Fix Congress's SciTech "Lobotomy"
Rep. Rush Holt, a physicist, says of the 1995 defunding of the Office of Technology Assessment: "Congress gave itself a lobotomy." Policy expert Lewis Branscomb offered reasons to bring back the OTA at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Chicago on Feb. 14th. Steve Mirsky reports
SUBSCRIBE TO Science Quickly
[The following is an exact transcript of this podcast.]
Time to bring back the Office of Technology Assessment. The OTA was created in 1972 to provide Congress with an objective analysis of complex scientific and technological issues. But it was killed in ‘95. Rush Holt, one of three physicists in Congress, sent a statement to the AAAS meeting in Chicago last week that said, “When the OTA was disbanded, Congress gave itself a lobotomy.” At the meeting, Lewis Branscomb, from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, offered reasons to restore the OTA:
“First obviously technical understanding is much more critical to public policy now than it was in ’94. Consider energy independence, global climate change, nuclear weapons proliferation, and mutation of viruses into global disease threats—all major issues facing us today. Second, the American economy is more dependent than ever on innovation to give us a competitive advantage. Given the global competition we face, it will require the U.S. to improve more rapidly its own research and innovation capability.”
—Steve Mirsky
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
60-Second Science is a daily podcast. Subscribe to this Podcast:
RSS | iTunes
It’s Time to Stand Up for Science
If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.
I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.
If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.
In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.
There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.
