Professors want Congress to get good science advice

President George Bush delivered a nationally televised speech in August 2001 in which he declared his decision on the issue of human cloning: federally-funded research would be limited to existing embryonic stem cell lines, which are used to reproduce human cells. Bush also entreated the Senate to approve a ban on human cloning that had passed in the House of Representatives. Within Congress there was a great deal of debate, but much of it centered around politicians’ personal beliefs rather than facts.

M. Granger Morgan, head of Carnegie Mellon’s engineering and public policy (EPP) program, and Jon Peha, a professor in EPP and electrical and computing engineering, think that Congress has been left without a reliable source of information on science and technology issues. Last month, Morgan and Peha presented copies of their book Science and Technology Advice for Congress to all members of the Senate and House. The book explains the lack of unbiased advice available to Congress, and presents some possible solutions.

Congress addresses many complicated technological and scientific issues each year. Congressional members often consult experts in a relevant field, or one of several advising organizations, but unbiased opinions are difficult to obtain.

According to Morgan, on issues like cloning, many parties have potential biases in giving advice to Congress — for example, scientists at biotech companies may have a vested interest in promoting cloning because they stand to profit.

Congress used to have an advising organization, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), which was known for providing well-researched advice that presented all sides of an issue.

But the OTA was abolished in 1995 when Congress voted to cut the group’s $20 million budget in an effort to reduce spending.

Morgan and Peha, along with other supporters, say that the advising organizations Congress consults, such as the National Academies of Science (NAS) and the General Accounting Office (GAO), do not provide the comprehensive analysis that the OTA did.

“When OTA ended, it left quite a gap,” said Morgan. The OTA provided long-range analysis of broad technology and scientific policy issues, and produced reports that were often over 100 pages long and offered a number of different policy options for legislators. The other advising organizations often provide only one policy recommendation. Morgan and Peha urge that Congress fill the void left by the OTA.

But it may be a while before Congress is motivated to implement any changes. “A fair number of members are perfectly happy to make a decision without any technical information,” said Morgan.

And some in Congress believe that the advice from other organizations is adequate. “It can be difficult to find unbiased advice, but [the NAS and the GAO] have a good reputation for objective input,” wrote Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) in an e-mail to The Tartan.

However, a small contingent in Congress is committed to developing a solution. Possible solutions include resurrecting the old OTA under a different name or distributing Congressional research to a variety of different organizations.

“Congress faces complex issues involving science and technology every day and we need better institutional arrangements to obtain careful, balanced advice on these issues,” wrote Congressman Amo Houghton (R-N.Y.) in a statement this September.

Both Morgan and Peha feel that input from voters will help spur progress towards instituting an advising organization for science and technology.

“If members of Congress understand that voters care about this, that would help a lot,” said Peha.