Subject: Waltzing With Elephants (Loka Alert 2-4: Action Opportunity) Loka Alert 2-4 (March 20, 1995) PLEASE REPOST (where appropriate) 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. If you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Loka 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 ***************************************************************** WALTZING WITH ELEPHANTS? Democratizing Science & Technology Under a Republican Congress (Part 2) Is it conceivable that progressive activists could collaborate with Congressional Republicans on selected steps toward democratizing science and technology decisionmaking? Loka Alert 1-14 (Dec. 1994) foresaw small grounds for hope in trying to work with that strain of Republican rhetoric that says it wants to shrink the federal government specifically in order to empower individuals and communities. Here I report on a shred of evidence that perhaps this hope is not entirely crazy. YOU CAN HELP ADVANCE THIS POTENTIAL STRATEGY BY CONTACTING CONGRESSMAN ROBERT S. WALKER (see below). On the evening of March 2, 1995 I appeared on a public panel that headlined President Nixon's science advisor, Edward E. David, Jr., and the new Republican Chairman of the House Science Committee, Robert S. Walker (who is also one of House Speaker Newt Gingrich's closest friends in Congress). The event was a mini-symposium on "Democratizing R&D Policy Making" that took place during the annual meeting of the National Association for Science, Technology and Society. Dr. David foresees that U.S. research-and-development (R&D) expenditure--both public and private sector--will shrink about 30% over the next 5 years. (The explanation: deficit-budget pressures on the government, coupled with structural pressures in the global economy that are inducing corporations to downsize their research expenditures and staffs in quest of short-run profits.) Congressman Walker made the opposite prediction that we are entering a "Third Wave situation"--a global information economy in which "the capital of the future will be cleverness"--and that this will prove "a golden age for science." However, science and technology will not thrive on traditional government largesse but on federal incentives (e.g., R&D and investment tax credits) that will leverage new funds out of the private sector. Neither talk really addressed the announced topic of the session: democratizing R&D policymaking. But things got more interesting during the subsequent question-and-answer period. Reporter Colleen Cordes of _The Chronicle of Higher Education_ asked Congressman Walker what he thought about involving a broader range of people in science and technology decisions--for instance, by including representatives from environmental groups and labor unions on high-level government science advisory panels. Walker answered somewhat obliquely that the nation needs to improve citizens' scientific literacy and lifelong learning-- both so that people are capable of making intelligent decisions about science and technology and also so that they will be employable in the emerging information-based economy. Prodded further by Cordes, he then explained that he would be leery of including laypeople in the peer review process that awards government research grants. (He fears that laypeople would be duped into funding impossible perpetual motion machines and the like.) But Walker continued: "If you're talking about making certain that science policy reflects a broader view, yes there may be a very good place to bring in people of diverse backgrounds to tell us what it is that is either going right or wrong in science. To have that kind of evaluation may be useful in some applications and that can be done." Walker also mentioned that this evaluation is to some extent a function that Congressmen--few of whom are technically expert-- already perform. Another audience member asked the Congressman his feelings about Republican proposals to abolish the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). Walker responded that OTA produces high quality material but--speaking with some vehemence--he said that it had not actually done much to help his work during 18 years as a U.S. congressman. In particular, it works too slowly--taking two or three years to produce a report when Congress often has to make decisions within a period of months. "At the very least," he said, "if OTA does survive it is going to have to be restructured in a way that makes it far more relevant to the legislative business." Within the context of the preceding exchanges, I then had a chance to tell Congressman Walker that I was heartened by his stated willingness to consider involving a wider range of people in R&D policymaking. I posed two more-specific follow-up questions: First, would he be willing to do better than the previous Democratic Congress in inviting representatives from a wider range of affected groups to testify before his own committee? As an example, I mentioned that during 1992 and 1993 hearings on a comprehensive proposed National Competitiveness Act, 120 witnesses were invited to testify before the House Science Committee. Among them there was not even one representative of an environmental group, defense conversion group, or a trade union or other worker organization. Walker apparently misunderstood my question, thinking that I was criticizing counterhearings that he had helped organize during that period to support an alternative competitiveness bill drafted by Republican minority members of the committee. Accordingly, he answered that he'd only invited a limited range of competitiveness-minded witnesses to his hearings because "the other guys' process"--i.e., the official, Democratic-controlled Science Committee hearings--"that's all they invited." I.e., the Democrats supposedly invited no one but environmentalists, workers, etc. I explained again that I wasn't criticizing him but the Democrats, who had actually invited no such representatives. "I would disagree with that," said Walker. Mentioning that I had read through the legislative hearing record, I reiterated that I knew for a fact that the Democrats had not invited _any_ such public-interest or worker representatives. Amidst a bit of audience laughter, Walker responded less defensively: "Sure. I am willing to get the broadest possible cross-section of people telling us what their views are on issues. I am attempting to do an outreach, and we've attempted to do that in the hearings we've had so far. You end up with a limited number of available slots, but I want to get broad-based views. Again, if you're going to look out twenty years, you'd better do it in the broadest possible context." I then followed-up on his earlier remarks concerning OTA. This time I mentioned that there are European processes for technology assessment (dubbed "consensus conferences") that are more participatory than what OTA does--thus keeping with his just-announced openness to broadened participation--and yet that yield sophisticated nuanced conclusions, while costing less and operating significantly more speedily than do OTA's current processes. (See Loka Alert 1-12, "Citizen-Based Technology Assessment?") Would he be interested in asking OTA to explore that type of process? Walker answered: "Well, if in fact what they can do is cut down the time frame and give us useful information, that would be something we'd be very interested in. Because that's my main concern about what OTA has been doing.... Cutting back the time is something that would be very useful." He then concluded his participation in the symposium, rushing back to the House floor to help pass several of the anti- environment provisions of the Contract With America. Do Walker's statements during the symposium mean that he will actually do anything? Quite possibly not (although, for what it's worth, he was speaking in a public forum and in the presence of a number of reporters). But maybe it's possible to help him along. Thus, I followed up with the letter appended to this alert. To help reassure Congressman Walker that indeed steps toward democratizing science and technology policymaking would be appreciated, please write a follow-up letter of your own (and invite others to do the same). To maximize his receptivity to the message, it might help to mention supportively the Republicans' efforts to open up government electronically with the "Thomas" on-line legislative service. Please also send a duplicate of your correspondence to Newt Gingrich. Cheers to all, Dick Sclove The appropriate addresses: The Hon. Robert S. Walker The Hon. Newt Gingrich Chairman Speaker of the House House Science Committee U.S. Congress 2320 Rayburn HOB Washington, DC 20515-1006 Washington, DC 20515-6301 Tel. (202) 225-4501 Tel. (202) 225-4275 Fax (202) 225-4656 Fax (202) 225-3170 ***************************************************************** The Loka Institute P.O. Box 355, Amherst, MA 01004, USA Richard E. Sclove, Ph.D. Tel. (413) 253-2828 Executive Director Fax (413) 253-4942 E-mail: loka@amherst.edu March 7, 1995 The Hon. Robert S. Walker Chairman House Science Committee 2320 Rayburn HOB Washington, DC 20515 Dear Congressman Walker, As one of your co-panelists, I want to thank you very much for participating in the annual meeting of the National Association for Science, Technology & Society (NASTS) on the evening of March 2, and especially for the time you took to entertain questions from the audience. I was particularly heartened by the response you gave to my questions, indicating that you are interested in broadening the range of witnesses who testify before your committee, including by inviting representatives of communities, workers, and public- interest groups who are affected by science and technology policy but not ordinarily consulted. That will be a most welcome departure from prior practices of the predecessor House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, and I am sure that it will be deeply appreciated by concerned citizens in many walks of life. As the Director of the Loka Institute's Technology & Democracy Project and as a member of the Interim Governing Council of the National Citizens' Forum on Science and Technology, I would be pleased to assist your committee's staff in identifying a range of responsible representatives from diverse affected groups. There are many such people who can offer illuminating testimony concerning the social implications of alternative science and technology policies. I was also pleased by the interest you expressed in learning whether European procedures for citizen-based technology assessments might be a mechanism that would allow the Office of Technology broadly participatory, economical, and timely fashion. Accordingly, I enclose a memo that I have written on that subject, adapted from my forthcoming book, _Democracy and Technology_ (Guilford Press, Summer 1995). The Office of Technology Assessment, in my judgment, does invaluable and irreplaceable work; thus I very much hope that Congress will not choose hastily to abolish it. But, as my memo indicates, there may indeed be mechanisms that would allow the OTA to cut some of its costs while, in certain respects, improving performance. Thank you again for participating in the NASTS symposium on "Democratizing R&D Policymaking." I look forward to working with you in pursuit of our common concern to ensure that science and technology best serve the interests of all Americans. Sincerely, Richard E. Sclove Executive Director The Loka Institute Encl.: "Citizen-Based Technology Assessment?" (Loka Alert 1-12) cc: Ed Andrews, _New York Times_ Bonnie Cassidy, _Science & Technology in Congress_ Gary Chapman, National Citizens Forum on Science & Technology Dan Charles, National Public Radio Colleen Cordes, _Chronicle of Higher Education_ Sandra Hackman, _Technology Review_ Roger Herdman, Office of Technology Assessment Wil Lepkowski, _Chemical & Engineering News_ Steven Levy, _Newsweek_ Neil Munro, _Washington Technology_ Boyce Rensberger, _Washington Post_ Wade Roush, _Science_ Prof. Rustum Roy, NASTS Michael Schrage, _Los Angeles Times_ ***************************************************************** Traffic on the Loka Institute e-mail list (Loka-L)--which distributes Loka Alerts as a one-way news-and-opinion distribution service--is intentionally kept low (an average of one message every 3 or 4 weeks), to protect overbusy people from unwanted clutter. To be added to, or removed from, the list, please send an e-mail message to that effect to: loka@amherst.edu To participate more actively in promoting a democratic politics of science and technology--or to communicate directly with others on the Loka list--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 is now a moderated discussion list, which protects subscribers from receiving posts inappropriate to the list's purpose. 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 decisionmaking. The project is made possible through the generosity of individual donors as well as grants from nonprofit foundations, including the Foundation for Deep Ecology, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Menemsha Fund, and Rockefeller Family Associates. For information on contributing--and contributions are essential to being able to continue this work--please contact Dick Sclove at the address shown at the top of this alert. There are currently 962 people and organizations worldwide on the Loka e-mail list (plus others reading via the Institute for Global Communications' electronic conference loka.alerts, via repostings to other electronic lists, and via authorized republication in various newsletters and magazines). My apologies for the multiple copies of this post that you received if you are subscribed to more than one of the Loka Institute lists.