Moves toward technology assessment
I wrote on this a couple years ago, when then-Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton called for the defunct Office of Technology Assessment to be revived:
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.
The Union of Concerned Scientists recently launched a campaign to bring back the OTA, and CGS added our name to their sign-on letter.
Furthermore, last week, the the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars released a report, Reinventing Technology Assessment for the 21st Century [PDF]. Its author, Richard Sclove of the Loka Institute, called for a new, more participatory form of technology assessment:
In the report, Dr. Sclove recommends creating a nationwide Expert & Citizen Assessment of Science & Technology (ECAST) network that 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. Founding partners in ECAST include the Science and Technology Innovation Program at the Wilson Center, the Boston Museum of Science, [the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes at] Arizona State University, ScienceCheerleader, and the Loka Institute.
The Wilson Center held an event to coincide with the release of the report. A video of it should be online this week.
There have also been some steps to establish additional federal technology assessment. The Government Accountability Office (another Congressional advisor) began pilot technology assessment projects in 2002, and two years ago Congress directed it to make this a permanent operation. In the report, Sclove asserts this may be inadequate, at least as it is presently envisioned.
More recently, Andrew Maynard reported that the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is forming an interagency group on emerging technologies. He is concerned, however, that asking tough questions may get sidelined when official policies are geared toward promoting new technologies:
Looking forward, there is a need to develop emerging technology-related policies that are balanced by considerations other than technology promotion alone. But on top of this, there is a need to develop more holistic approaches to emerging technologies in general...
One solution - and the one the White House seems to be pursuing - is to take a high-level approach to emerging technology policy that ensures cross-agency coordination, identifies emerging hot-spots and enables a balanced and socially-responsible approach to emerging opportunities and issues. In some ways this is a role that the long-defunct Office of Technology Assessment within the US Congress played. But looking to an increasingly technologically-complex future, I suspect that a complete rethink of how to ensure the benefits of new technologies are realized and the dangers avoided is needed.
Depending on how it develops, the new White House interagency group could well lead to coordinated action on emerging technologies that ensures policies are responsive to the needs of citizens - not just those who have a vested interest in technology promotion. But I can guarantee it will hit resistance from agencies, organizations and individuals who stand to loose out from this move - including those who stand to loose funding or influence as a result. of it Yet if the US government is to embrace technology development that benefits society as a whole - especially in light of President Obama's Innovation Strategy - it surely must create a policy forum where the "un-askable" questions can be asked; where no one interest group within the government can dominate proceedings; and where hurdles to social and economic prosperity can be identified, assessed and addressed without fear of agencies and individuals being marginalized.
Maynard generally gets it right about the government's role in promoting innovation. Industry is unlikely to ask tough questions about the appropriate and socially responsible role of emerging technologies. Civil society organizations must participate more fully but can't be solely relied upon to carry out such research in the public interest. It is time for the government to reclaim the technology assessment role that it has largely abdicated.
Update (May 4): I had inadvertently overlooked Maynard's reaction to the Wilson Center report.
Previously on Biopolitical Times: