Loka Alert 1-14 (Dec. 6, 1994) Friends and Colleagues: This is one in an occasional series of electronic postings on democratic politics of science and technology, issued by The Loka Institute. You are welcome to post it in its entirety anywhere you feel is appropriate. (However, advance permission is required for commercial dissemination or republication in any form.) If you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Loka Institute e-mail list, please send an e-mail message to that effect to: loka@amherst.edu --Dick Sclove Executive Director, The Loka Institute, P.O. Box 355, Amherst, MA 01004-0355, USA Tel. 413 253-2828; Fax 413 253-4942 E-mail: loka@amherst.edu ***************************************************************** Democratizing Science & Technology Under a Republican Congress? Copyright 1994 by Richard E. Sclove Herewith some preliminary musings on the implications of last month's Republican capture of the U.S. Congress for developing a more democratic politics of science and technology. This is certainly not a definitive analysis; too much remains in flux to even attempt that. On the other hand, waiting for the dust to settle would mean ceding all initiative to others (including some rather unsavory others). During the first two years of the Clinton Administration (Nov. 1992 - Nov. 1994) an historic, strategic window of opportunity was, in principle, open for reorganizing U.S. science and technology institutions and policies to make them more responsive to democratically decided social, political, and environmental concerns. The recent Republican win signals at least the partial closing of that window. What remains to be decided is whether the window is closed entirely...or worse. Of the three basic circumstances that had opened the window: (a) The Cold War is still over. Thus the longstanding rationale for many U.S. policies and institutions (such as the national weapons laboratories) is dead and some set of reorganizations and reprioritizations will presumably continue. (b) The conjunction of a Democratic administration, some progressive appointees in executive branch agencies, and Democratic majorities in Congress is gone. E.g., progressives have lost allies like Ron Dellums and George Brown as Chairmen, respectively, of the House Armed Services and House Science, Space & Technology Committees. (Indeed, the House Republicans have just renamed the latter the Technology and Competitiveness Committee.) The Congressional Republicans--via their new role in the oversight and appropriations processes--also fully intend to make it difficult for the Administration to try to pursue its various agendas via executive orders (i.e., trying to bypass Congress). On the other hand, it turns out that the significance of the prior Democratic majorities in Congress was somewhat less than it had at first seemed, since they were not able to deliver much of legislative interest. (c) The state of the third window-opening circumstance is not entirely clear. Back in 1992 Clinton announced a relatively comprehensive and coherent technology policy and put it on the public agenda (somewhere in the middle tier). That has led to an unprecedented level of media coverage and created openings for progressive science & technology activists and critics to get quoted in the New York Times and elsewhere as "alternative viewpoints," get op-eds prominently published, etc. Will technology policy now move further down on the public agenda, fragment or be abandoned, or will media coverage slow down? That is, will the strategic window to conduct public consciousness- raising and political education--e.g., about adverse social and environmental repercussions of science & technology and about the closed, elitist way in which decisions about them are made--slam shut? REPUBLICAN AMBITIONS: It's too early to know. With respect to science and technology, the "Contract With America" orchestrated by Newt Gingrich (incoming Speaker of the House) calls for: o Eliminating the Dept. of Commerce's Advanced Technology Program (ATP) and the U.S. Geological Survey. [The ATP always seemed a mixed bag. As part of the Administration's attempt to shift responsibility for technology development from the Pentagon to civilian agencies, I liked it. On the other hand, no provisions were made for incorporating worker, public-interest, or grassroots concerns into the ATP, and thus there was definite risk of sponsoring technologies that would accelerate the technological elimination of jobs or be socially harmful in other ways.] o Aggressive development and deployment of Star Wars-type anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defenses. [Critical analysts say Star Wars technologies remain technically dubious, fabulously expensive and, in any case, strategically counterproductive to the extent that they could senselessly provoke Russian fears and undermine the ABM and Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaties. Gingrich et al. defend their purpose as encompassing protection from Third World aggressors, but the latter will, unfortunately, find it cheaper and easier to deliver a weapon of mass destruction by low-tech, inconspicuous small boat than by ballistic missile. Drug runners do it all the time.] [The remilitarization of science and technology policy amounts, among other things, to a horribly inefficient jobs- maintenance program. High tech weapons development and production is enormously capital-intensive compared with alternative private or public sector social programs that-- for much less capital per worker--could put many more people to work addressing real unmet social and environmental needs.] [Sometimes I think that rightwing Republicans would be more on target if they didn't get their sexual and defense politics mixed up: We need more abstinence in weapons development and deployments, but better shields would indeed be useful in preventing AIDS transmission. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)] o Holding increases in the National Science Foundation (NSF) budget to 1% less than the inflation rate; and capping university research overhead rates at 46% (rates have historically ranged considerably higher at major research universities). [Within the context of the present Republican frenzy for domestic budget cutting, this is a big win for NSF. In contrast, the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities could be axed entirely.] o Mandating scientifically determined cost-risk-benefit analyses for all proposed federal regulations. These analyses would have to be certified by "an independent peer review panel" whose "members must...possess professional experience" in conducting risk analyses or in a pertinent scientific field. [This sounds innocuous, but in practice large corporations strongly favor "scientific" cost-risk-benefit analyses because business can afford to hire experts who will produce the "right" answers. This is really a scheme to reverse hard-won environmental, health, and safety protections. Unfortunately, Clinton's most recent Supreme Court appointee, former Harvard Law professor Stephen Breyer, is a vigorous advocate of these techniques, which will presumably complicate any attempts to mount counterreactionary legal challenges.] [One Senate staffer I spoke with argues that since diverse corporate activities unquestionably produce more extensive social, economic, and environmental repercussions than do government regulations, one should at the very least be mandating cost-risk-benefit analysis of private sector actions as well. I won't hold my breath.] o Making the corporate research and development tax credit permanent. [R&D tax credits are boring- and esoteric-sounding, and so extremely unlikely to capture public attention. Too bad. This is a big corporate tax giveaway with potential adverse social consequences. According to _Washington Technology_ (Nov. 24, p. 12), the current temporary R&D tax credit is worth up to $9 billion per year to U.S. firms. (That's more than an order-of-magnitude greater than the budget of the Advanced Technology Program, which has reaped lots of media attention.) Companies that have recently taken most advantage of the R&D credit include chemical firms and manufacturers of office and computing machinery (see NSF's _Science & Engineering Indicators 1993_, p. 119). Thus, companies that could, for all one knows, be conducting research that will ultimately create new toxic chemical wastes or put people out of work are being rewarded with a tax credit. Thank you. A more socially defensible approach--if stimulating private sector research is what is wanted-- would mandate some type of social screen to decide which kinds of research are eligible for the credit.] In addition--although it is not specifically in the "Contract"--Gingrich is an ardent (some would say fanatic) supporter of exploring, industrializing, and colonizing outer space, so folks over at NASA (the National Aeronautics and Space Administration) may be sleeping comfortably for now. (If we could just get Commander Newt and some of his pals signed up for one of the early colonizing missions, I'd be sleeping better too.) Rumors are also out and about that the House Republicans would like to prune back or eliminate the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, and perhaps even eliminate the Pentagon's Technology Reinvestment Program (TRP). (Originally touted as a "defense conversion" program, the TRP increasingly centered on "dual use" programs that support civilian technology development only when it promises to have military applications. Progressive critics accordingly labeled it a weapons development program, pure and simple. But some House Republicans object to it anyway as part of their principled opposition to any form of government- sponsored "civilian" technology development.) The Clinton Administration currently has a physicist- dominated blue ribbon panel (the "Galvin Commission") investigating the future of the Dept. of Energy's national weapons laboratory complex. There had been hope of weaning the labs somewhat away from military preoccupations toward new civilian missions. That prospect looks less likely given a Republican Congress. (In any case, an ad hoc alliance of grassroots and national defense conversion activists, assembled under the auspices of the National Commission for Economic Conversion and Disarmament, is hard at work preparing an alternative "Galvin" report that will incorporate grassroots, public interest, worker, and critical academic perspectives that the official Galvin report is apt to omit.) As to the Administration's much vaunted interest in rebuilding and developing new technical infrastructures, the prospects are not yet clear. Proposed telecommunications regulatory reform legislation that died in the waning moments of the previous Congress will probably be revived. However, the prospects for including provisions for subsidizing universal access to, or civic uses of, the emerging information superhighway are now much diminished. I also imagine law-and- order Republicans may look favorably on telecommunications security systems designed to remain transparent to the FBI and other law enforcement agencies (i.e., variants of the Administration's infamous Clipper Chip proposal). As to high- speed trains, intelligent highways, and the like, a House Republican Conference background paper that accompanied the "Contract With America" suggests as one cost-saving measure reducing "the President's Investment Spending" by $4 billion over the next five years--which I am guessing is a reference to such infrastructural initiatives. Thus what this agenda amounts to is, among other things, substantially rolling back or reversing the Clinton Administration's attempt to shift federal technology development funds away from the military and toward civilian agencies and programs. Until late last week, wise voices were also saying that while a Newtonian House might push for these changes, the U.S. Senate is more cumbersome and deliberative, and--even though now also Republican dominated--would provide a brake on Gingrich's ambitions. Now it is not so clear. For instance, the Senate Republican Caucus has just approved a Congressional cost-cutting plan that would, among other things, eliminate the Office of Technology Assessment. (Given OTA's annual budget of $23 million, this would succeed in lowering the total cost of the Congressional bureaucracy by less than one percent). If the Senate emerges anywhere near as radicalized as the House, we won't be watching the roll-back merely of Clintonism, but the reversal of the domestic agendas of the Johnson, Nixon, and Ford Administrations as well. WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN FOR PROGRESSIVES? Short answer: It doesn't look great. A few basic possibilities or options: (A) The Clinton Administration or the remaining Congressional Democrats could mobilize to aggressively oppose the Republican agenda, including its science and technology components. Some Congressional Democrats will certainly do so, but the Administration has so far signaled enormous readiness to capitulate. (Clinton's first answer to the Republicans' interest in remilitarization has been to propose a $25 billion hike in the defense budget over the next six years). With or without Clinton's initial help, various social forces will certainly mobilize to oppose the Republican agenda. This will include the traditional left, but any number of other potent oxen are about to be gored and will start bellowing. E.g., big universities are not going to be happy about the proposed reduction in their allowed research grant overhead charges. In that context, there may be some opportunity to enlarge the anticipated oppositional agenda to include some elements of a democratic politics of science and technology. At a minimum, political struggles over some elements of science and technology policy seem inevitable, and that should maintain some opportunity to inject progressive or other critical views into the ensuing media coverage. (B) Personally, I was never particularly enamored of the Clinton Administration's science and technology initiatives, although I saw plenty of potential opportunity to try to tweak them in more progressive, socially responsive directions. (As formulated by the Administration, there were lots of business giveaways and very little involvement of public-interest, grassroots, or worker groups in formulating or implementing policies. For its efforts, the Administration reaped extraordinarily little political reward. Businesses that benefitted are not loudly defending the Administration--not even, by and large, the very programs from which they benefitted directly.) On the other hand, might there be any moderate, principled- conservative, or libertarian Republicans out there who would join with progressives in sponsoring approaches to science and technology that would put more decision making power in the hands of communities and state and local governments? That doesn't appear likely within the short-run context of rightwing Republican triumphalism, but it seems premature to entirely write-off the possibility. (C) Of course, it may be time to forget about Washington in terms of any constructive agenda, and turn back (as many did during the Reagan-Bush years, and as always remains vital) to initiatives and organizing at the grassroots or state level. (Good examples from the 1980s and early '90s include the work of the Campaign for Responsible Technology and of the Southwest Network for Environmental & Economic Justice in attempting to steer the semiconductor industry toward more socially responsible employment and environmental practices; the efforts of Chicago's Center for Neighborhood Technology to promote more grassroots control of infrastructural systems and of large municipal capital flows; and the manifold efforts of local toxic waste clean-up groups, defense conversion organizations, opponents of environmental racism; and so on.) (D) My own hope, of course, is to encourage and contribute to constructive grassroots activism, while seeing the newly launched Federation of Activists on Science & Technology Network (FASTnet--see below) evolve into one effective mechanism for mutual assistance, cross-issue alliances, and--when necessities or opportunities emerge--for increased collective clout at the national level. (In a future Loka Alert I will, for example, propose assembling a FASTnet project committee to promote creation of a network of university-based Community Research Centers, modeled partly on the Dutch system of "science shops." Stay tuned.) As I said at the outset, these are just preliminary thoughts. I welcome constructive criticism, other ideas, and further strategic or tactical suggestions. Please e-mail them to me at: loka@amherst.edu or snail-mail them to the Loka Institute (address given at the top of this post). I will take all wisdom received gratefully and diligently into account. Or, if you think your comments will be of general interest to other progressive science and technology activists, join FASTnet and e- mail your comments directly to FASTnet@igc.apc.org (see instructions, below). * * * The preceding musings are informed by conversations that I had in the past week with a number of Congressional and White House staffers, and also with Greg Bischak (National Commission for Economic Conversion and Disarmament), Michael Black (Harvey Mudd College), Gary Chapman (21st Century Project), Betsy Fader (Student Pugwash USA), Jeremy Stone (Federation of American Scientists), Norman Vig (Carleton College, MN), and others. Of course, I accept full responsibility for the analysis and opinions expressed, including all errors of fact and judgment. _________________________________________________________________ If you would like to participate more actively in promoting a democratic politics of science and technology, please join the Federation of Activists on Science & Technology Network (FASTnet). To join, send an e-mail message to: majordomo@igc.apc.org. Leave the subject line blank. The text of your message should read: subscribe FASTnet You will receive an automated reply giving more details. FASTnet and Loka Alerts are activities of the Public- Interest Technology Policy Project, which promotes a strong grassroots and public-interest group voice in science and technology decision making. The Public Interest Technology Policy Project is a collaborative undertaking of the Loka Institute and the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, DC. For further information, contact Dick Sclove at the Loka Institute (address and other contact information are at the top of this Alert). There are currently 795 people and organizations worldwide on the Loka e-mail list. NOTE TO PEOPLE SUBSCRIBED TO BOTH FASTNET AND THE LOKA LIST: There is presently significant overlap between subscribers to Loka Alerts and FASTnet, but each list also includes a large number of people who are not subscribed to the other. As long as that remains so, I propose posting pertinent Loka Alerts to FASTnet. My apologies for the double postings. If this is a major inconvenience or irritation, I will seek another solution.