Re-Open the OTA (with citizen input) - Sign the Petition!
I’d like your thoughts on something.
Quick framework: Before Newt Gingrich shut it down in the ’90s, the Office of Technology Assessment was a Congressional support office. It provided nonpartisan, science and technology policy advice to Congress. Sounds dry but it’s something Congress ought to have when deciding upon issues such as stem cell research, global warming, alternative power, genetically engineered foods, national infrastructure–our future.
Our country needs and deserves an OTA. But not the OTA of the 90s that took two years to put together well-researched and highly respected reports on science issues…issues Congress had pretty much decided upon on already. We need a better, faster, visionary OTA that values the collective opinions of today’s citizens to prepare our country for future science and technology issues.
Other countries opened an OTA with a twist: public participation. Denmark, for example, employs a number of ways, including consensus conferences, to fold the public into critical discussions of science and technology policy. More can be done. More needs to be done.
Shifting the culture of science policy–providing sound science advice to Congress and engaging the public in important discussions–can only happen with a massive, groundswell of support from the public.
So let me know what you think. I can’t think of a reason NOT to push for the reopening of a “new” OTA. Good idea? Waste of time? Are there other ways to accomplish this goal? How can we unite the nation’s public and push this through as a team? Join the OTA Facebook Task Force !
If you think it’s the start of a good idea, I also encourage you to sign this petition and post your comments.
Though our continued support for citizen scientist programs across the country is vital to the success of directed scientific research about specific topics, we also need make sure we remain broadly educated about the general scientific issues we face everyday. The Schuylkill Center for Environmental Education (SCEE), located in Philadelphia, is one of the first urban environmental education centers established in the United States, and has been dedicated to teaching the citizens of Philadelphia about issues facing their community for over forty years. Their adult citizen science lecture series is still ongoing, with two lectures left this season. The schedule for each of the seminars is the same:
6:30 p.m. Reception & informal information session featuring refreshments and displays from visiting organizations.
7:00 p.m. Program followed by a question and answer session with the speaker
On Thursday, May 21, three of the Philadelphia’s leading landscape architects will be conducting a discussion about how landscape architecture is at the forefront of the sustainability movement. This program will include a guided tour of “Gimme Shelter: sustainable woodland shelters on a small scale”, at 6 pm. (My roommate is a landscape architect at the Olin Studio here in Philadelphia, and I find her work to be extremely exciting! While Olin is not one of the firms represented on this panel, I can personally attest that the works produced by landscape architects are not just works of art — they also preserve the natural environment all cities need to flourish.) On Thursday, June 4, representatives of the Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia, PhillyCarShare, SEPTA, and other regional transportation organizations present realistic alternatives to owning and driving automobiles in and around Philadelphia. I will be present at both of these lectures, and will be writing a follow-up article to fill you non-Philadelphians on what you missed. If you would like to join me, The Schuylkill Center for Environmental Education (SCEE) is located in the northwest corner of Philadelphia in the neighborhood of Roxborough. Their address is: 8480 Hagy’s Mill Road, Philadelphia, PA 19128.
Many organizations exist to develop participatory experiences so citizens’ opinions are shared with policy decision makers. The President and his Executive Branch seem pretty tuned into this thinking. Congress/Legislative Branch, however, is about a decade behind :) I’m hoping Congress will treat itself to a healthy dose of dedicated sound science policy advice mixed with some public opinion in the form of a Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. We’re not reinventing the wheel. Other nations have Science and Technology Assessment agencies that pull in public participation from time to time. Our Congress doesn’t even have a Tech Assessment Agency let alone a mechanism for public input. They ought to have one. They used to have one. But I digress.
Back to defining a “participatory democracy”.
Hot off the press, here’s Holt’s opinion piece on why Congress should restore the Office of Technology Assessment. In it, he wisely cites Obama’s plans to restore science to its rightful place by bringing scientists back into the fold as advisers to the Executive Branch. However, Holt seems to neglect the other half of the President’s effort: provide opportunities for the public to participate in science policy discussions. After all, scientists are not value-neutral beings and they should not be held responsible for determining verdicts on policy matters affecting our lives….we should have a say in the outcome. The Executive Branch understands this. Based on Holt’s op-ed, it’s unclear whether he or the Legislative Branch “gets” this. Hmmm. He seemed to embrace the idea when we first discussed this.
Maybe it all comes down to word count (one hopes)?
Two steps forward, one step back. Stay tuned. I need to go rattle some more cages.
