Hillary Clinton and the Office of Technology Assessment

Earlier this month, presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton used the fiftieth anniversary of the Soviet Sputnik launch - a surprise that spurred American investment in scientific research and education - to challenge Republicans on science. Unveiling her "Agenda to Reclaim Scientific Innovation," she leveled the expected accusations against Bush.

Such charges have dramatically lifted the position of science in political discourse in recent years. The Administration has been accused of suppressing and distorting data, retaliating against nonconforming researchers, ignoring and dismissing key science advisors, censoring National Park Service rangers, and promoting tainted reports of business-backed "sound science." Taken together, Bush's critics maintain, these actions amount to a partisan war on science.

This description of an assault on facts conducted by the Bush Administration largely rings true. Distorting and suppressing scientific data and conclusions have allowed the President to pander to the two primary components of his base: big business and religious conservatives. As Clinton paraphrased Stephen Colbert, "this administration doesn't make decisions on facts. It makes facts based on decisions."

The media coverage of Clinton's speech hit on many of her plans: preventing appointees from altering scientific reports, establishing a $50 billion fund for clean energy, complying with existing laws regarding climate change, and most prominently, rescinding the funding limitations on embryonic stem cell research. An intriguing element that got less play was her call to strengthen scientific advice for policy makers. Her proposal to restore the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, a position eliminated by Bush, seems uncontroversial and an obvious choice. But what about her plan to revive Congress's long-defunct Office of Technology Assessment?

The demise of the OTA in 1995 left a critical gap in policy-making that urgently needs to be filled. It was established by Congress in 1972 to balance fact-bending by an earlier Republican administration. Like the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office, it provided analyses to Congress that were not only shielded from executive influence, but demonstrably nonpartisan. On a relatively slim budget, the OTA produced hundreds of insightful and widely-read reports, and rapidly became a model for similar agencies throughout the world.

But conservatives soon set their targets on such reality-based work. OTA's reports on the proposed missile defense shield, in particular, riled Reagan Republicans. By the nineties, it was at the top of Gingrich's hit list. In what Chris Mooney called [PDF] "a stunning act of self‑lobotomy," in 1995 the new House Speaker engineered its demise by defunding, despite significant support for the agency from moderate Republicans. Since then, Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) has championed OTA's revival, but has made little headway. Currently, the only technology assessment proposal in Congress is a tiny appropriation to the GAO.

Clinton's pitch to bring back the OTA is commendable. Existing bodies fail to fill the gap. Some are too easily swayed by political winds. Others are limited in scope. The Food and Drug Administration, for example, is mandated to look only at safety and efficacy issues, and is not permitted to consider social or ethical concerns. And because the wheels of both parties are greased by big business, particularly by high-tech industries, executive agencies are vulnerable to regulatory capture.

The next best substitute, the National Academies, is not even a governmental body. Furthermore, while the Academies are adept at forming expert committees to make specific policy recommendations, what's need are broader assessments of the economic, social, and environmental impacts of emerging technologies, done in a context that is shielded from commercial conflicts.

Such assessments are needed now more than ever. Artificial intelligence technologies may force a reevaluation of sentience, consciousness, and personhood. Human enhancement, particularly through genetic modification, could reinforce social stratification or produce new varieties of it. Nanotechnology presents a fundamentally novel challenge to public and environmental health. Let's hope the next administration prioritizes technology assessment - the kind that promotes both scientific advance and the public interest.