From RESCLOVE@amherst.eduMon Jun 17 10:35:07 1996 Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 05:21:15 -0500 (EST) From: RESCLOVE@amherst.edu To: loka-l@amherst.edu Subject: DEMOCRATIZING SCIENCE ADVICE? (Loka Alert 3:3) Loka Alert 3:3 (March 29, 1996) 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. This article is reprinted from _The Chronicle of Higher Education_ (March 8, 1996, p. A26). Unlike previous Loka Alerts, we *cannot* welcome you to post it anywhere you feel is appropriate (see below for details). If you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Loka Institute's e-mail list, please send a message to: loka@amherst.edu --Dick Sclove Executive Director, The Loka Institute, P.O. Box 355, Amherst, MA 01004 Tel. (413) 253-2828; Fax (413) 253-4942 E-mail: resclove@amherst.edu World Wide Web http://www.amherst.edu/~loka ***************************************************************** DEMOCRATIZING SCIENCE ADVISORY PANELS? CONTENTS (1) Chronicle Article by Colleen Cordes............ (4 pages) (2) Loka Institute comments on Chronicle article... (1-1/2 pages) (2) About the Loka Institute (including Intern- ships, Summer Conference, & Updates)......... (1-1/2 pages) ***************************************************************** The enclosed article is not astonishingly insightful or provocative. But it does address one significant issue in the democratization of science and technology: Who gets a seat on national science and technology advisory panels? That an article on this topic even appeared in an influential, mainstream publication is noteworthy in these parched political times. The Loka Institute's extended family features prominently in the article. Among those quoted are Loka Advisory Board members Frank Emspak and Joe McCormick, Loka executive director Dick Sclove, and Loka/FASTnet member (and de facto advisor) Norm Vig. At the end of the article, I and other Loka staffers append a few further comments. Cheers to all, Dick Sclove ***************************************************************** CRITICS SAY MEMBERSHIP OF FEDERAL SCIENCE PANELS IS TOO NARROW By Colleen Cordes Washington, D.C. [Copyright (c) 1996 by The Chronicle of Higher Education. Posted with permission on the Loka List. You may print or save a copy of this story for your own use. All other uses, or posting elsewhere, requires permission from The Chronicle of Higher Education (editor@chronicle.merit.edu). Visit the Chronicle's ACADEME THIS WEEK at http://chronicle.merit.edu or by Gopher at chronicle.merit.edu. Or, if you are a subscriber to The Chronicle of Higher Education, visit ACADEME TODAY at http://chronicle.com.] At first glance, the lineup was impressive, The National Academies of Sciences and Engineering featured five eminent experts at a November press briefing to release a report to Congress about how best to distribute scarce federal dollars for science and technology. Critics, however, questioned not the depth but the breadth of the group. Like the full panel of 15 men and three women who wrote the report, the five white males at the briefing represented the scientists, institutions, and companies that receive federal research money, and the agencies that give it to them. Missing was anyone from the broader public that ultimately pays the bills--and experiences the often dramatic consequences of their work. "DEPTH OF EXPERIENCE" If scientists really want to build support for research spending, "it's important to make sure you have a good representation of the public" on topics of such sweeping significance, says Catherine J. Didion, executive director of the Association for Women in Science. Frank Press, former president of the science academy, led the panel on allocating federal money for science and technology. He defends its makeup and the members' "depth of experience and knowledge." In some cases, it is appropriate to include representatives of labor unions, environmental groups, or other public-interest organizations, but including such groups "in this kind of study isn't proper," says Mr. Press, now a fellow at Carnegie Institution. "His definition of proper is odd," counters Frank Emspak, an assistant professor and labor expert at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. "People with a direct self-interest are proper and the rest are improper?" FOCUS ON TECHNICAL ISSUES Mr. Emspak and other supporters of broader public consultation on policy decision say that by focusing on experts from academe, industry, and government, the academies' committee typified advisory groups on federal science-and-technology policy. Such a limitation, they complain, leads many of the panels to focus almost exclusively on technical and short-term economic issues, neglecting ethical and other social issues. Often, only the producers of new knowledge and technologies, or those with a direct, commercial interest, are heard from in deliberations about how to use them, says Richard E. Sclove, executive director of the Loka Institute, which represents scholars and others exploring ways to involve the pubic in such decisions. "Those who pay for it, which is essentially everybody, and those who are affected by it, which is basically everyone, are effectively not represented." Federal law does require agencies to try to achieve a "fairly balanced" membership on the advisory panels they appoint, in terms of "the points of view represented and the functions to be performed" by the group. But agencies rarely face legal challenges on that basis says James L. Dean, a General Services Administration official who monitors such groups. EUROPEAN EXPERIMENTS Some researchers and policy experts once hoped that the end of the Cold War would fuel much broader participation in science- and-technology policy. With small grants from the National Science Foundation and private philanthropies, they talked not only of broadening the membership of advisory groups, but also of developing new ways to expand the public's role. Experiments in Europe with "citizen consensus conferences" for example, seemed promising: Members of the general public come together to make recommendations on tough policy questions after receiving intense briefings from technical experts drawn from a wide range of interest groups. MORE DIVERSITY Policy experts say the Clinton Administration has brought more racial and gender diversity to many panels it has appointed. And they credit the Departments of Energy with progress in soliciting advice from the communities near its nuclear-weapons facilities in its efforts to clean up those sites. But policy researchers say official discussions of public policy in general are in danger of becoming more exclusive, not more inclusive. They cite the Following recent changes, resulting from budget cuts and politics. o Elimination of the Office of Technology Assessment, a Congressional agency that routinely brought together a wider range of interest groups than any other federal advisory group. o Elimination of the Agricultural Biotechnology Research Advisory Committee at the Department of Agriculture, which included an official of an environmental group and an ethicist in its diverse membership. Apparently a target of conservative Republicans, it was one of the few federal advisory groups that considered ethical concerns about new technologies. o Reduction in the number of federal agencies' advisory groups, which are a target for budget cuts by both the Administration and Congress. The number of advisory panels now totals about 971, down from about 1,200 in fiscal 1992. o Fewer Congressional hearings, which give outsiders the opportunity to testify on legislative issues before lawmakers take action. The House of Representatives' Science Committee, for example, sponsored 24 hearings in 1995, the first year of the 104th Congress, compared to the 93 it held under Democratic leadership in the first year of the previous Congress. o The addition of business officials to more federal advisory boards, without a corresponding increase in representation for other groups, such as rank-and-file workers, environmental groups, and public-interest groups. "NOBODY CARED" During much of the Cold War, when federal money flowed freely, researchers did not feel pressed to involve the broader public in deliberations about public policy on technical issues, some scientists say. They missed an opportunity to build a broad public constituency. "That would have been, or could be very helpful," says Diana Natalicio, president of the University of Texas at El Paso. Some researchers say the distance between scientists and engineers and the public is a big reason why no true outcry developed when the Republican Congress proposed cut in research and development. "When it came right down to it, nobody cared," says Norman J. Vig, a professor of political science at Carleton College. Ms. Natalicio, a member of the National Science Board, which sets policy for the National Science Foundation, opposes any notion of "designating slots for particular groups." However, she says, "the trend ought to be in the direction of broader representations of the stakeholders" on such policy boards. Because of the narrow focus of many advisory groups, they typically do a "terrible job" of including ethical perspectives in their deliberations, except on some major biomedical issues, says Mr. Vig. QUESTIONS OF VALUES Many agencies, and the scientists and engineers they seek out to advise them, avoid questions of values, fearing a breach in the wall between church and state, other critics say. These agencies often end up focusing almost entirely on technical issues, neglecting profound social and moral issues. This makes it harder for the public to assess the moral and ethical implication of many issues, and easier for policy makers to avoid weighing those implication, says Chris Feral, program officer for the African Wildlife Foundation. For example, Margaret Mellon, who directs the Union of Concerned Scientists' program on agriculture and biotechnology, says federal agencies, even when they include some consumers on panels, frame the question and interpret the answer in ways that focus on the technical issues. She points to the labeling of foods engineered to include genes from multiple species. Many consumers, she says, want to avoid such foods, because of ethical concerns about genetic engineering and other reasons besides safety. In seeking advice on whether to require labels for these foods, Ms. Mellon says, the Clinton Administration has "adopted a policy that allows for discussion of technical issues" related to food safety, "but not for ethical and social issues." THREE WOMEN ON PANEL Marye Anne Fox, vice-president for research at the University of Texas and vice-chairman of the National Science Board, was one of the three women who served on the academies' 18-member panel on federal money for science and technology. One of the other two--the only African-American of either gender-- resigned before the report was issued because she had taken a new government position. Ms. Fox and the third female member were invited to the press conference, as was the one Hispanic on the panel, but they could not attend. Ms. Fox says membership on advisory groups has been broadened in recent years, and she favors that. But she adds that the groups often include only a few women and members of minority groups, because they are still underrepresented in many fields, "I've seen some of my white male colleagues represent the interest of minorities better than some of my black female colleagues," she adds. "WISE PERSONS" It's more important to have "wise persons" with the necessary technical expertise and broad social experience than to try to check off members of every possible interest group in forming advisory groups, Ms. Fox says. For example, she suggests, top corporate officials have to be experts on labor- management relations, so they are able to represent labor's perspective in committee discussions. Panels "would become outrageously large and unproductive" if every interest group was personally represented, she argues. Gerald Holton, a professor of the history of science and of physics at Harvard University, is concerned about how members of the public might be chosen for advisory panels. To go beyond their preconception to "considered judgments," he says, they would need a great deal of education about the important technical issues before them. Joseph P. McCormick II, an associate professor of political science at Howard University, predicts the resurrection of more broadly constituted advisory groups, like the Office of Technology Assessment. Many "concerned, knowledgeable people," he says, are increasingly aware of the "insufficient opportunities for lay-people and concerned experts to express their points of view." He adds: "I am not pessimistic because I know there are people out there who remain concerned about the ethical and social implications of technology." ***************************************************************** Dick Sclove comments: --It is predictable that Frank Press, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, wouldn't think it "proper" to include public-interest or worker representatives on a top-level advisory panel concerned with allocating federal R&D dollars. His position might even make some sense...*if* one believed that science and technology can only evolve along a single, predetermined linear path, and that any "forward" motion along that single path is unequivocally beneficial to society. But suppose real choices are at stake. That is, suppose science and technology can develop along pathways A1, A2, A3, etc. under policy regime A; or instead along very different pathways B1, B2, B3, etc.--producing quite different societal results--under policy regime B. The overwhelming bulk of contemporary scholarship supports the multiple pathways model. From this perspective, Press's stance seems indefensibly backward and antidemocratic. --Marye Anne Fox notes that: "I've seen some of my white male colleagues represent the interest of minorities better than some of my black female colleagues." I happen to agree that you have to watch out for crude versions of identity politics. E.g., the purpose behind broadened representation can easily be thwarted by choosing women/people of color who have "made it" and comfortably accommodated themselves to the status quo. But isn't the important task to involve authentic voices representing diverse human experiences and concerns--e.g., not so much the views of anyone whose skin happens to be dark, but someone who has _lived_, and knows in her/his bones, the experience of deep poverty or severe racial or gender discrimination? --As to Dr. Fox's further claim that "top corporate officials have to be experts on labor-management relations, so they are able to represent labor's perspective in committee discussions": Sure, tell that to the last 40,000 employees let go by Wall Street darling AT&T. "Calling Dr. Fox: This is Planet Earth beaming in for a reality check." Loka Institute intern Dug North comments: --The article states that "federal law does require agencies to try to achieve a 'fairly balanced' membership on the advisory panels they appoint, in terms of 'the points of view represented....'" I would argue that, to some degree, this is impossible if panels consist only of experts--even if they are experts in different fields. The culture of expertise demands that each expert view problems (and, subsequently, solutions) from his or her own narrow disciplinary perspective. This is one reason why both problems and solution are perceived to be technical issues alone. Perhaps various kinds of social and ethical experts would help, but I think this solution is still "second-best." --People affected by policy decisions should have the opportunity to participate, at least some of the time. This does not mean that every interest group must be involved in every panel. It means that various groups should have some way to get involved in those decisions that affect them. We need to exploit the potential intelligence of democracy if we are to make sensible decisions about science and technology. Loka Institute staffer Madeleine Scammell comments: --The article focuses on involving the public in the decisions of federal advisory boards and agencies. I'd like to point out that the same questions apply also at the local, state and regional levels. When federal agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health, require "community representatives" on their local advisory boards, the selection of representatives often leaves room for interpretation. Is a community member meant to represent the overall interests of the community, seeking where appropriate the views of other community members, environmental organizations and health organizations, as well as actively informing the community of the advisory board's work? Or is such a representative simply supposed to comment on procedure, leaving substantive judgment in the hands of the "expert" board members? I once interviewed a community representative for a university Institutional Biosafety Committee who said that the local community is powerless in decisions about what research is pursued at the university. The only possible way to affect a decision, he said, is through Congress. But when many of the issues confronting communities around biotechnology have yet to be addressed at the national level, the role of community representatives could, in principle, be of significant import at the local level. As Margaret Mellon said in the Chronicle article, policy deliberations often allow for the discussion of technical issues but not for ethical and social issues. Indeed, a good number of the difficulties in developing policies lie in deciding among many people with differing ethical thresholds, what is appropriate and inappropriate. Is the answer to forgo these concerns for the sake of seemingly technical absolutes and hope someone else takes care of the rest? I hope not. ***************************************************************** ABOUT THE LOKA INSTITUTE TO FIND OUT MORE about the Loka Institute or to help, visit our Web page (http://www.amherst.edu/~loka) or contact us via e-mail at loka@amherst.edu For information on obtaining Loka founder Richard Sclove's new book, _DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY_, contact your local bookseller or Guilford Press (in the U.S. tel. toll free 800-365-7006; or from anywhere e-mail: info@guilford.com): "Mr. Sclove is refreshing in the way he rejects ideas so nearly universally held that most people have never thought to question them." -- New York Times Book Review INTERNSHIPS: The Loka Institute may be able to take on an additional intern for the summer or fall of 1996. We are a small nonprofit organization, and the activities interns are involved in vary from research assistance and writing to assisting in organizing conferences, fundraising, managing our Internet lists, Web page updates, helping with clerical and other office work, etc. If you are interested in working with us to promote democratic politics of science and technology, please send a hard copy resume along with a succinct letter explaining your interest to: The Loka Institute, P.O. Box 355, Amherst, MA 01004, USA. PROJECT UPDATE: The Loka Institute's initiative to develop a National Community Research Network (NCRN)--discussed in Loka Alert 3:1--has just received a wonderful boost. Two programs at the University of Massachusetts (the statewide Extension Service and the Program on Science, Technology & Society) have jointly agreed to support a planning conference for this initiative. We will be inviting in members of Loka's NCRN advisory board, plus some additional grassroots representatives. TO PARTICIPATE IN SETTING THE AGENDA FOR THE CONFERENCE AND SHAPING THE DIALOGUE, please subscribe to our community research listserv: send e-mail to with a blank subject line and "subscribe scishops (your name)" as the message text. FUNDRAISING UPDATE: The Loka Institute's 1995 year-end appeal has so far generated over $23,000 in contributions. (Individual contributions have ranged from $10,000 to $10, and we are grateful for every single one.) We are also pleased to report 1996 grant awards to date from C.S. Fund, the Menemsha Fund, plus one anonymous foundation. Thanks to one and all! TO HELP KEEP LOKA'S WORK ALIVE AND THRIVING, please write a check drawn in U.S. dollars to "Proteus/Loka" and mail it to the Loka Institute, P.O. Box 355, Amherst, MA 01004, USA. We have an ambitious action agenda, but we can't possibly implement it without a larger and more stable funding base. Contributions are tax-deductible on U.S. tax returns. For further information on contributing, contact us at Loka@amherst.edu or via the address and phone number at the top of this Alert. 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 per month), 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, please join the Federation of Activists on Science & Technology Network (FASTnet). Just send an e-mail message to with a blank subject line and "subscribe FASTnet" as the message text. 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. ####