of the legislative branch's agencies, but published 755 details reports on issues ranging from medical policy to advanced computer technologies.

In any event, yesterday's lip service to accurate technology information involved heavy-weight scientists from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, and the National Research Council, in addition to Peha.

• Albert Teich, Director of Science and Policy Programs at the AAAS, testified that , "universities and scientific societies, including AAAS, have expanded efforts to bring accurate scientific information to Congress through reports on policy-relevant topics, position statements and scientific briefings." He then added that shortcomings still exist within the system. "To sum up, information is not in short supply on Capitol Hill, but information is not knowledge," he said. "Credible sources are needed to provide timely analysis and synthesis of scientific and technical information as a foundation for Congressional decisions."
• Catherine Hunt, President-elect of the American Chemical Society, suggested, "Congress should consider establishing an in-house science and technology unit that supplements their capabilities and provides timely, thorough assessments for decisions on issues involving a wide range of science, engineering, and technology." She continued, "This unit could be housed in CRS [Congressional Research Service], GAO [Government Accountability Office], or stand alone as a congressional support agency."
• Peter Blair, Executive Director of the Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences at the National Research Council, raised the possibility of expanding the role of the National Academies to help fill the current gaps in information available to Congress. "The National Academies have enjoyed a longstanding and effective working relationship with Congress on even the most contentious issues," Blair said. "There are, no doubt, many characteristics of that relationship that could be improved, both to perform the traditional NRC [National Research Council] role more effectively and to provide some opportunities to expand that role." Dr. Blair went on to make the comparison that Congress, when considering legislative options, is like a homebuyer. Members might get advice from the equivalents of a real estate agent, the seller, and their friends, but they still needed to hire the equivalent of a trusted housing inspector to dig around on the issues.

Of course, the Executive Branch does have its own technology advice column, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, although it is generally acknowledged as being politically charged, something the OTA was originally chartered to avoid.

Posted by Jon Erickson at 09:05 AM  Permalink