{"id":1266,"date":"2020-09-01T11:37:03","date_gmt":"2020-09-01T15:37:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.ams.org\/capitalcurrents\/?p=1266"},"modified":"2020-09-01T14:29:43","modified_gmt":"2020-09-01T18:29:43","slug":"our-first-branch-of-government-needs-science-too","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ams.org\/capitalcurrents\/2020\/09\/01\/our-first-branch-of-government-needs-science-too\/","title":{"rendered":"Our First Branch of Government Needs Science Too"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

 <\/p>\n

Editor\u2019s Note: Lucia Simonelli just completed her year as the AMS Congressional Fellow. She served in the office of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, and focused her work there on his climate agenda. She received her Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of Maryland-College Park and, prior to her year in Congress, had been a postdoctoral fellow in the mathematics section at the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP) in Trieste, Italy.\u00a0 Lucia is now a Senior Policy Fellow at Carbon180<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

When we think of science expertise in government we often think of the NSF, NIH, CDC, or even national laboratories<\/a>. We are reasonably aware of the structure, function, funding, reputation, and even scrutiny of many of these executive branch entities. However, we hear much less about the status of the scientific, technical, and medical expertise available to Congress, and consequently, these resources have been especially vulnerable to cuts and dissolution.<\/p>\n

I begin with some historical context. Twenty-five years ago, Congress was a rather different place. There were significantly more<\/a> Congressional staff, especially in committees<\/a>. There were also substantially more staff serving in the Congressional support agencies<\/a>; these support agencies are essential to the health and function of the legislative branch as they provide neutral, confidential, and credible resources to Congressional members and staff. Congress even had its own \u201cthink tank\u201d called the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) with a mission and capacity to anticipate the scientific, technological, and medical issues that would eventually necessitate policy action.<\/p>\n

During this time, circa 1995, under the guise of an initiative called \u201cContract with America,\u201d Congress was stripped of many of these vital resources. Staff was cut, and the OTA was entirely defunded. Targeting the OTA specifically was political. It was the smallest of the Congressional support agencies, so it was the easiest to eliminate (the budget of the OTA was less than 1% of the legislative branch budget).\u00a0 It was a very powerful symbol to cite the elimination of an entire<\/em> agency.\u00a0 In addition, particular results of the OTA\u2019s thorough and comprehensive assessments were perceived to be at odds with certain political agendas.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

It is difficult enough for Congress to come together and effectively act in the wake of a crisis \u2013 take for example the turbulence of the past few months. But what has become painstakingly clear is that in the context of certain crises, reactionary politics are not adequate; we must be well-positioned to act before.\u00a0 And currently, Congress is not equipped with adequate resources to craft the forward-thinking policies that many issues do and will require.<\/p>\n

One of the primary functions of the OTA was to craft \u201chorizon scanning\u201d reports which included the most cutting-edge findings available, compiled in a form readily utilizable by Congress. In addition, while not ever making policy recommendations, these reports provided comprehensive analyses of the policy options and the implications of these options through a transparent process open even to stakeholders. These public and peer-reviewed reports laid the foundation for many key pieces of legislation and remain highly regarded among experts in various technical fields. Princeton University has preserved an archive of these reports<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Imagine if Congress had these thorough, bipartisan resources for pandemics on hand a few months ago – there would certainly have been a report, if not multiple reports, on pandemics and pandemic responses after the outbreaks of Ebola, SARS, Zika, etc. The reality is that we are facing an increasing number of issues that can only be dealt with successfully by anticipation, not reaction: climate change, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and quantum computing, to name a few.<\/p>\n

In addition, OTA was Congress\u2019s trusted intermediary, taking information, restricting it to fact-based arguments, and presenting it accordingly. The staff at OTA, and the network of experts created through the production of each report, served as invaluable, nonpartisan, consultative resources to Congress. OTA staff was often integrated directly with Congressional staff, and they were available to serve as in-house experts.<\/p>\n

The vacuum of expertise left by defunding the OTA and cutting staff and capacities of other agencies, specifically in science, technology and medicine, has forced Congress to obtain its information externally. Increasingly, Congress has relied on outside stakeholders for expert advice and information. While stakeholders\u2019 perspectives are invaluable, special interest and bias inevitably accompany these sources. Congress also now heavily relies on executive branch agencies \u2013 the very agencies for which Congress is tasked to provide oversight.\u00a0 Consequently, cuts to the legislative branch have not made government smaller or less powerful, they have instead disproportionately allocated power.<\/p>\n

\u201cFailing to augment Congress\u2019 technological expertise also ensures the preferences of executive branch agencies and private interests hold the greatest sway in technology policy decisions, to the detriment of the public interest. To address this, Congress needs to bring back its nerds.\u201d[1]<\/strong><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

There is a glimmer of hope as momentum grows to increase science and technology resources for Congress. Bipartisan bills have been introduced in both the House<\/a> and Senate<\/a> to revive a modernized version of the OTA, accompanied by appropriations requests<\/a> from a growing cast of Members to refund the OTA and to increase science and technology capacity in currently operating agencies, e.g., the creation<\/a> of the Science, Technology Assessment, and Analytics (STAA) team within the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Andrew Yang even included reviving the OTA as part of his 2020 presidential campaign platform<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Various fellowship and rotator programs have been developed to place experts from academia, industry, or executive branch entities in Congress. Examples include the AMS Congressional Fellowship<\/a> and the TechCongress Fellowship<\/a>.<\/p>\n

While it is vital to advocate for increased and continued support for science in the executive branch, it is essential that we also push for Congress, the first branch of government, to have the expertise necessary to properly and effectively carry out its constitutional functions.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> Zach Graves, Kevin Kosar: Bring Back the Nerds: Reviving the Office of Technology Assessment (R Street) http:\/\/2o9ub0417chl2lg6m43em6psi2i.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/Final-128.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

  Editor\u2019s Note: Lucia Simonelli just completed her year as the AMS Congressional Fellow. She served in the office of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, and focused her work there on his climate agenda. She received her Ph.D. in mathematics from the … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

<\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":123,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1266","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p8sfLS-kq","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ams.org\/capitalcurrents\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1266","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ams.org\/capitalcurrents\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ams.org\/capitalcurrents\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ams.org\/capitalcurrents\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/123"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ams.org\/capitalcurrents\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1266"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ams.org\/capitalcurrents\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1266\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1272,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ams.org\/capitalcurrents\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1266\/revisions\/1272"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ams.org\/capitalcurrents\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1266"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ams.org\/capitalcurrents\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1266"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ams.org\/capitalcurrents\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1266"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}