Ask Prometheus: OTA

July 30th, 2004

Posted by: admin

We have something a bit different today, the first in hopefully a long series of Ask Prometheus posts. Ask Prometheus allows us to answer inquiries from our readers directly, or by pulling in other experts as we do today.

Kerry McEvilly writes to us, “Do you think that maybe it’s time to re-establish the OTA [Office of Technology Assessment] to add some semblance of continuity in what our elected leaders are getting in the way of science policy advice?”

To answer we’ve asked Paul Komor, former OTA policy analyst and Project Director, and Rad Byerly, former chief of staff of the House Science Committee, for their responses.

The full responses follow, but first a couple excerpts.

Dr. Komor states, “OTA’s demise was not the result of careful deliberation, a thoughtful comparison of costs and benefits, or defeat by its political enemies. Rather, it was largely being in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

And Dr. Byerly says, “In the main Congress is a reactive institution; it does not take up a subject until it is an issue needing attention, which often means that Members and interest group are already choosing sides.”

The full-text follows and feel free to leave comments:


Kerry D. McEvilly writes:

I do not seek to submit an article so much as a question.

Much, far to much I sometimes fear, has been made of the Executive Branch skewing science policy for political or ideological purposes as of late.

One persistent critic in this chorus, among others on Capitol Hill, seems to be Rep. Waxman in the House, and in that chamber especially the differences between science and science policy is becoming increasingly blurred and politicized.

With each side of the aisle receiving partisan advice from such disparate advocacy organizations as AEI and UCS, it seems there isn’t anything close to a common discourse on issues such as embryonic stem cell and climate change research.

Do you think that maybe it’s time to re-establish the OTA to add some semblance of continuity in what our elected leaders are getting in the way of science policy advice?

I know that the legislation authorizing OTA has never been repealed and it seems that every session Rep. Holt and Rep. Boehlert introduce legislation to resurrect it, but obviously it would have to be a somewhat different entity to survive the Class of ’94’s hostility.

Presuming you even think it would be a good idea to reauthorize OTA, how would you reorganize or reform it to get it past the residual hostility it provoked in some members, garner the necessary votes in the House (a pilot proposal cleared the Senate in 2001) and into the next Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill?

Paul Komor responds:

Proposed legislation to reinstate the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) has become almost an annual tradition. In addition, there’s been a steady stream of articles from academics and think tanks calling for a reinstatement of OTA (For the latest, see here. ).

However the proposed legislation never seems to make it out of committee, and the many pro-OTA articles never get much attention. Why the apparent mismatch between intentions and reality?

First, arguments about whether OTA was politically biased or ineffective are largely off the point. OTA was the unfortunate sacrificial victim of the 1995 budget fight. The House of Representatives’ class of 1994, led by then-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA), had ambitious plans to drastically shrink government. To demonstrate their commitment, they cut the Legislative branch budget as well – which included eliminating OTA. OTA’s demise was not the result of careful deliberation, a thoughtful comparison of costs and benefits, or defeat by its political enemies. Rather, it was largely being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Second, OTA’s demise, and the repeated failure of attempts to reinstate it, reflect the public-good-like nature of its work. OTA was a Congressional support agency, with a mission of informing Congressional members and staff about science and technology issues. OTA’s ultimate goal of “better policy” is a worthy one, but one without direct constituents (other than the small group of academics and intellectuals who write articles calling for OTA’s reinstatement).

Congress is typically (and unfortunately) driven by need, rather than by foresight. There’s no short-term perceived need for a new OTA, no influential constituent or Member of Congress with a concentrated interest in a new OTA, and no groundswell of popular support for a new OTA. As a result, although few will argue against a new OTA, even fewer will invest political capital in an idea that benefits everyone a little but no one a lot.

Finally, this is not to say that OTA was perfect. Our reports were, almost without exception, well written, objective, and thoughtful. (I spent 6 years at OTA, as a policy analyst and Project Director). But we could have done better at meeting Congress’ needs. Our reports were sometimes late, usually much too long, and often inconclusive. The more fundamental problem was that we hired too many people like me – academics, motivated by intellectual curiosity and a need to get all the data in before drawing any conclusions. We needed more of a private sector consultant culture: where schedules and deadlines are seen as imperatives rather than suggestions, clients’ needs come first, and findings are more important than research methods.

Rad Byerly responds:

McEvilly’s letter contains its own answer to his question about resurrecting OTA: Resurrection will be difficult due to “residual hostility” to advice on issues such as stem cell research and climate change research, and of course teaching evolution vs. creation. To a much greater degree and extent than anytime in recent history, the three branches of the Federal government are driven by religious faith in a truth higher than science, so that to this degree and extent no science advice is needed or wanted. Reform of OTA is thus irrelevant.

Eventually this will change, the government will be more balanced, and perhaps OTA can then be resurrected. Let’s consider one important difficulty OTA faced.

In the main Congress is a reactive institution; it does not take up a subject until it is an issue needing attention, which often means that Members and interest group are already choosing sides. OTA got its “assignments” from the Congress, and so typically could not initiate a study until it was on Congress’ agenda. OTA’s study process was slow relative to the speed with which issues became polarized and Members took positions. Not always, but often, OTA’s studies arrived in a Congress that had mostly made up its mind, usually agreeing to disagree, and technical arguments typically were not strong enough to change votes.

What might be done differently? Could we develop a process to get ahead of issues? Perhaps. We did foresee the existence of ethical, legal, and social issues in the Human Genome Project, at least enough to fund some research on them. OTA could have established a parallel effort. Assuming the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository moves ahead, in several decades we will face a decision on whether to “close” it, essentially to abandon it to passive management. When and if we come to that decision the waste will have been emplaced and the repository will have been activity monitored for a period. The issue will be whether to change to a lower, i.e., cheaper, level of management; a passive management. The fear is that, de facto, it will be forgotten. OTA could begin soon (i.e., when/if lawsuits conclude and progress begins again) to prepare for the decision, perhaps for years mainly only putting information about the repository and related matters into a secure database. Another area: OTA might develop long-term projects to evaluate activities, e.g., in elementary education, whose ultimate success cannot be measured in less than a decade or two. The point here is that Members might support such efforts that would bear fruit for a future Congress.

Establishing this new kind of OTA would be difficult, but not impossible. It would not be necessary to change the nature of Congress, only to get several farsighted Members committed to some vision like this. The whole Congress would not have to act, to take a vote, on the issues themselves, only to fund relatively cheap preparations for the time in the distant future when the issues ripen.

3 Responses to “Ask Prometheus: OTA”

    1
  1. Jeremy Says:

    You should at least define the acronym “OTA.”

  2. 2
  3. Tind Shepper Ryen Says:

    Good call Jeremy… I’ve added the full name and a link to their old site. OTA [Office of Technology Assessment]

  4. 3
  5. Kerry McEvilly Says:

    …excellent commentary gentlemen. I found the comments on the need for a more deadline driven “contractor” culture new and enlightening.

    Which leads me to ask – would an alternative institutional model, say something akin to the Woodrow Wilson Institute, staffed primarily by “visiting fellows” of some duration (during a one year sabbatical perhaps?) provide both the expertise and non-partisan cover needed to assauge the Republican leadership (when Gibbons left in 1993 to assume the lead in Clinton’s OSTP it simply reinforced Republican suspicions of an institutionalized Democratic bias)?

    Another interesting idea, at least from my perspective, might include a massive expansion of the AAAS and IEEE-USA Congressional Fellows programs to provide technical expertise to committees or even individual Members offices.

    But where would the money come from? Would it have to be a Legislative Appropriation? Private, perhaps philantropic, funds. A mix?

    There has been a lot of printed words committed to the idea, the Carnegie Commission comes to mind, but it seems institutional hurdles are always coming up?