Subject: Help Save OTA (Loka Alert 2:1) Loka Alert 2:1 (30 Jan. 1995) 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 re-post or publish 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 ***************************************************************** HELP SAVE THE U.S. OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT The following action alert was prepared by Norman Vig, Professor of Political Science, Carleton College, Northfield, Minnesota. Norm is, among other things, one of the best-informed people in the U.S. on comparative technology assessment as practiced by governments in Europe and North America. From: nvig@carleton.edu (Norman Vig): In the eight weeks since the Senate Republican caucus announced that it planned to abolish the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), things have not gotten better. The most recent reports indicate that there is a very good chance that they will go ahead with it unless they are persuaded otherwise in the next few weeks. The supporters of OTA in the Senate are just beginning to focus on it, but it is not a high priority item to say the least. In fact, TIME IS SHORT as the two pertinent Congressional Appropriations Subcommittees are about to begin hearings. I have received URGENT pleas from people close to OTA to encourage all concerned persons to fax letters to the two chairs of the Subcommittees very quickly. Please tell them that we (as citizens, scholars, practitioners, etc.) believe that OTA has done a good job and is critically important for rational policy making in the future. The fax addresses are as follows: Rep. Ron Packard Chair, Subcommttee on Appropriations for the Legislative Branch U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 FAX: 202/225-0134 Sen. Connie Mack Chair, Subcommittee on Appropriations for the Legislative Branch U.S. Senate Washington, DC 20510 FAX: 202/224-8022 For further information, contact: Norm Vig (nvig@carleton.edu) ***************************************************************** A few additional comments by Dick Sclove (loka@amherst.edu): If you are already persuaded that OTA is worth saving, stop reading here. However, if you harbor some doubts or reservations, here are some thoughts I've had on the subject. Over the years I've frequently been mildly critical of the OTA. I find the agency's reports useful sources of information, but often somewhat bland, non-incisive, and decidedly technocratic both in tone and in the restricted range of questions addressed within any given subject area. However, in the context of present Republican Congressional proposals to abolish OTA outright, I think it is time to put such quibbles and reservations aside. OTA could be better--but there is no possibility of improving it if it no longer exists. And it does unquestionably provide government staffers and others with an important source of information about science & technology that cannot easily be replaced. (The two other Congressional research agencies--the General Accounting Office and the Congressional Research Service--do not produce studies of comparable depth.) Moreover, while there are many other issues that, in principle, concern and excite me more about democratizing science and technology, taking the trouble to support OTA's survival now is a small FEASIBLE step. In contrast, the political climate for more ambitious, constructive endeavors is temporarily unfavorable (an understatement). Finally, I've received a few comments from colleagues suggesting that with many other agencies and government programs potentially on the chopping block, how can we argue that OTA shouldn't take a hit too? Some answers: 1. OTA's budget is minuscule by federal standards (about $23 million per year). For comparison, the U.S. defense budget is about $275 billion per year--4 orders of magnitude larger. 2. Other federal programs targeted for possible elimination--e.g., the National Endowments for the Arts and for the Humanities and funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting--have much larger and more powerful constituent bases. Personally, I think they, too, are very much worth saving. But if you're concerned about saving OTA, you're part of a relatively small attentive group. If we don't lend a hand to OTA now, it's not obvious who else will. 3. Given that OTA's budget is tiny, why the rush to eliminate it without any careful deliberation? A budget cut would be one thing, but elimination is a drastic and quasi- irreversible step. OTA's staff embodies considerable institutional learning. If and when there were ever future interest in recreating the agency, it could easily take a decade to rebuild it to its current level of competence. --Dick Sclove (resclove@amherst.edu) ***************************************************************** If you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Loka Institute e-mail list (Loka-L), please send an e-mail message to that effect to: loka@amherst.edu Traffic on Loka-L is intentionally kept low (an average of one message every 3 or 4 weeks), to protect over-busy people from unwanted clutter. 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). Just 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 Loka Institute's Technology & Democracy Project, which promotes a strong grassroots, worker, and public-interest group voice in science and technology decision making. There are currently 867 people and organizations worldwide on the Loka e-mail list.