The Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government: Comments

	Invitee Comments: President Jim Baker
	(Return to Comment Selection) As you know, I am a scientist and administrator who took office as Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere and Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 1993, just after the Carnegie Commission completed its major work. I can tell you that I found the Carnegie Commission reports, particularly those related to environmental management, to be very valuable to me in many different ways. For example, just before I was appointed, I was a member of a National Research Council committee on environmental issues, chaired by Dale Corson. We used the Carnegie Commission report on environment as a key reference. Then when I took my job at NOAA, I used both the NRC report and the Commission report as a basis for strategic planning. The basic information in the reports helped me set the stage for planning for environmental issues at NOAA, and allowed me to move more quickly in working with other agencies to develop collaborative programs. As you are well aware, we were involved with addressing many different issues at NOAA during the Clinton years. I am currently compiling a study of several case studies, and recently gave a talk about four of these: convergence of weather satellites, setting fishery quotas, the tuna/dolphin issue, and the National Ocean Conference. I have enclosed a copy of the talk which goes into more detail about lessons learned. In general, I found that the main issues are in implementing policy. It is easier to develop good ideas for policy than to implement it in the face of opposition from various groups. We need more than scientific information: help from social scientists, economists, humanists, and natural scientists is necessary in dealing with implementation of good environmental management, for example. Along these lines, some of the general issues that I feel need to be addressed are education of decision-makers, use of new technology, community management, the stronger role of NGOs, and the increasing involvement of the courts in executive branch decision-making. On education, we all know that new appointees are not as educated as they might be about the complex issues they will face. If there were a way that the incoming high-level appointees could be taught with seminars, visits, and advice as they go through the process of learning, life would be easier both for the lower-level appointees and the career staff. I served under four different secretaries of Commerce; each of them was hindered by a lack of knowledge of the issues that faced the Department of Commerce, and of those that faced NOAA. In particular, the issues of maintaining viable commercial fisheries in the face of declining stocks and loss of fishery habitat are particularly thorny (see my discussion of spiny dogfish quotas in my attached talk). Each secretary had to start from the beginning in learning - and was surprised at the vehemence of the industry, the environmental groups, and congress. We didn't have any good techniques in bringing them up to speed; and we repeated a lot of our efforts each time. Traditional education would be valuable, as would computer simulations of management; war games; and role playing. This is done well on the defense side, but not so well in environmental decision making. I continue to believe that "Virtual University" is a good example that would help get new leaders up to speed, help avoid surprises, and provide some experience in complex management with many constituents. New technology for transmitting information and educating the public is changing what we can do, but is not incorporated very well into current government programs. It probably would be good for all new government leaders to go to the MIT Media Laboratory, for example, and learn about new visual techniques, and ideas like three-dimensional printing. Most of our elected and appointed leaders are well behind - typically five to ten years - the curve of new technology. Community management is one of the keys. We found that progress in most of our issues involved more and more engagement of local communities, whether it was weather forecasting or establishment of marine sanctuaries. The more we could learn about community needs and engage local community leaders, the better we did in finding ways to implement national policy. For example, we found that in establishing and planning for marine sanctuaries a community vote and involvement in the planning was critical. We succeeded in Florida and Hawaii; we failed in the Pacific northwest with a proposal for the Straits of Juan de Fuca. The reasons for failure are not entirely clear. The role of NGOs became increasingly important. I found the advice of NGOs very helpful as I tried to develop policy and budgets - in many cases, the NGOs were more familiar with the programs and budget than some of our inside people. We enhanced the role of NGOs in the whaling controversy - they were very helpful as we dealt with Norway and Japan on commercial whaling issues and aboriginal whaling by our own Alaskan and State of Washington native Americans. The role of courts has grown. There is an increasing use of law suits to impact governmental decisions - partly because environmental groups have found the funds necessary to pursue legal action. In many cases, the outcome is positive, but the cost is great in terms of dollars and efficiency. I discuss this issue in my talk about the tuna/dolphin controversy. Any new discussion of government policy will have to take into consideration the stronger role of the courts. Finally, a note about reorganization and the interagency process. In the Clinton administration, we did not do any major reorganization. It is true that various reports, including the Carnegie ones, called for some reorganization of the environmental effort in the Federal Government. But I and my colleagues quickly learned that there was no stomach for major reorganization in the environmental side from the Clinton White House - they preferred to focus on health and economic issues through existing cabinet departments. The one change that was pushed that would have elevated EPA to a cabinet department - and which made sense from many points of view - was opposed by Congress and unfortunately by a group of environmentalists. So in that sense the recommendations of the reports were not fully implemented. But this does not mean that the reports lacked effectiveness. We learned from the reports about the issues that needed to be addressed with reorganization. We tried to address these by developing the interagency process to a strong level. In doing so, we learned about both strength and weaknesses of our government system. The National Science and Technology Council made perfect sense from a theoretical point of view - all the relevant subjects and agencies were represented in a reasonable way. But we learned that successes only came from identification of specific issues and with strong personalities pushing specific programs. Should there be a second Commission? I would say yes, and I hope that at least part of the effort can be focused on the implementation of policy as I have discussed above. • Also, view President Baker's comments on environmental management and government. (Return to Top) Posted 10.07.02