There are many certainties in current discussions and analysis of American science and technology policy.  Here are three off the top of my head.

• As Dan Sarewitz has often noted, there is a obsessive focus on the the budget to the exclusion of much else.  It’s often about doubling the budget of some particular agency, and most problems could somehow be solved just through funding increases.
• The Office of Technology Assessment apparently was most of what was good and wholesome about science and technology advice in this country and must be reconstituted post-haste.
• The President’s science advisor must receive the title of Assistant to the President that it held in the past, to right the disrespect shown to science and technology.

I have problems with all three, but would like to spend this post calling shenanigans on the third item.

Bottom line, I think this particular argument is an example of political shorthand used ineffectively.  This argument over the specifics of a job title does not effectively capture all of the frustration with how the Bush Administration has opted not to engage with scientists or with science advice.  By arguing about the job title, the argument is focused on a symptom of neglecting science in policymaking, and by no means the nastiest symptom.  In other words, if John Marburger was an Assistant to the President, I’m pretty sure there would still be the same complaints about how the Administration treats science and technology.

Part of this misplaced emphasis on the OSTP Director’s job title has to do with the organization of science and technology policy in the U.S. government, and part of this has to do with how the science and technology communities think about the office.

It’s not clear to me whether this has been an accident of design or of the men who have run the office, but the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) has appeared, at least in my lifetime, more as a coordinating office than as an active office.  In other words, the office is more focused on making sure science and technology activity is consistent throughout the government – a necessary thing – than on developing and implementing those policies.  This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but if this is true, the attention focused on the job title of the person who leads this office seems disproportionate, if not misplaced.  OSTP’s work appears to be more behind the scenes compared to the actions of mission agencies like NASA, the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and various offices within the Departments of Defense and Energy.  If these are the front line organizations in developing and implementing American science and technology policy, then it makes sense for them to be more visible, and the leaders of those agencies to receive more attention.  The mission statement from the front of the OSTP website is consistent with my impressions:

The Office of Science and Technology Policy advises the President on the effects of science and technology on domestic and international affairs. The office serves as a source of scientific and technological analysis and judgment for the President with respect to major policies, plans and programs of the Federal Government. OSTP leads an interagency effort to develop and implement sound science and technology policies and budgets. The office works with the private sector to ensure Federal investments in science and technology contribute to economic prosperity, environmental quality, and national security.

The first thing listed that has an air of “the buck stops here” about science and technology is the interagency effort, and even then it’s more of a collaborative effort than a directive one.  The first items indicate that the office is supposed to be a source of advice, not the source.  Whether or not the OSTP Director is a Special Assistant or not isn’t going to change the nature of the office.

The other problem with this argument is that it reflects this misguided notion in the science and technology communities that the OSTP Director is supposed to be a representative (in the legislative sense) of those communities.  This perspective flared up every once in a while during the disputes over the communication of scientific information by government agencies and it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the job.  The science and technology communities have plenty of advocates and avenues to advance their interests, something that is not in the job description of the OSTP Director.

If there is a continued interest to make sure the science and technology communities’ interests are well represented, or at the very least treated with respect, I think it would be better to pick a different nugget in which to rest all these frustrations.  Focus on something besides the job title for a position that is not the be all and end all of American science and technology policy.  Focus on something besides a cosmetic boost to a position that is not supposed to represent the interests of scientists and technologists.  Focus on something that better represents the frustrations with government actions (or inactions).  Because the fights for respect are going to continue, regardless of which party holds the reins of power, and its better to focus on the issues rather than the signs.