Well, I guess our first few Hillary posts were pretty positive...but with Sparticus's post, things turned vicious in a hurry!
And now, I'm here to pile on a bit with some slight criticism. Let me explain.
Lots of us here at ScienceBlogs want the once world-renowned Office of Technology Assessment, or a close equivalent, to return to work for the U.S. Congress. And according to her speech, so does Senator Clinton. This, in turn, has led to statements like the following on Wikipedia: "Recently, Hillary Clinton pledged to restore the Office if elected President."
But there's just one problem here--separation of powers. OTA was originally founded by the Congress because it lacked access to the type of technocratic expertise available to the executive branch, with all its agencies and all its scientists. OTA was, in a sense, Congress's own special bullshit detector--and it frequently trained its attention on bogus claims by presidents and their administrations.
A case in point: OTA essentially shot down Reagan's "Star Wars" fantasy, explaining why it a) wouldn't work; and b) wouldn't make us more safe even if it did work.
In this context, while of course we want Congress to have better science advice, is it appropriate for a presidential candidate to tell Congress precisely how to get that advice? I dunno, honestly. I guess it's a matter of tact. But if I were Hillary I might have treaded a bit more cautiously here. And certainly Wikipedia is incorrect to say that as president she can restore OTA. Congress, not the president, must do that.
Speaking of which: What the heck are Democrats in Congress doing right now with regard to OTA? I'm not sure. I haven't put my ear to the ground recently. But I certainly hope there are plans afoot to improve the congressional science advisory mechanism...and I also hope to look into this further in the near future.
- Log in to post comments
Eh, I don't see the separation of powers issue as much of a problem. The Democrats won't object to having the OTA back, all Hillary has to do is put money in for it when she submits the budget to congress. Unless congressional Republicans or Democrats then cut it out, it will get re-funded.
We agree on this Chris. The significance of a separation of powers cannot be overstated. An new OTA - or some incarnation of the board - would indeed serve an important purpose, but you're right to point out it must be established by Congressional authority and maintain the ability to act as an honest broker between science, technology, and policymakers.
Thanks, Sheril.
Mark, there are legal/constitutional issues, and then there are political issues. This is a political issue. I just don't think it looks good for the pres to be telling Congress, "look, you guys are too dumb, you need to inform yourselves better, so here's $ 30 million in my budget to do so"....I don't think Congress will take kindly to that approach.
Not that that's necessarily Hillary's pitch...but it's tricky to be telling Congress how to inform itself. So all I'm saying is, especially if elected president, Hillary should approach this subject with tact and work with Congress closely to figure out what kind of advice it needs.
Ok, I buy that.
Geez, Chris, what a quibble. Are you looking for reasons to complain about Hilary being President? I would think that you'd be jumping up and down in delight that a Presidential candidate is in favor of science. Maybe she just means that she will encourage Congress to re-establish it.
Congress is doing nothing on recreating OTA, and has done nothing since The House Science Committee held a hearing on the subject in July 2006.
Personally, I think this is hovering around 247 on Sen. Clinton's list of things to do if she's elected, so it really doesn't matter.
Actually, Congress is doing something, though not as much as some like Rush Holt and Jeff Bingaman had hoped. Both versions of the FY-08 Legislative Branch appropriations bill have money earmarked to GAO for a newtechnology assessment function. The Senate would provide $750,000 and four FTEs for the work, while the House is a bit more generous with $2.5 million. Not quite the $22 million entity that was OTA, but...
Incidentally,OTA was never "de-authorized," so to speak, but simply de-funded. All it requires to be revived is an appropriation.