|
(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
|
