Invitee Comments: Anne G.K. Solomon 
(Return to Comment Selection)
Science, Technology, and Government + 10 and the New Biology

Bill Golden asked that I outline for you the following idea for discussion at the November 7-8 meeting. In light of the imminent convening of that session, I will be brief. Primary points are the following:
  • Research, innovation and commercialization associated with “the new biology” impose transformational challenges for every major area addressed by the original Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology and Government.
  • Accordingly, consideration of the governmental structures, procedures and policies that frontier biotechnology requires could constitute a striking template for any CCSTG+10 exercise. Consider a few of the issues.
  • Reconciling Competing National Objectives: In 1993 David Hamburg spoke of the role of science and technology in reducing the economic and social disparities between the Southern and Northern Hemispheres Now advances in bio-medicine and bio-agriculture – knowledge with implications for global food security and global health -- reside primarily in wealthy countries in private firms and under patent.
What policy processes and structures are needed to balance competing national objectives for which science and technology are central...in this case, to mitigate poverty, to manage global instability to which poverty may contribute, and to stimulate economic growth by rewarding innovation through intellectual property protection?
  • Defense and Homeland Security: A recent Defense Science Board Report declared that significant changes are needed in both the content and conduct of the DOD science and technology programs and cited “defending against biological warfare” as one of the primary transitional challenges facing DOD. The DSB recommended that the Secretary of Defense personally engage with the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries to build relationships for the DOD. The DSB further recommended that DOD address such impediments as the complex and burdensome system of procurement regulations and processes that act as disincentives to all industries.
What structures, processes and incentives are needed to encourage public/private sector ties in the service of national security for the DOD as well as for the proposed Department of Homeland Security? Are government leaders cognizant of the realities of the international commercial and competitive environment that will influence firms’ capacity to respond to national needs?
  • Science Competence, Science Literacy and Analytical Capacity: Congressional action on stem cell research and cloning, Patent and Trade Mark Office decisions on biotech patent criteria, FDA/USDA/FDA regulatory decisions on pharmaceuticals produced from plant crops, Ambassadors’ discussions about trade in genetically modified agricultural products, HHS Secretary’s televised explanation of what is known about an anthrax attack – all require expertise and information on research and innovation at the scientific frontier. How well equipped are USG entities to access, to comprehend and to act upon complex science information and analysis?
  • To sum up, a CCSTG+10 exercise that looked through the lens of “the new biology” at the issues and recommendations so well defined by the original parent Commission would help provide coherent strategies to promote biotechnology innovation and application and would serve broad purposes to encourage science enhanced government on behalf of broad national objectives.

(Return to Top)
Posted 11.15.02