The Washington Post is sponsoring “America’s Next Great Pundit Contest.” The Post received 4,800 entries from people who hoped to write better commentary than they had been reading.   The Post selected ten entries to move to the next level of the competition. The winner of the contest will be  hired to write a weekly column.

Among the ten finalists was the Nobel Prize -winning physicist, Burton Richter,  who opined about  the need for Congress to  re-establish the Office of Technology Assessment. He pointed out that a 1974 OTA report, “Drug Bioequivalence,” is relevant in recent discussions of health care costs.  He also recommended  one of his favorite OTA reports, “Renewing Our Energy Future,” which discussed the potential of secondary sources for biofuels.

According to Richter, “A new OTA will not settle all the arguments because there are political dimensions to major technical issues, but at least it can help Congress arrive at a common starting point for complicated legislation.”

Kevin Drum of Mother Jones News kindly provided a  summary of the columns at “Pundit Watch” for those wishing to save a little time.

Print PDF

Rep. Rush Holt testified at the House Legislative Branch Appropriations hearing Tuesday, asking the subcommittee to reinstate OTA in the 2010 budget.

“It was part of Congress. It spoke our language,” Holt was quoted as saying in the  Roll Call article. “It understood our peculiarities — how Members worked and our schedule.”

Print PDF

In a column (interview) about the state of U. S. science, Rush Holt (D-NJ) says he is troubled that many people have a bad attitude about science.  He said, “This attitude is seen with the latest stimulus package, where people go on the House floor — members of Congress — and ridicule the idea of funding science. They did!”

To explain why he thinks that science is important, Holt said,

It is from science that we get the innovation that provides productivity and growth for the future economy, so it is critically important for our economic well-being. It also adds to our quality of life in material ways. But I think most scientists still feel that there is a higher calling to what they do, that understanding how things work is an end in itself, and it’s a glorious end in itself.

Where legislators get their science information, according to Rep. Holt:

Well, in many cases, they don’t. They get it from whoever was the last person to visit their office, who may or may not know anything about science….

We should return to vibrancy the Office of Technology Assessment, which was abolished 14 years ago now. OTA was a terrific resource for anticipating the [scientific] questions that were coming up. It worked very well, and we can restore it just as it was, to very good effect.

About plans to reinstate OTA, Holt said, “I try again every year. I’m trying again this year.”

Print PDF

A recent magazine column scores technology predictions for 2008 and makes new predictions for 2009.  One of the predictions is that a cabinet-level technology officer will be created in the new administration, which is based upon an idea floated by President Obama during his campaign.   Pointing out the need for such an office, the column states, “Since the Congress dismantled the Office of Technology Assessment more than a decade ago, the federal government has been forced to deal with rapidly evolving technologies with little or no independent guidance and no central point from which to make national policies to advance technology utilization. I’m all for changing that.”

Print PDF

This column discusses the beneficial role of recombinant bovine somatotropin, or bovine growth hormone, in the U. S. dairy industy.  The use of the hormone stimulates milk production resulting in more efficient milk production.  He points to the many studies which show that  the milk or meat of treated cows is not affectd by this hormone.  These conclusions have been affirmed by many reviews including one by the Office of Technology Assessment in its May 1991 report, U. S. Dairy Industry at a Crossroad: Biotechnology and Policy Choice.

Print PDF

An article about the threat to some of our country’s greatest achievements by a recent lack of investment in the infrastructure of government.    It makes three suggestions for the new Congress:  1) create a new office similar to the disbanded Office of Technology Assessment -perhaps the “Office of Long-Range Analysis,” 2) set in place updates to decisions to be “triggered” later by new information, and 3) find the courage to look into the future and tackle the issues coming at us.

Print PDF

Ms. Morgan explains a new appraisal methodology called Multicriteria Mapping and discusses how it could be used to create greater transparency in science policy decision making. She suggests that this approach could improve the policy making abilities of the Office of Science and Technology Policy or a revived OTA.

Print PDF

“The last twenty years have been marked by drastic political events and by spectacular scientific and technical breakthroughs (such as in the life sciences) and innovations (such as in the case of the Internet). Just as noteworthy in hindsight, however, is the fact that these years appear as a period in which far-reaching technology visions once again attracted serious attention in parts of the scientific community, among politicians, and in the public. In the current discussions about these visions, which were sparked in fields such as nanotechnology and brain research, both cautioners and optimists predict fundamental changes in society, civilisation, and “human nature”.

The debate about “converging technologies” (CT) has to be seen in this context. It has been driven primarily by research policy actors and by experts from various disciplines, and is part of a more comprehensive political and social discourse on nanotechnology, biotechnology, information and communications technology (ICT), brain research, artificial intelligence (AI), robotics, and the sciences that deal with these topics. “Convergence” is an umbrella term for predictions ranging from an increase in synergetic effects to a merging of these fields, and for demands for government funding of research and development where these fields overlap.

The first CT initiative was started in the United States in 2001 in connection with activities concerning social, legal, and ethical aspects of nanotechnology. The primary participants in this initiative were the National Science Foundation and the Department of Commerce, and it received the support, for example, of some of those in military research. Some of the features of this initiative, which despite its nonofficial character is often viewed as an official government initiative, triggered some very controversial discussions. The subject was even picked up by some of the mass media, nongovernmental organisations (NGO), and private enterprises. For analytical purposes, we can distinguish between:

• A debate that started in the United States, bundled various social conflicts concerning science and technology, and focused on “human enhancement”, i.e., the artificial improvement of an individual’s capacities, and on far-reaching visions of the future of humanity;
• The discussions about CT research policy in a narrower sense and the related scientific and technological activities. Here too the starting point was in the United States, but the main participants driving this field are now located in Europe.”

The entire report (in German) can be found here.
Click here for a brief summary and here for an extended article about this new TAB report posted on nanowerk.com.

Print PDF

Total WonKerr

Atomic Archive

TEDBlog

Print PDF

From The Great Beyond, a blog hosted by Nature:

“Washington is full of science-policy wonks who bemoan the loss of the Office of Technology Assessment, which between 1972 and 1995 was the go-to place for smart independent advice for policymakers on science and technology topics. Fortunately, OTA junkies now have an online fix for all their needs.”

From Rhetoric and Rockets:

“Before OTA is reborn I would want to know the following:

• How, exactly, would a revived OTA would function?
• How big would it be?
• Who would participate?
• More importantly (from my semi-mistrustful point of view) who DECIDES who gets to participate?
• What would the new OTA charter look like?
• What steps would be taken to prevent the real or perceived irrelevance of the agency?
• What provisions will be made to ensure that OTA remains a “lean and mean,” think tank type of organization?
• In short, what will OTA supporters do to assure budget hawks that the agency deserves to be reborn when there is already a call to decrease the deficit, balance the budget, and eliminate a great deal of waste elsewhere in the federal government?”

Exploring Interdisciplinarity:

“The Agency, which we as staffers labeled “Congress’ Own Think Tank,” had become official in 1972, and was tasked with taking a long-term look at the implications of technology on all aspects of society. By most accounts, we did a phenomenal job.”

Print PDF