Abstract
Some of the forces shaping the need and character of science and technology advice are identical to the circumstances that existed when OTA was created, and in some cases have grown stronger, such as the accelerating pace of technological change, globalization of science and technology development, a strengthening link between science and technology development and economic growth and welfare, and the increasing role of science and technology dimensions in many, if not even most, issues the Congress faces. Given history and current circumstances, a number of key requirements for an effective source of science and technology policy advice—tuned to the needs of Congress—can be summed up as ensuring that the work of such a source is viewed as (1) relevant and considered of high priority in the Congress, (2) independently arrived at and widely perceived to be so, (3) ideologically balanced and authoritative, and (4) produced with the evidence presented that is transparent and clear in language as well as context familiar to congressional deliberations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Janet Raloff, “Assessing OTAs Legacy: Examining What Remains, Now That OTA is Gone,” Science News, Vol. 148, No.18, October 28, 1995. p. 286;
Jim Dawson, “Legislation to Revive ota Focuses on Science Advice to Congress,” Physics Today, Vol. 54, No.10, October, 2001, p. 24; Chris Mooney, “Requiem for an Office,” Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (September/October), Vol. 61, No. 5, pp. 40–49;
Rush Holt, “Op-Ed: Reversing the Congressional Science Lobotomy,” Wired, April 29, 2009.
Robert S. Walker, “OTA Reconsidered,” Issues in Science and Technology, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Spring), 2001 and
Andrew Lawler, “NRC Pledges Faster Delivery on Reports to Government,” Science, Vol. 270, October 6, 1995, pp. 22–23.
Many of these are summarized well in William T. Golden (ed.), Science and Technology Advice to the President, Congress, and Judiciary, New York: Pergamon Press, 1988.
Ashton B. Carter, “A New Era of Science Advising,” in William T. Golden, (ed.) Science and Technology Advice to the President, Congress, and Judiciary, New York: Pergamon Press, 1988, pp. 87–89.
John H. Gibbons, “Technology Assessment Comes of Age,” Environment, Vol. 25, No. 1, January/February, 1983, pp. 28–31;
John H. Gibbons, “Technology Assessment for the Congress,” The Bridge, National Academy of Engineering, Summer, 1984, pp. 2–8;
Bruce Bimber, The Politics of Expertise in Congress: The Rise and Fall of the Office of Technology Assessment, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1996; Christopher Hill, “The Congressional Office of Technology Assessment: A Retrospective and Prospects for the Post-OTA World,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Volume 54. pp. 191–198;
M. Granger Morgan and John M. Peha (eds), Science and Technology Advice for Congress, Washington, DC: RFF Press, 2003;
Henry Kelly, Ivan Oelrich, Steven Aftergood, and Ben Tannenbaum, “Flying Blind: The Rise, Fall, and Possible Resurrection of Science Policy Advice in the United States,” Federation of American Scientists, Washington, D.C., 2004;
Adam Keiper, “Science and Congress,” The New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology and Society, Fall, 2004/Winter 2004, pp. 19–50;
Genevieve J. Knezo, “Technology Assessment in Congress: History and Legislative Options,” Congressional Research Service, Order Code RS21586, May 20, 2005; and many others.
See for example, Vary Coates, “Technology Forecasting and Assessment in the United States: Statistics and Prospects” Futures Research Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 3, 1999, pp. 5–25.
Michael Rodemeyer, Daniel Sarewitz, and James Wilsdon, “The Future of Technology Assessment,” Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Foresight and Governance Project, December, 2005 or
Richard Sclove, “Reinventing Technology Assessment,” Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, STIP 01, April, 2010.
See, for example, Peter S. Adler, Patrick Field, and Jeremy Kranowitz, Science and Technology Policy in Congress: An Assessment of How Congress Seeks, Processes, and Legislates Complex Science and Technology Issues, Washington, DC: The Keystone Center, April, 2008, 27pp.
See U.S. Congress, “An Act to Incorporate the National Academy of Sciences,” March 3, 1863.
See also Executive Office of the President (EOP), Presidential Executive Order 12832 (George H. Bush), Amendments Relating to the National Research Council, January 19, 1993, which amended Executive Order 10668
(Dwight D. Eisenhower), National Research Council, May 10, 1956 and Executive Order 2859
(Woodrow Wilson), National Research Council, May 10, 1956.
Copyright information
© 2013 Peter D. Blair
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Blair, P.D. (2013). Looking Forward: Comparing Future Options. In: Congress’s Own Think Tank: Learning from the Legacy of the Office of Technology Assessment (1972–1995). Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy. Palgrave Pivot, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137359056_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137359056_9
Publisher Name: Palgrave Pivot, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-47208-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-35905-6
eBook Packages: Palgrave Economics & Finance CollectionEconomics and Finance (R0)