Science Cheerleader

I’m an R. Surprised an R would dedicate her career to science literacy and citizen participation in science and policy? Me too!   I can understand why Newt Gingrich isn’t keen on spending public dollars to create, yet another, Congressional agency. But he’s wrong to think the Office of Technology Assessment, which he axed in the 1990s as part of his Contract with America, was a waste of public dollars and resources. The scientists and policy wonks who worked there published hundreds of reports at the request of Congress to help them make sense of often complicated science and technology policy matters. You can find archives of the reports here. Many are still referenced today.

Last year, I launched a national effort to reopen the OTA and it has sparked a strong, well-organized movement within the science community now to lobby Congress to refund the OTA. On one hand, I’m thrilled! Wait, let me back up a bit to tell you how I became obsessed with the OTA.

I stumbled upon the OTA as a graduate student at UPenn (this is me on graduation day with comedian Yakov Smirnoff, seriously!) where my History and Sociology of Science professor handed me an assignment to “write about the rise and the fall of the OTA.” I read every piece of literature that existed and contacted many of the authors and former staffers of the OTA. I even met with Newt Gingrich and Rep. Rush Holt and chatted with Rep. Vern Elhers and several of the architects of the OTA.
I was convinced that Congress was lost a bit without its only source of dedicated, nonpartisan tech assessments and believed the Office should be refunded (it was never really killed by Congress…it was just stripped of its $23million +/- budget).

However, in this era of public participation, open source, collaboration, and transparency, I sought to open a new, decentralized, 21st Century OTA, one that would provide a mechanism to both inform the public and seek their input before Bills are posted for public comment (who really comments on posted Bills besides lobbyists and special interest groups anyway?). It’s not an entirely new idea. Richard Sclove, the founder of the Loka Institute, more than hinted at this suggestion back in the 80s. Ironically, following a major public, political and economic disaster surrounding the 1990s roll out of genetically modified foods in Europe, the E.U. opened parliamentary OTAs with a twist: the science and technology assessment undertaken by the experts at their OTAs often include citizen participation as this has been found to help assess risk, create a better informed public, and better understand societal implications of emerging technologies. All of which are key ingredients in good policy making decisions, no?  Do you want scientists or special interest groups to represent you and your questions/concerns societal impacts of science and emerging technologies? Congress knows no more than you do about these and many other scientific issues and they openly admit this. While I think it’s imperative for scientists to drive a discussion and impart their expertise on such matters, it’s equally vital that WE are afforded the opportunity to learn about and weigh in on these matters BEFORE Bills are created.
This is where the organizers of the current effort to reopen the OTA (the science community) and I differ. For the most part, they either do not understand or they don’t see the value in public participation. I can understand why if recent Town Hall meetings are what they’re basing their opinions on…but that’s not the type of participation I’m advocating for. I’m talking about a deliberate, well-constructed, inclusive approach that’s been proven to be successful in Europe (and even in China for crying out loud) and here in the U.S. although those efforts were not directly tied to Congress.

For this reason, while I wish the scientists well in their effort to persuade Congress to refund the old OTA (for the most part, although Congress did recently appropriate funds to the Government Accountability Office specifically for “technology assessments” )  I am helping to organize a new network that values the significance of both expert and citizen analysis in technology assessment. I’ll have more to say on this in the coming weeks. It’s pretty exciting and I hope you’ll join me for the journey.
In the interim, here’s what Newt recently said about the OTA. Editorial note here: this idea is worse than reopening the old OTA w/o public participation-not only is he suggesting an “expert-only” approach, but a mere handful of experts at that. This former cheerleader can smell a clique a mile away

When irony is just too much.    In my never-ending effort to help “average” citizens get involved in science and science policy matters, I had quite an eye-opening experience Saturday night.
Local bartender (granted he was drunk) said to me ” I defriended you on Facebook you know. I got tired of what you were posting. Science this and science that, waa, waa, waa.”
Me: “Why, I never grow tired of your posts about your new baby’s pooping schedule.”
Him: “Seriously, you shouldn’t be writing about stuff like that. We need to stick together. Let those people [finger quotes] write about and think about that and let us talk about stuff we should be talking about. You need to remember your place in this world.”
Me: “Hmmm. I may need to find a way to filter certain [finger quotes] voices from any crowdsourcing, participatory activities I’m planning…(thinking back to people telling me why we shouldn’t have the public weigh in on science policy issues…  ”you haven’t met enough people if you really think everyone should be invited to weigh in.”)
Him: “Well now that we have an understanding, I’ll refriend you on FB.”

Clearly Joe doesn’t feel worthy of taking a seat at the “participatory” table. It’s unfortunate and surely Joe’s not alone. He doesn’t want to learn about issues he feels he has no business talking about. Joe has no shortage of opinions. He’s also an influencer (he made a point of telling me he has more friends on facebook than I do…nice). By enlisting people like Joe, real change can start to take place. But Joe needs to be convinced that he’s entitled to participate. I’ll work on Joe but anyone involved in science and policy should consider having these types of conversations outside of their labs, offices, classrooms and conferences. Go to your corner tap room from time to time to take the pulse of the American public. I promise you , you’ll learn something.

For those of you who may be wondering what’s become of the effort to Reopen the Office of Technology Assessment, with public participation, I’ll have something to report in a few weeks!

Exciting week! Score ONE for our ongoing efforts to help Congress get the information it needs to form sound science policy!

The American Association for the Advancement of Science announced a venture, funded by the MacArthur Foundation, called Expert Labs. This new, non-profit independent lab, will “help policy makers in the U.S. Federal Government tap into the expertise of their fellow citizens.” Fellow EXPERT citizens, that is. You, me, folks like us…well, we’re still left out of the discussion, for now. But I’m here to tell you, things are a-changing! Stay tuned.

In the interim, I ask of the AAAS, MacArthur Foundation and the very talented director of Expert Labs (Anil Dash): Why didn’t you just include a way for non-expert citizens to weigh in on the societal implications of these policies? That’s the real point of “opening government to the people” isn’t it? Peer-to-Policy so to speak.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m thrilled at this latest development and all 661 of you who signed this petition should be, too. But, clearly, our work isn’t finished. Not until our “non expert” opinions are taken into consideration….
Cheers!

Darlene

Pictured with me are David Guston (Professor of Science Policy at Arizona State University) and on the right is David Rejeski (Director, Science, Technology and Innovation Program, Smithsonian’s Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars). The three of us, plus Richard Sclove (Founder, Loka Institute; U.S. Advisor, Worldwide Views on Global Climate Change) are hashing out a plan to create a participatory technology assessment agency. (Read: citizen input in federal tech policy discussions.)  Very exciting stuff. I’ll keep you posted on developments.
On Wednesday, we met with at the Wilson Center with Rich Hung (Government Accountability Office) and John Wonderlich (Sunlight Foundation) to discuss this very topic. Then, Dave, Dave and I had lunch and posed with this giant pumpkin. So, how much do you think this pumpkin weighs?
After lunch, I skipped across the street to the Museum of American History where I bumped into this wax replica of Ira Remsen (1846-1927)the first Professor of Chemistry at Johns Hopkins. He pushed for the support of “pure” science for its own sake instead of the more traditional “outdoor” sciences such as natural history and geology. Remsen is credited with creating a pioneering lab at Hopkins, later modeled by other universities. These labs are considered the main training ground for American scientists.

In the news.”Science’s Rah-Rah Gal:
Philly’s Darlene Cavalier Cheers for Discovery”

“A former 76ers cheerleader has taken up the cause for promoting science education among adults, and she is turning the old beauty vs. brains debate into a full-blown marketing campaign.”

That’s the lead-in to a recent feature article in Keystone Edge, a newspaper that “tells the story of the new economy in Pennsylvania–a narrative of creative people and businesses, new development, cool places to live, and the best places to work and play.  Each Thursday, the Web site and weekly online magazine presents original stories, video and photography to tell that story, from Pittsburgh to Philly.” This past Thursday, Science Cheerleader was featured.

Here’s the article, as reported by Rory Sweeney. (more…)

I had the pleasure of meeting the late Senator Ted Kennedy in 1998 when I directed the Discover Technology Awards program. Senator Kennedy invited some of the award winners to meet with him and discuss their emerging technological innovations. As you can tell by this picture, a good time was had by all. (Incidentally, the man on the right is Wolfgang Ketterle from MIT who went on to win a Nobel Prize in 2001.)

Recently, the Federation of American Scientists, which has done a bang up job of pushing to restore the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (the OTA was defunded back in the 1990s), posted a tribute to Kennedy who was instrumental in defining and launching the OTA back in the 1970s. In the tribute, the FAS included parts of Kennedy’s March 2, 1972 testimony in support of the legislation that created OTA.

Here’s an important part of his remarks, left out of the FAS post. It deals with one of the most important visions Kennedy had for the OTA, but one which was never fully executed: citizen input. We don’t need the “old” OTA. What we need is what Kennedy envisioned: a participatory technology assessment agency. One that gives a voice to the public so critical social consequences and risk assessment can become important considerations in the formation of policy. Let’s take it one step further and decentralize the agency to better capture the collective input and talents of scientists, engineers, and “average” Americans who want, and deserve, a place at this table.

Senator Ted Kennedy said: “Finally, I think it is desirable that the bill be further amended to permit appropriate public participation in the assessment process. Environment and conservation groups, public service law firms, non-profit research organizations and other citizens groups should be allowed and encouraged to submit information and ideas to the Office before it completes its assessments.”

If you would like to join the effort to push for the opening of a participatory technology assessment agency, consider joining our Facebook page. I’ll continue to keep you posted on developments.

I set off for an isolated, lazy summer vacation with my family and ended up in Newsweek.com, The Scientist, Fox News, CBS 3, Toronto Star, Tech Philly, Metro, Chronicle of Higher Ed and more. Go figure!

Next up: creating a 21st century approach to science and technology policy formation in  Congress (read: bring the public into the discussions).

Thanks for joining us on this wild journey!

-Darlene

Today, readers of The Scientist magazine found something new in their journal: a picture of Penn and Teller and cheerleaders!  Hot off the press, here’s an article The Scientist ran about the Science Cheerleader’s push to restore federal science policy to its rightful place.

Now THIS radio interview was fun. And, more importantly, the fact we’ve hit FOX national news, the Toronto Star , news media in Switzerland, Argentina and the U.K., and this hard rock station (WXRX) in the mid west, tells us we are accomplishing what we set out to do. Reach “real” people (outside the traditional science community) and turn them onto science!

The interview touches on the crisis of adult science literacy, efforts to push Congress and scientists to establish real dialogue with citizens, and plans to create a “Craigslist meets Match.com” for people who want to DO science (aka Citizen Scientists).

GOOOO Science.

Check out the 15 minute radio interview, here:

sciencecheerleadera