ERROR 1
ERROR 1
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
Password and Confirm password must match.
If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)
ERROR 2
ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.
Congress once had its very own resource for science and technology information. Beginning in 1972, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) responded to lawmakers' requests for information by preparing detailed analyses. But when Republicans took control of the House and Senate after the 1994 elections, Congress stopped funding OTA as part of its trimming of the federal budget. Though shut down since the end of September 1995, OTA remains authorized, meaning that it legally still exists on paper even though it has no staff or other resources.
For the past 10 years, Congress has received science and technology assessments from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) at the Library of Congress, the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), universities, science and engineering professional societies, interest groups, and think tanks. Some congressional staffers also have scientific backgrounds.
At a July 25 hearing, the House Committee on Science heard testimony that Congress is not getting what it needs from the current system. The overarching problem, scientific experts said, is that these organizations' missions and operating procedures are simply not attuned to legislative requirements. The witnesses also suggested criteria for creating a support service.
"I think we need to get beyond the debate about reviving the Office of Technology Assessment," said Science Committee Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert (R-N.Y.). "I was a strong defender of OTA−and I voted against defunding it−but OTA is not likely coming back any time soon."
The reaction to disbanding OTA was "disproportionate," he added. "If you listen to the scientific community, you might think that OTA was the only thing that separated Congress from barbarism."
Boehlert distinguished between making unpopular decisions on scientific issues and not having enough information to make a decision. The goal of the hearing, he said, was to determine "what specific gaps exist and how they can be filled."
"Keeping America on the cutting edge−in technology, in education, and in business−requires access to the best available knowledge. Congress should constantly be seeking better ways to obtain and incorporate the foremost scientific and engineering knowledge into our legislative activities," said Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), the committee's ranking Democrat, in a statement released after the hearing. "We could use a service like OTA today since relatively few members of Congress have formal training and experience as scientists and engineers and since much of the information we receive comes from advocates selling their points of view."
Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.), who spoke as a witness at the hearing, agreed that finding scientific data is not the problem, but filtering and analyzing it is.
"We do not suffer from a lack of information here on Capitol Hill but from a lack of ability to glean the knowledge and to gauge the validity, credibility, and usefulness of the large amounts of information and advice received on a daily basis," said Holt, a physicist and strong advocate for reestablishing OTA.
"The [congressional] committees sometimes seem unaware that the subjects contain scientific and technical components. The Science Committee is of least concern. Most members recognize the technological aspects of the issues and get the help necessary. However, this may not be so true for other committees, all of which handle topics with scientific and technical components," Holt said. House committees on agriculture, appropriations, education and the workforce, small business, and House administration recently held hearings dealing with technical information that could have, in Holt's opinion, benefited from scientific analysis.
Congress has "not gotten what we need in order to do the people's work," in the decade since OTA was closed, Holt said. "We need unbiased technical and scientific assessments in a congressional time frame by those who are familiar with the functions, the language, and the workings of Congress."
"One resource available to Congress is the Congressional Science Fellows program," said Al Teich, director of Science Policy Programs at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Several of the panelists and committee members praised the AAAS Fellows program but agreed that it couldn't cover all congressional needs.
Since 1973, approximately 35 Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers have worked as professional staff in congressional offices each year. "Fellows' stipends are paid by scientific societies, making them a free source of expertise for members. Many fellows catch 'Potomac fever' and remain in Washington as permanent congressional staff, continuing to provide a scientific perspective on policy issues," Teich said at the hearing. "Nevertheless, the relatively small number of fellows means that the percentage of staff with a scientific background remains low," he added.
The committee also probed the possibility of tapping into university expertise. Academics may be experts in a subject area, but they usually have a hard time advising Congress because "faculty are removed from Capitol Hill," said Jon Peha, a professor in the departments of engineering and public policy and electrical and computer engineering at Carnegie Mellon University.
"In short, there are information sources that produce thorough, accurate, and balanced reports, and sources that are attuned to the needs of Congress, but there is a shortage of sources that do both. Congress should fill in this gap with a new program, either as a new agency or inside an existing one," Peha added.
Panelists also addressed options to meet congressional needs by adapting current agencies or developing new ones. Peter Blair, executive director of the Division on Engineering & Physical Sciences at the National Academy of Sciences and OTA's former assistant director, said in his written testimony that the "gaps ... in the mechanisms for providing useful, relevant, informed, independent, authoritative, and timely advice on science and technology issues to the Congress are becoming more and more noticeable."
Blair said, "The National Academies have enjoyed a long-standing and effective working relationship with Congress on even the most contentious issues. There are, no doubt, many characteristics of that relationship that could be improved, both to perform the traditional NRC role more efficiently and to provide opportunities to expand that role."
Congress, when considering legislative options, is like a homebuyer, Blair added. Members might get advice from a real estate agent, the seller, and friends, but the buyer hires an experienced home inspector to collect information and provide an objective view of the issues.
Existing agencies will not be able to meet that particular legislative need, said Catherine T. Hunt, ACS president-elect and leader for technology partnerships (emerging technologies) at Rohm and Haas, in her first congressional testimony.
"Congress should consider establishing an in-house science and technology unit that supplements their capabilities and provides timely, thorough assessments for decisions on issues involving a wide range of science, engineering, and technology. This unit could be housed in CRS or GAO or stand alone as a congressional support agency," Hunt said. And the unit would have staff with operations that are economical and efficient enough to "provide a regular stream of timely advice to Congress."
Committee members expressed both skepticism and support for a support service like OTA during the question-and-answer portion of the hearing. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) persistently noted that OTA often issued reports after related congressional hearings were finished and that the agency "jumped out" when federal cost cutting was necessary. He supported hiring outside consultants and commended the AAAS Fellows who have served in his office over the past 15 years. He worried that adding another scientific body would create an unnecessary buffer between Congress and scientists.
Teich responded that the witness panel envisioned something more like a "semipermeable membrane" rather than a barrier.
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) said she joined the Science Committee around the time that OTA's funding was cut. With 10 years of experience on the committee now, she said she has observed the "enormous damage" that resulted from not having that office.
"We've made do with CRS and the National Academy of Sciences," said Rep. Vernon J. Ehlers (R-Mich.), "but I think there are huge advantages" to having a dedicated support service. However, he cautioned, a new service could not have any of the faults-"real or perceived"-of OTA, and convincing the entire Congress to fund a new vision would be quite difficult.
Future hearings may be held in an upcoming session of Congress, but no legislation is pending at this time, according to committee staff.
Join the conversation
Contact the reporter
Submit a Letter to the Editor for publication
Engage with us on Twitter