Restoring the Office of Technology Assessment
What's an OTA? Why does Congress need one?
Congress faces many complicated problems, everything from addressing the challenge of global warming to protecting our food supply and strengthening our infrastructure. For more than two decades, Congress could turn to the OTA, short for Office of Technology Assessment, for unbiased, objective scientific advice. Unfortunately, funding for OTA was cut in 1995. As Representative Amo Houghton (R-NY), a supporter of OTA said, "We are cutting off one of the most important arms of Congress when we cut off unbiased knowledge about science and technology."
How OTA Worked
Established in 1972 during the Nixon Administration, the OTA was governed by a board composed of 12 members of Congress, half from the Senate and half from the House, its membership equally divided between Republicans and Democrats. The board’s primary responsibilities were to appoint the agency's director and to initiate and disseminate its reports.
What OTA Accomplished
OTA staff performed many tasks to educate and inform Congress, from testifying before Congressional committees to weighing in on draft legislation. But the core work of OTA was publishing reports. During its 24 years of operation, OTA produced about 750 studies on topics ranging from Alzheimer’s to acid rain.
Representative Rush Holt (D-NJ), one of OTA's biggest congressional supporters, has worked for years to restore OTA to government. Speaking in June 2009, Holt contended: "Stopping OTA’s functioning was a stupendous act of false economy. We have not gotten the equivalent, useful, relevant work—not from think tanks, not from interest groups, not from our universities and not from our friends back home." Henry Kelly, a former president of the Federation of American Scientists, who was on the OTA staff, termed Congress' defunding of the agency "the equivalent of a self-imposed lobotomy."
Here are just a few examples of the impact OTA reports had to eliminate wasteful spending and shape policies that remain strong and successful today:
- "Losing a Million Minds," a 1987 OTA report on Alzheimer's, is still widely used and referenced today.
- A 1984 report that questioned the accuracy of polygraph tests led to the 1988 passage of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act, which limits the ability of employers to use polygraphs to screen personnel.
- A report on the use of genetic testing in the workplace laid the groundwork for the Genetic Nondiscrimination Act. In the book "Genetic Witness," the importance of the OTA report is made clear; "more than any other single document or report, it captured the controversy that was brewing over who possessed the authority and expertise to regulate DNA profiling."
- Congressional intervention informed by a 1994 report examining the merits of a proposed Social Security Administration plan to spend $1 billon on new computer equipment saved taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
Can't GAO or CRS Fill The Vacuum?
OTA provided a unique advisory role that hasn't completely been replaced by other research entities. Where the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) provides specific recommendations on technical issues, OTA provided Congress with a full scientific analysis of policy options under their consideration. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) and Government Accountability Office (GAO) provide analysis of policy options, but they do not have the technical expertise to provide a full scientific review. OTA's reports did not make specific policy recommendations. Rather, they explained the advantages and disadvantages of a range of policy options in language understood by Congress.
OTA built credibility by taking strides to ensure that their reports were not just accurate, but also balanced and free from political influence. Major OTA studies were guided and reviewed by expert advisory panels. The panels guided and informed the research while reflecting the views of various stakeholders. According to Granger Morgan, chairman of the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University, "OTA did some things very well, and one of the things it did was to make sure every stakeholder on a particular issue was heard. The range of political issues were represented, but in a way that was bipartisan and neutral."
Can We Bring Back the OTA?
There is a simple solution to bringing back the OTA: Congress has to fund it again. The office itself was not abolished, just deprived of resources. In 2009 Representative Holt and others attempted to bring back the OTA by restoring its funding in the FY10 Legislative Branch appropriations bill, but the effort was not successful. Holt's office notes that adjusted for inflation, the OTA's 1995 annual budget of $23 million would be about $40 million today, a very small sliver of the total federal budget.
Why Should We Care?
Billions of tax dollars are at stake when Congress enacts laws. The OTA has a proven track record of giving unbiased and objective advice in a format that truthfully represented divergent views and help members of Congress understand the ramifications of their policy decisions.
When Congress was struggling with issues as diverse as the search for weapons of mass destruction to the appropriate regulation of stem cell research and how to best manage those science agencies crucial to national security, the OTA was not available to help lawmakers to come up with the best and most cost-effective solutions.
As Representative Holt likes to say, the OTA is not for the benefit of scientists, but the benefit of the public. Re-investing in OTA can once again ensure that Congress has a reliable source of unbiased advice on our increasingly complicated world and our complex problems.
