Subject: Clinton Science Policy...in the National Interest? (Loka Alert 1:9)

                                   Loka Alert 1-9 (Aug. 11, 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 anywhere you feel is
appropriate.  

--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

*****************************************************************

               "SCIENCE IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST"

                 by Brian Rappert & Dick Sclove

     On August 4, 1994, the Clinton Administration unveiled
Science in the National Interest (SNI), the first formal
presidential statement on science policy in 15 years.  The report
recognizes the need to link scientific research with national
goals, encourages the development of university/industry/
government partnerships to promote scientific research, and
stresses the need for US world leadership in science and
technology.  During a time of budgetary constraints, SNI pledges
the Administration to make funding science and technology
programs a high priority.
     In formulating its policy statement, the Administration drew
heavily on the advice of elite members of the scientific
community.  However, neither the SNI report, nor the subsequent
press conference and Congressional hearing held on it, made any
mention of participation in science and technology policy making
by everyday citizens, by workers, or by environmental, defense
conversion, or other public interest groups.  Instead, SNI
affirms the closed model of decision making established during
the Cold War--only shifting the central focus from national
security to economic growth.  In Vice-President Al Gore's words:
"Technology is the engine of economic growth; science fuels
technology's engine."
     There are several reasons why one might prefer seeing
science and technology policy opened to a wider range of
participants.  For instance, as members of a democracy, concerned
citizens need institutional avenues for participating in the
decisions that importantly affect their lives--especially when
those decisions will be implemented with tax dollars.
     Broader participatory opportunities can also draw attention
to vital social issues that scientific elites are prone to
neglect.  Consider several examples where a wider range of
participants might be expected to result in more sensible
analysis and policies:
     (1) The SNI report reiterates the Clinton Administration's
formal commitment to promoting high quality, high wage jobs. 
However, nothing in the report operationalizes that commitment. 
To the contrary, the report mentions several government 
programs--such as the Technology Reinvestment Program and the
Commerce Department's Advanced Technology Program--that, as
currently implemented, have the potential to accelerate the
development and use of production technologies that displace
skilled labor.
     On the other hand, worker participation in technology policy
making and in designing and adopting new technologies--as has
been pioneered especially in parts of Scandinavian and German
industry--could help ensure that new workplace technologies
complement rather than displace skilled workers.
     (2) SNI repeatedly praises the social, economic, and
environmental benefits of science and technology, but it never
even alludes to the obvious harm that science and technology
sometimes cause.  Yet virtually all American citizens are aware
of both positive and negative consequences associated with
science and technology; had a wider range of citizens been
consulted while preparing this report, the result would have been
more balanced.
     (3) Near the end of the report one comes upon a section with
the promising title: "The Human Dimension."  "Ah-hah!," thinks
the reader, "here is where they must begin talking more
realistically about science in people's daily lives."  Nope.  The
section turns out to be a panegyric to the promise of signal
detection theory as a basis for developing computer programs as
decision aids to the scientific assessment of health and safety
risks.  In other words, in a controversial area where many
thoughtful studies suggest explicit, multidimensional value
judgements are indispensable, SNI chooses only to highlight a
decision tool that is near the far extreme of scientific
reductionism.
     (4) SNI places high priority on the need to improve the
scientific and technical literacy of all American citizens--in
the interest of economic growth, democracy, and popular support
for government science outlays.  Nowhere does the report consider
that to revitalize democracy in a science- and technology-
intensive society, it is at least as important to increase
citizens', government leaders', and scientists' and engineers'
understanding of the institutional origins and social and
environmental consequences of science and technology.

     In principal the end of the Cold War establishes an historic
opportunity to reorganize national science and technology
policies to make them more socially responsive and democratic. 
Regrettably, that historic opportunity has not begun to be
realized by the federal government.

____________

Brian Rappert is a graduate student in the Dept. of Science and
Technology Studies at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and a
summer intern with the Public Interest Technology Policy Project
of the Loka Institute and the Institute for Policy Studies.
***************************************************************

Excerpt from Colleen Cordes, "The Highest Priority," in _The
Chronicle of Higher Education_, 10 August 1994, pp. A21-A22:

          [Science in the National Interest] attracted wide
     praise last week from federal science officials and
     researchers....However, Richard Sclove, executive
     director of the Loka Institute, called the report
     "basically a travesty of anything you could call the
     public interest."  The institute is a public-interest
     research organization in Amherst, Mass., that focuses
     on issues of science, technology and democracy.
          Mr. Sclove said the Administration appeared to
     have consulted chiefly with scientists and engineers in
     academe and industry, not with average citizens.  "A
     real title of the report would be, `Science in the
     Service of Scientists, National Laboratories, and
     Industry,'" he said.
          The Administration should have called upon a much
     broader range of citizens, including labor and
     environmental organizations, he said.

*****************************************************************

     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

     Although I can't guarantee this will work, to find out how
to obtain a copy of Science in the Public Interest you might try
contacting Jess Sarmiento in the White House Office of Media
Affairs, tel. (202) 456-7150; fax (202) 456-6490.