Science Cheerleader » OTA

Newt, Science, and the Office of Technology Assessment

Darlene — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 20:10:48 +0000

[This is an update of an article originally posted in 2010.]
Newt Gingrich maintains his support for increases in federal spending on scientific research. And I mean massive funding increases at two federal agencies in particular, the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health (these agencies primarily oversee and support scientific research across the U.S.). Yet, in the 1990s as part of his Contract with America, he axed one, relatively small Congressional agency you’ve probably never heard of: the Office of Technology Assessment. 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.

Newt felt the OTA had become too politicized and insignificant. Perhaps it had. Perhaps that had something to do with the fact that one tiny little line in the legislative language crafted to form the OTA was ignored as the years passed. The OTA was created to provide a shared working space for scientists, policymakers and citizens in an effort to assess, to the best of our abilities, the potential opportunities and challenges inherent in an endless stream of emerging technologies…then to use that combined knowledge to better inform policies. Basically, to help us, as a nation, better anticipate some of the economic and societal implications of emerging technologies. But the “citizen input” never really happened. Turns out it was difficult to make this happen in the 1970s when the OTA was launched. This was before the Internet, mind you, and with a tiny budget, the OTA couldn’t regularly afford to fly people together for meetings of the minds. If public input had become a staple of the OTA, as was designed, is it possible the agency would not have been viewed as a politicized one? Perhaps the public would have rallied to save the agency when Newt issued his call to arms.

Not too long ago, I launched a national effort to reopen the OTA and it sparked a strong, well-organized movement within the science community now to lobby Congress to refund the OTA. On one hand, I was thrilled! Wait, let me back up a bit to tell you how I became obsessed with the OTA. Please bear with me for just a moment.

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.” (Thank you Professor Susan Lindee!)

I read virtually every piece of literature that existed and contacted many of the authors and former staffers of the OTA.

I even met with Newt Gingrich, Sen. Kennedy, 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.

To advance this idea and help produce a “proof of concept,” Science Cheerleader teamed up with the Boston Museum of Science, Arizona Statue University, the Loka Institute, and the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars to form ECAST: Expert and Citizen Assessment of Science and Technology. We’re in the midst of our first, official activity tied to the World Wide Views on Biodiversity. If you’d like to learn more or get involved, please visit the website to sign up. It’s pretty exciting and I hope you’ll join in this evolving journey!

So where does Newt stand on the matter of the OTA today? Here’s a fairly recent video in which he suggests a few scientists on this side (R) and a few scientists on that side (D) would suffice as advisors. Dare I suggest this idea is worse than reopening the old OTA without 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

What do you think? Is there a better path forward, a shinier future for science policy making? Now, more than ever, let’s hope the answer is “yes.”

“Sometimes scientists must make themselves heard.”

Darlene — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:39:58 +0000

Credit: John Overmyer/Phila Inq

Dr. Steven M. Altschuler, chief executive of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, penned this editorial in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer. This was written as part of the Philadelphia Science Festival, continuing through April 28.
A good reminder that scientists have valuable information the public ought to learn so they can make better-informed decisions. (What’s not referenced, is that the public often also has valuable information scientists and policy makers ought to consider when assessing risks and societal implications of emerging fields of research and technology.)

Here’s an excerpt from Dr. Altschuler’s piece:

Often, it makes sense to extend their scientific findings beyond our patients and care providers by speaking out on public-health issues.
In the public exchange of ideas, scientists are not voicing just another set of opinions; theirs are backed by peer-reviewed evidence. The famous American physicist Richard Feynman is quoted as saying, “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is; it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

To be clear, scientists don’t have all the answers; but they do have “evidence-based” information which should trump misinformed opinions and anecdotes.
It’s also important to remember that much of science is an ongoing process full of promise and peril and sometimes conflicting information: “red wine is good for you!” “red wine may increase chances of developing breast cancer.”

Don’t let incompatible media snippets turn you off. The last thing we need is another excuse not to make the effort to become better informed on important research issues. If you’re confused about what you read, dig a little deeper, or simply ask your doctor (or me) to point you to reliable sources of information. Read more about identifying reliable sources of medicine.
The good news is, there are mounting efforts underway to bring together the scientists, policy makers, and the public to confer on a number of emerging research topics such as geoengineering and synthetic biology. Don’t be surprised to receive an invitation to participate in one such effort before too long!
Until then, stay informed and don’t be afraid to ask questions and engage in dialogue with the scientists who are “making themselves heard.” I bet we’ll all learn from each other.

A nod of approval from Nature Magazine

Darlene — Sun, 08 Aug 2010 13:42:06 +0000

Last week, Nature Magazine‘s Daniel Sarewitz, wrote this about a science policy initiative SciCheer helped to inspire:

“More and earlier public involvement is required to steer powerful new technologies wisely….Relative to the cost of research and development, increasing this capacity would be cheap. It could be paid for by a small tithe on the federal research budget, and coordinated by one or more loose networks of non-governmental groups, research universities, and government laboratories (for example, see www.ecastnetwork.org). New social networking technologies could permit such discussions on scales from local to international, in venues ranging from science museums and research laboratories to presidential commissions and nationwide virtual conferences. This is the momentum of democracy. In the long run, it will also be the best thing for science.”

His column, “Not by experts alone” boldly and clearly states the case for participatory technology assessment. Readers of Science Cheerleader know this is something of an obsession of mine. This passion led to the incarnation of ECAST (which has been cited or endorsed by the White House, Nature Magazine, and dozens of other academic, professional, and mainstream publications): Expert and Citizen Assessment of Science and Technology. This network of universities, science centers, and policy makers, anchored by the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., will play ring-leader to several forthcoming pilot projects designed to integrate public participation into critical discussions of emerging technologies (synthetic biology to name one).

Why is this important? I’ll turn the mic back to Sarewitz:

We are an innovating species, engaged in a balancing act. In the decades after the Second World War, innovation fuelled an unprecedented era of wealth creation while keeping us on the brink of nuclear annihilation. The green revolution fed billions while poisoning soil and water and destroying agrarian cultures. Today, synthetic biology and geoengineering portend a future in which managing socio-technical complexity will be every bit as challenging, if not more so. Is there a better way forward?

Maybe — if we act fast, embrace our ignorance, and keep experts from taking over.

Once a complex technology is widely used — like the automobile or the coal-fired power plant — restricting, reorienting or replacing it becomes incredibly difficult. So the key to making better choices is to start early, when uncertainty about a technology’s future is high, by maximizing the diversity of perspectives and interests involved in the discussion.

The goal is not to convince the hoi polloi that they have nothing to fear, but to improve social outcomes of emerging technologies. Scientists may be inclined to ignore or dismiss the efforts of non-experts to influence complex technical discussions — for example, in discounting the views of English sheep farmers during the response to the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster, or belittling the critiques of AIDS patients in early efforts to develop treatments. But when it comes to the future of an emerging technology, no one (or everyone) is an expert.

If you’d like to learn more or get involved, simply go to the (beta) ECAST website and sign up. We’ll send you news and invitations as they become available.

Next up in the realm of science policy and public participation….The U.S. Government Accountability Office just made public one if its reports. I spoke with GAO’s Chief Scientist, Tim Persons, about this report and its implications. Stay tuned for more on that interview.

Congressional testimony in support of public participation in science policy.

Darlene — Fri, 07 May 2010 16:37:15 +0000

On the heels of this announcement about a new effort to involve citizens in technology assessment, comes this word from David Sittenfeld at the Boston Museum of Science, one of the five founding partners of this initiative known as ECAST: Expert and Citizen Assessment of Science and Technology. The core group includes: Richard Sclove (LOKA Institute), Dave Rejeski (Woodrow Wilson Intl Center for Scholars in DC), Dave Guston and Mahmud Farooque (Arizona State Univ), Larry Bell, David Rabkin and David Sittenfeld from the Boston Museum of Science, and me (Science Cheerleader):

Yesterday, Iannis Miaoulis, testified before the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. As part of his written testimony, he included the following paragraph about our ECAST efforts:

“Finally, the Museum is also concerned with public education concerning new technologies and in public engagement with science and technology policy. The Museum has joined forces with the Science and Technology Innovation Program at the Wilson Center, the Consortium of Science, Policy, and Outcomes at Arizona State University, Science Cheerleader, and the Loka Institute to create a nationwide network to conduct Expert & Citizen Assessment of Science & Technology (ECAST). The ECAST network will combine the skills of nonpartisan policy research organizations with
the research strengths of universities and the public outreach and education capabilities of science museums. By educating and engaging laypeople, participatory technology assessment enables decision-makers to learn of their constituents‘ informed views regarding emerging developments in science and technology. We urge Congress to support OSTP and GAO in efforts to support ECAST and engage the public in discourse about STEM-related policy issues.”

(PS: it’s ok to chuckle at the sight of “Science Cheerleader” in that mix…I did!)

Score three for the public!

Darlene — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 17:41:45 +0000

We’re on a roll, team! Two years ago this month, ScienceCheerleader.com launched with three goals:

1) help increase adult science literacy (see Brain Makeover). [Check!]

2) raise the ranks of citizen scientists and create a shared space for researchers and the public to socialize and work together. (see ScienceForCitizens.net) [Check!]

3) open doors to public participation in science policy (see this breaking news item) [Check!]

Thursday’s ground-breaking announcement in Washington, D.C. marked an important milestone for us (we accomplished the third goal); but, more importantly, it has already started to alter thinking in Washington, D.C. and within the science community.

Two years ago, some folks thought I was “misguided,” “naive,” “nuts,” to push for this level of public participation in science. (It’s one thing to ask someone to help count fireflies or monitor water quality, but to suggest people might add value to critical science policy discussions sometimes drew reactions of shock and horror.)

In two short years, the reactions have changed considerably. On Thursday, when we issued a report on how to build a 21st century technology assessment mechanism, and announced the formation of a network that will put the report into action, the response was incredible. From Beth Noveck at the White House, to representatives from the EPA and other government agencies as well as universities, museums–and, yes, even scientists–the reception was remarkably warm if not enthusiastic.

Here’s a virtual toast to everyone who helped make this happen. Now rest up because we’ve got a lot of work ahead of us.

Save the date! April 28. 21st Century Technology Assessment.

Darlene — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:34:46 +0000

You’ve put up with my nonstop cheerleading for more public involvement in science policy matters. Thank you! Come bear witness to the fruits of much labor. One of my partners in crime, Richard Sclove, will release an incredible report on the need for the U.S.A. to reinvent technology assessment to reflect a 21st century way of thinking. During this public event, we will make a very exciting announcement about plans to put the pedal to the metal, put our money where our mouths are, walk the talk…you get it.

Please join us in person or via webcast. I hope you’ll hop on board for this journey. There will be plenty of opportunities to take part in this trailblazing effort.

REINVENTING TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
A 21st Century Model
Around the world the pace, complexity, and social significance of technological changes are increasing. Yet the broad social ramifications are often not considered until after new technologies become widely adapted and entrenched. This makes the need for technology assessment (TA) greater than ever, sparking renewed interest in TA models, practices, and evaluation.  Join us on Wednesday, April 28th, at 3:00 p.m. for a discussion of a new report that explores possible future options for technology assessment and ways to use citizen participation, collaboration, and expert analysis to inform and improve decision-making on issues involving science and technology.

You must register to attend the event.

Please RSVP at
stip@wilsoncenter.org

*** Webcast LIVE at www.wilsoncenter.org/stip ***

No RSVP required to view the webcast.

What: REINVENTING TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: A 21st Century Model

When: Wednesday, April 28, 2010, 3:00 – 4:30 PM ( reception to follow)

Who:  Richard Sclove, Ph.D., Founder and Senior Fellow, The Loka Institute

Commenter: Paul Stern, Ph.D., National Research Council

Moderator: David Rejeski, Director, Science and Technology Innovation Program

Where: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 5th Floor Conference Room

Newt Gingrich and the Office of Technology Assessment.

Darlene — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:52:47 +0000

[This is an update of an article originally posted in 2010.]
Newt Gingrich maintains his support for increases in federal spending on scientific research. And I mean massive funding increases at two Federal agencies in particular, the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health (these agencies primarily oversee and support scientific research across the U.S.). Yet, in the 1990s as part of his Contract with America, he axed one, relatively small Congressional agency you’ve probably never heard of: the Office of Technology Assessment. 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.

What do you think? Is there a better path forward, a shinier future for science policy making? Now, more than ever, let’s hope the answer is “yes.”

Leave the conference room and head straight to the local tap room.

Darlene — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:16:17 +0000

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!

Decentralizing expert advice to inform federal science policy.

Darlene — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:13:03 +0000

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

Guess the weight of this pumpkin. Win a Tshirt.

Darlene — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:01:43 +0000

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.