|
(Return to Comment Selection)
Science, Technology, and Government Issues and
Opportunities
Mark Schaefer
October 2002
In thinking about the past Carnegie reports, the response to their
recommendations, and issues and opportunities that could be examined in a
new Commission-like activity, I offer a few thoughts in six areas:
-
Reconstitute the institutional capacity in Congress to objectively
assess science and technology policy issues by reestablishing OTA or an
OTA-like entity.
The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) was an important and
effective congressional support agency for many years. The Office
provided members of Congress and their staff the independent scientific
and technical information required to critically evaluate S&T policy
issues and agency programs. OTA's demise has significantly diminished
Congress' capacity to evaluate and respond to these complex issues from
both the legislative and oversight perspectives. The consequence of this
is that Congress shifted some of its policy-making authority and
responsibility to the executive branch, a surprising move given Congress'
traditional reluctance to cede power to the President. Information and
knowledge are power, particularly in the science and technology arena
where influencing policy often depends upon one's capacity to wade through
technical data and critically evaluate alternative "expert" opinions.
Formal studies requested by congressional committees on a bipartisan
basis were OTA's central and most important product. Less visible, yet
nearly as important, was the range of technical expertise of the OTA
staff. Members and staff frequently called upon the Office for informal
science advice on a wide range of issues. This formal and informal advice
is important in developing effective policy.
A new OTA-like entity could add a report category in response to the
need for analyses developed in a shorter time frame than traditional
full-scale assessments. Such reports could be developed in six to nine
months as opposed to 18 to 24 months. However, I believe it would be a
mistake to establish an OTA-like agency with the primary mission of
undertaking rapid response analyses. Most S&T policy issues can be
anticipated, and the analytical capacity to "turn on the headlights" and
look down the road is invaluable to an institution that tends to be driven
by more immediate concerns.
-
Ensure a close working relationship between OSTP and the OMB in
devising and implementing science and technology policy and coordinating
activities across federal agencies.
OMB has the power to facilitate or thwart much of what OSTP does.
During the period that I worked on the Administration's environmental
technology initiative I saw this first-hand. Over a two-year period we
held regular meetings with more than a dozen federal agencies to devise
strategies to advance these technologies and coordinate federal programs.
The Vice President kicked off the initiative, and he and several cabinet
members participated in a White House conference attended by more than 700
people from all sectors of society. Listening sessions were held across
the country. Existing policies and practices were critically evaluated.
Two major reports filled with analyses and recommendations were published.
However, OMB staff showed little interest in the initiative or its
recommendations, and they did not support efforts to coordinate
initiatives and agency budgets. The consequence was inaction, wasted
effort, and a major missed opportunity to advance this important area of
technology policy. OMB is not structured to address interagency
activities (although it has done so in some areas). Without strong
leadership at the highest levels in OMB, efforts on the part of the
National Science and Technology Council to develop coordinated interagency
policies and programs are not likely to be effective.
-
Make a decided commitment to not only coordinate, but lead, focus,
and integrate science and technology activities across federal agencies.
The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) offers a valuable
and important mechanism to devise and implement coherent policy across the
federal government. However, if it is to be effective the President must
empower the Council to truly influence agency budgets. Senior department
and agency officials sometimes view interagency efforts as being at
cross-purposes with their own agendas. Consequently, the effectiveness of
NSTC depends heavily upon the leadership of the President, the Science
Advisor, and the Director of OMB. S&T activities are appropriately
decentralized in the Executive Branch. Indeed, this is a strong point of
our system. However, a decentralized S&T apparatus left to itself becomes
driven solely by the demands of individuals agencies. Effective R&D
programs in areas such as energy, the environment, and public health
require coordination across multiple agencies. This must be driven, or at
least catalyzed by the Executive Office of the President. As Doug Costle
used to say, "Everyone wants to coordinate, but no one wants to be
coordinated." In other words, interagency coordination is an easy concept
to accept, or at least politically difficult to argue against, but is
notoriously difficult to implement in the absence of leadership from the
White House.
-
Build greater capacity in the states to assess and respond to S&T issues.
Identify effective policies and practices, and work to duplicate these
successes in other states.
The states are sources of innovation in the S&T policy arena. There is a
tendency to think about S&T and government issues in the federal context;
however, individually and collectively, the states play a major role in
defining our “national” policy. Federal laws give the states significant
latitude in devising and implementing policies that involve S&T
considerations. It would be valuable to identify innovative and effective
S&T policies and programs in particular states and to devise “lessons
learned” that could be applied to other states or at the federal level.
Cooperate with the National Governor’s Association and the Western
Governor’s Association in undertaking these analyses.
-
Foster the capacity of NGOs to influence science and technology policy.
NGOs are influential institutions in the S&T arena. They have the
capacity to operate at the national, regional, state, and local levels:
many have strong analytical expertise; they are able to move quickly to
respond to issues; and they can mobilize public support for – or thwart –
federal initiatives. It would be valuable to examine effective
interactions between federal agencies and NGOs, and identify the practices
that lead to successful outcomes.
NGOs and academic institutions can play a larger role in evaluating the
effectiveness of federal and state regulatory programs and in recommending
improvements in policies. These organizations could help devise new
regulatory policies that focus on incentives for greater corporate and
personal responsibility in protecting the environment and conserving
natural resources.
-
Establish an ongoing National Forum on Science and Technology Goals.
I thought one of the Commission’s most important recommendations was to
devise a mechanism to align S&T activities with long-term societal goals.
Unfortunately, this recommendation was not implemented. I think it would
be worthwhile to reconsider this recommendation. The classic example of
visionary leadership and a challenge directed to the S&T community was
President Kennedy’s call to action to put a man on the moon and bring him
safely back to earth. The S&T community has a remarkable capacity – and I
believe willingness – to respond to pressing national needs, yet these
needs are often not clearly defined, and opportunities for accomplishment
are squandered.
An ongoing dialog, or forum, designed to articulate societal goals and
identify opportunities to link the S&T enterprise to them, would go a long
way toward “enabling the future.
(Return to Top)
Posted 10.31.02
|
