Informing Congress: A Return of the OTA?

In the midst of this summer's rancorous US House of Representatives debate over the legality of cloning, an exasperated Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) complained, "Mr. Speaker, we really should not be debating this at all. None of us is equipped to do so. We simply do not know enough." Rep. Peter Deutsch (D-Fla.) agreed. "In my nine years in this chamber, this is the least informed collectively that the 435 members of this body have ever been on any issue." In the end, the July 31, 265-162 vote wasn't even close: no cloning of human cells for any purpose.1 Michael West, president and CEO of Advanced Cell Technology Inc., a small biotech company in Worcester, Mass., that uses cloning techniques to develop therapies, told the New York Times that the debate was "two hours of rampant misinformation."2 Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.), one of two physicists in Congress, believes the cloning experience highlights the need for better scientific and technical information on Capitol Hill. He has introduced legislation (HR 2148) to bring back the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), a congressional entity that had provided legislators with information and reports on a variety of scientific and technical topics for more than 20 years. Until it was disbanded in 1995, a victim of politics and budget cuts, OTA employed some 200 staffers and published up to 55 reports per year, some book-length, and had another 30 to 60 projects in progress. OTA's work "ran the gamut of subject matter, with approaches tailored for each topic and congressional request," wrote Rep. Amo Houghton (R-N.Y.), "in memoriam" in 1995. "The agency took on controversial subjects, examining them objectively and comprehensively. It helped us to better understand complex technical issues." Courtesy of Henry C. KellyHenry C. Kelly For the cloning debate, OTA would have been in a good position "to at least frame the issues in ways that political people could grasp and help them make up their minds in an intelligent way," says Henry C. Kelly, president of the Federation of American Scientists and former assistant director for technology of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy during the Clinton administration. Adds Holt, "If there had been an OTA a year ago, they probably would have undertaken a study on this subject and we would have had a much better informed debate." With legislators increasingly confronted with complex science and technology issues, the question of how they obtain nonpartisan information and guidance is particularly vexing. When Congress was wrestling with whether the federal government should fund research on human embryonic stem cells, Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, an outspoken abortion opponent, consulted two friends at the University of Utah, a pediatrician and a cancer researcher. Their advice helped convince him to support the research, much to the dismay of some of the senator's Republican colleagues. This kind of ad hoc scientific information gathering is typical, Kelly says. Legislators "are getting tired of having to phone experts in universities or getting people on the phone at the last minute. They want some group of technical people they can rely on." Since OTA's demise, Hill members increasingly have been consulting the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and the General Accounting Office (GAO), two congressional organizations that do research for legislators and committee staff. Other organizations tasked for expert information include the National Academy of Sciences complex, including the National Research Council (NRC), the Institute of Medicine (IOM), and the National Academy of Engineering (NAE). Chartered by Congress, they are quasi-governmental, independent, nonprofit organizations that advise the federal government on matters of science and technology. The CRS, GAO, and the NAS complex do not have the resources to respond effectively to increased demands from Congress, says Kelly. Since OTA disbanded, the academies have increasingly written more studies for Congress, says Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.), a cosponsor of the OTA bill and the other physicist in Congress. "Congress has turned to the academies and the NRC for their long-term answers. The quality of the work that is being done is at least as good as OTA did, and may even be better," he says. "It's the short-term questions that are still not being dealt with." OTA Origins The Nixon administration established the OTA in 1972 to provide Congress with objective, high-caliber scientific information. To ensure nonpartisanship, an equal number of Democrats and Republicans comprised the Technology Assessment Board, which oversaw the OTA. The bulk of OTA's work centered on comprehensive assessments that took one to two years to complete. The reports were clearly written and filled with charts and graphs. Of the 200 staff members, about two-thirds were professional researchers. Nearly all of them (88 percent) had advanced degrees, with 58 percent having PhDs, primarily in the physical, life, and social sciences, economics, and engineering. OTA also contracted with outside organizations and individuals for specific research requests. OTA reports figured prominently in such high-profile congressional debates as the Energy Security Act, Superfund legislation, the Clean Air Act, and many others. The studies ranged broadly, from acid rain to dismantling nuclear weapons, from the Strategic Defense Initiative to police body armor. "OTA brought science into the center of many congressional discussions," Houghton wrote. But in 1995, Republican senators and members of Congress, eager to cut federal spending, saw OTA's $21 million budget as expendable. Some congressional critics argued that the OTA reports took too long to prepare and often were delivered after the legislative debate had ended. Others complained that OTA's reports had become politicized. Today, Holt characterizes those criticisms as "misinformation" and "empty charges." The reports were usually completed within time to be policy-relevant, he maintains, and "they bent over backwards to make sure the panels of outside experts they brought in were not politically biased and the reports themselves cannot be called politically partisan." The Hope for OTA Holt's bill would fund OTA at $20 million annually through fiscal year 2007. Cosponsors include Houghton and House Science Committee chairman Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.). Ehlers, widely respected in Congress for his scientific background, says he signed on reluctantly because he's "a little pessimistic" about its chances for success. "OTA was killed for a reason and the same party that was responsible for killing it is still in power," he says. "I don't think you're likely to have success in trying to convince them that they made a mistake and ought to reverse their actions." While an organization like OTA is needed, supporters would be better off first determining the best alternate structure and only then seeking legislation to implement it, Ehlers says. Kelly thinks re-establishing OTA is best. "But if the politics of this make it difficult--and there's no question it will be difficult--what's a good second-best solution?" he wonders. Despite this, Holt plans to aggressively push his bill now that Congress has reconvened. "Most members of Congress will say they do need some expert help and many of them have not focused on the question of how to get it. So I will try to direct their attention that way." Archived OTA reports and other background information can be viewed at www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota The key to successful OTA-type legislation, Ehlers says, is to meet the needs for long-range, thoughtful research as well as provide short-term responses to issues that are immediate. "And if we can do that, we might be able to pick up enough votes to do something." There is "a fair amount of enthusiasm for anyone who has a better idea," Kelly adds. "It's quite bipartisan, too. There's a crying need for some good ideas here." Ted Agres (tagres@usa.net) is a freelance writer in Washington, D.C. References 1. T. Agres, "Cloning capsized?" The Scientist 15[16]:1, Aug. 20, 2001. 2. S.G. Stolberg, "House backs ban on human cloning for any objective," The New York Times, Aug. 1, 2001, page A1.

Informing Congress: A Return of the OTA?

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of