ȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱ
ȱ
ȱǯȱȱ
ȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ¢ȱ
¢ȱŘŝǰȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱȱȱ
ŝȬśŝŖŖȱ
ǯǯȱ
řŚŚśŚȱ
ȱȱȱ
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
ȱ
¢ȱ
Scientific and technical knowledge and guidance influences not just policy related to science and
technology, but also many of today’s public policies as policymakers seek knowledge to enhance
the quality of their decisions. Science and technology policy is concerned with the allocation of
resources for and encouragement of scientific and engineering research and development, the use
of scientific and technical knowledge to enhance the nation’s response to societal challenges, and
the education of Americans in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
Science and engineering research and innovations are intricately linked to societal needs and the
nation’s economy in areas such as transportation, communication, agriculture, education,
environment, health, defense, and jobs. As a result, policymakers are interested in almost every
aspect of science and technology policy. The three branches of government—executive,
congressional, and judiciary—depending on each branch’s responsibility, use science and
technology knowledge and guidance to frame policy issues, craft legislation, and govern.
The science and engineering community, however, is not represented by one individual or
organization. On matters of scientific and technical knowledge and guidance, its opinions are
consensus-based with groups of scientists and engineers coming together from different
perspectives to debate an issue based on the available empirical evidence. In the end, consensus is
achieved if there is widespread agreement on the evidence and its implications, which is
conveyed to policymakers. Policymakers then determine, based on this knowledge and other
factors, whether or not to take action and what actions to take. If there are major disagreements
within large portions of the community, however, consensus is not yet achieved, and taking policy
actions in response to a concern can be challenging.
Several organizations, when requested by the federal government or Congress, provide formal
science and technology policy advice: federal advisory committees, congressionally chartered
honorific organizations, and federally funded research and development corporations. In addition,
many other organizations and individuals—international intergovernmental organizations, policy
institutes/think tanks, the public, professional organizations, disciplinary societies, universities
and colleges, advocacy, special interest, industry, trade associations, and labor—also provide their
thoughts. These organizations may agree on the scientific and technical knowledge regarding an
issue, but disagree on what actions to take in response, as their values on a proposed policy may
differ. Policymakers may be overwhelmed with an abundance of information from these
organizations.
Despite these challenges, scientific and technical knowledge and guidance can provide
policymakers with an opportunity to make their decisions based on the best information available,
along with other factors they might take into account, such as cultural, economic, and other
values, so that societal and economic benefits are enhanced and losses are mitigated.
ȱȱȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱ
Overview of U.S. Science and Technology Policy.......................................................................... 1
Science and Technology Policy Facets ..................................................................................... 2
Historical Changes in U.S. Science and Technology Policy ..................................................... 4
Definition of Research and Development ................................................................................. 6
Industries Linked to Science and Technology........................................................................... 6
What are Some Perspectives on Science and Technology Policy?.................................................. 7
Science and Technology Community and Policymakers .......................................................... 7
Federal Funding of Research .................................................................................................... 9
Policy for Science and Science for Policy .............................................................................. 10
Policy for Technology and Technology for Policy.................................................................. 10
Who Makes Decisions Regarding Science and Technology Policy in Congress? ........................ 14
Committees ............................................................................................................................. 15
Caucuses.................................................................................................................................. 16
Who Makes Decisions Regarding Science and Technology Policy in the Executive
Branch?....................................................................................................................................... 18
The President and the White House ........................................................................................ 18
Office of Science and Technology Policy ......................................................................... 18
Office of Management and Budget ................................................................................... 21
Other White House Science and Technology Policy Related Offices............................... 22
Agency Leadership.................................................................................................................. 22
Federal Agencies ..................................................................................................................... 23
Who Makes Decisions in the Judicial Branch Regarding Science and Technology Policy?......... 24
What Organizations Provide Science and Technology Advice to Policymakers? ......................... 26
Federal Advisory Committees................................................................................................. 27
Congressionally Chartered Honorific Organizations .............................................................. 29
Federally Funded Research and Development Corporations (FFRDCs) ................................ 30
International Intergovernmental Organizations....................................................................... 30
Other Sources of Advice ......................................................................................................... 31
Policy Institutes................................................................................................................. 31
Public and Individual Opinion Leaders ............................................................................ 32
Professional Organizations and Disciplinary Societies..................................................... 32
Universities and Colleges ................................................................................................. 34
Advocacy, Special Interest, or Action Groups .................................................................. 34
Industry and Trade Associations ....................................................................................... 35
Labor................................................................................................................................. 35
What are the Opportunities and Challenges of the Current Science and Technology Policy
Decisionmaking Process?........................................................................................................... 36
ȱ
Figure 1. Projected Federal Obligations for Research and Development, by Agency and
Character of Work: FY2007 ......................................................................................................... 9
ȱȱȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
ȱ
Figure 2. Major Alternative Perspectives in the Scientific and Technology Community on
the Allocation of Resources for Research ...................................................................................11
Figure 3. One Perspective on the Relationship of Federal Investment to Innovation ................... 12
Figure 4. Pasteur’s Quadrant Model of Science and Engineering Research ................................. 13
Figure 5. Organizations and Individuals Who Influence Science and Technology Policy
Decisionmaking.......................................................................................................................... 27
ȱ
Table 1. The Relationship Between Science and Technology and Policymaking ......................... 3
Table 2. Federal Science and Technology Policy-Related Advisory Committee Categories ........ 28
ȱ
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 38
ȱȱȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
ȱ
cientific and technical knowledge and guidance influences many of today’s public policies.
The following definition is used by some science and technology policy analysts as a
S cornerstone of thinking about science and technology (S&T) policy decisionmaking:
[Science and technology policy] is concerned with the allocation of resources for scientific
research and technical development. It includes government encouragement of science and
technology as the roots of strategy for industrial development and in economic growth; but it
also includes the use of science in connection with problems of the public sector. Because of
the close association of basic research with higher education, this aspect of science [and
technology] policy is difficult to separate from overall educational policy and from
[scientific and] technical [workforce] policy.1
Because science and technical knowledge and guidance influences public policy decisionmaking
on many other issues, some think that science and technology policy does not need to be a
separate field of inquiry.2 Others, however, view S&T policy as different from other public policy
issue areas. These differences include the rapidity of change in science and technology; novelty of
many issues in science and technology; scale, complexity, and interdependence among
technologies; irreversibility of many scientific and technological effects; public worries about real
or imagined threats to human health and safety; and the challenges to deeply held social values.3
This report will provide a basic understanding of science and technology policy including the
nature of S&T policy, how scientific and technical knowledge is useful for public policy
decisionmaking, and an overview of the key stakeholders in science and technology policy. Note
that the report places a greater emphasis on the executive branch science and technology
policymaking as the federal government supports public policy decisionmaking as well as
performing and funding research and development.
ȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ¢ȱ¢ȱ
The nation’s first formal science and technology policy decision may well have been in the U.S.
Constitution itself in 1787, when the Congress was given power
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to
Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.4
At the request of President Washington, Congress passed its first science and technology policy-
related act, regarding patents, in 1790.5 These actions led to today’s Patent and Trademark Office
(PTO).
1 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development , Science, Growth, and Society: A New Perspective, Report
of the Secretary-General’s Ad Hoc Group on New Concepts of Science Policy. (Paris: Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD), 1971), pp. 37-38. This report is called the “Brooks report” for the chair of the
committee that developed the report, Harvey Brooks, then a well-known S&T policy scholar at Harvard University.
2 Ibid.
3 Guild K. Nichols, Technology on Trial: Public Participation in Decisionmaking Related to Science and Technology,
(Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 1979). The OECD analysis was based on a
survey of developed nations.
4 U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8.
5 Jeffrey K. Stine, A History of Science Policy in the United States, 1940-1985 , Report for the House Committee on
(continued...)
ȱȱȱ
ŗȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
ȱ
The Constitution also identified the utility of scientific and technical policy guidance in the sense
of congressional power “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix
the Standard of Weights and Measures.”6 This is the origin of today’s National Institutes of
Standards and Technology (NIST). In addition, the Constitution stated that “No Capitation, or
other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in the Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein
before directed to be taken.”7 This is the origin of today’s U.S. Census Bureau.
Other constitutional propositions,8 not enacted, included the power of Congress to establish a
university and seminaries for the promotion of the sciences, and encourage “by premiums &
provisions, the advancement of useful knowledge and discoveries.”9 Advancement of science was
also used as part of the justification for freedom of speech.10
Prior to the Constitution, Congress requested a geological survey in the Land Ordinance of 1785
to classify lands west of the Allegheny mountains that had become a source of contention in
writing the Articles of Confederation—the precursor of today’s U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢ȱȱ
As illustrated in Table 1, science and technology policy has four facets: science for policy,
technology for policy, policy for science, and policy for technology.11 These facets cannot be
easily separated, but can help provide a framework to better understand the policy decisions that
policymakers are addressing in a given situation. This, in turn, can reflect how policymakers
consider the policy advice they are given by the scientific and technical community.
Science for policy and technology for policy are when scientists, engineers, and health
professionals (see Box 1) provide analysis, knowledge, and data to inform policymakers with the
goal of enhancing their ability to make wise decisions. This scientific and technical guidance is
available for almost any public policy arena. A classic example is global climate change.
Policymakers debate questions such as at what point actions, if any, should be taken to mitigate
(...continued)
Science and Technology Task Force on Science Policy, 99th Cong., 2nd sess., Committee Print (Washington, DC: GPO,
1986) http://ia341018.us.archive.org/2/items/historyofscience00unit/historyofscience00unit.pdf. The report appendix
provides a chronology of federal science policy developments from 1787 to 1985 prepared by Michael E. Davey of
CRS.
6 U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 5.
7 U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 4.
8 For more discussion of science and technology policy in the early days of the United States, see I. Bernard Cohen,
Science and the Founding Fathers: Science in the Political Thought of Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and Madison (New
York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1995) and A. Hunter Dupree, Science in the Federal Government: A History of
Policies and Activities (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press 1986).
9 Max Farrand (ed.), The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Volume 2, Journal, August 18, 1787, p. 321-322
(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911) at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llfr&fileName=002/
llfr002.db&recNum=327&itemLink=D?hlaw:30:./temp/~ammem_IMyH::%230020327&linkText=1.
10 Journals of the Continental Congress, October 26, 1774, p. 108, available at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/
ampage?collId=lljc&fileName=001/lljc001.db&recNum=120&itemLink=D?hlaw:23:./temp/
~ammem_IMyH::%230010121&linkText=1.
11 See Christopher T. Hill, Where Does Science (and Technology) Fit in Public Policy?, AAAS Leadership Seminar in
Science and Technology Policy, powerpoint presentation, November 14, 2006 at http://www.aaas.org/programs/
science_policy/leadership/hill1106.pdf for a presentation on this topic. .
ȱȱȱ
Řȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
ȱ
greenhouse gas emissions. If no action is taken, what are the possible impacts of global climate
change on the United States and other countries? If policymakers decide to take action, what
policy steps could the United States take to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions or to adapt to
global climate change? Policymakers are the ones who decide what steps should be taken to
manage these risks. They can base their decisions on the guidance provided to them by the
science, engineering, and health communities.
In contrast, policy for science and policy for technology are when policymakers take actions that
influence the S&T community or the actions in which they engage such as research12 or S&T-
business related activities (e.g., patent law). In the case of climate change, for example, these
same policymakers make decisions such as the degree to which the federal government should
invest in climate change related research, whether or not to establish programs and organizations
that set priorities for this research, and what technologies federal agencies should investigate
further as possible mechanisms to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.
Table 1. The Relationship Between Science and Technology
and Policymaking
Policy
Influencing Science and Technology Science and Technology Informing Policy
Science
Policy for Science
Science for Policy
e.g., Should the U.S. federal government support e.g., Should the United States take action on
embryonic stem cell research?
climate change?
Technology Policy for Technology
Technology for Policy
e.g., Should the emerging field of nanotechnology e.g., Should policy actions be taken to enhance
be supported and regulated?
the implementation of new vehicle technologies
that might reduce the nation’s fossil fuel
consumption?
Source: Congressional Research Service.
Note: For information on the policy issues in the table, see the following: CRS Report RL33540, Stem Cell
Research: Federal Research Funding and Oversight, by Judith A. Johnson and Erin D. Williams. CRS Report RL33849,
Climate Change: Science and Policy Implications, by Jane A. Leggett. CRS Report RL34401, The National
Nanotechnology Initiative: Overview, Reauthorization, and Appropriations Issues, by John F. Sargent Jr. CRS Report
RL30484, Advanced Vehicle Technologies: Energy, Environment, and Development Issues, by Brent D. Yacobucci. CRS
Report RL33290, Fuel Ethanol: Background and Public Policy Issues, by Brent D. Yacobucci.
12 An example is discussed in CRS Report RL34497, Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy (ARPA-E):
Background, Status, and Selected Issues for Congress, by Deborah D. Stine.
ȱȱȱ
řȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
ȱ
Box 1. Scientists, Engineers, and Health Professionals
Most universities consider the physical sciences, life sciences, social sciences, and economics to be “scientific.”
Engineering and the health professions, such as medicine, are considered by most universities as fields related to
science that focus on the delivery of services.
Three common definitions used to determine who is a scientist, engineer, or health professional: (1) science,
engineering, and health occupations; (2) science, engineering, and health degrees; or (3) self-identification of
employment in a job that requires science and engineering knowledge. Estimates such as the number of scientists and
engineers can vary among federal agencies based on which definition is used. For more discussion on this issue, see
CRS Report RL34539, The U.S. Science and Technology Workforce, by Deborah D. Stine and Christine M. Matthews.
A related question is what fields are considered to be “scientific.” Survey data indicate that the majority of Americans
consider medicine to be the most “scientific” followed by biology, physics, and engineering. Economics and sociology,
both social sciences, are not considered to be as scientific as these fields. Although about 50% of Americans consider
these social sciences to be either “very scientific” or “pretty scientific,” about 40% of Americans consider them “not
too scientific” or “not at all scientific.” The remainder do not know or have not heard of the fields.
Perceptions of what fields are considered to be “scientific,” and who is considered to be a “scientist” can become an
issue during discussions related to policy for science. This report uses the broadest definition and includes social
scientists as science professionals.
Source: National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 (Arlington, VA: National Science
Foundation 2008), Chapters 3 and 7 at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/.
ȱȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ¢ȱ¢ȱ
In the early days of the United States, the focus of science and technology policy was on science
for policy and technology for policy. Of particular importance was scientific and technical advice
related to public health, agriculture, and geography. President Jefferson, for example,
commissioned the Lewis and Clark expedition to explore the Western United States that opened
trade in the far Northwest and made significant scientific findings in the life sciences.13
As the nation grew, scientific and technical knowledge became important for issues related to the
military and issues related to the welfare state such as care for the needy and universal education
and literacy. In general, research was supported primarily through the philanthropy of wealthy
individuals.14 During the Civil War, however, research became part of the military’s mission, and
the federal government more actively engaged in policy for science, establishing the land-grant
college system focusing on agricultural research (1862) and the Weather Bureau (1870),
providing a telescope for the Naval Observatory, and supporting polar explorations and surveys of
the Western United States.15 Issues began to arise regarding how science should fit into the
federal government’s structure. As a result, in 1884, Congress set up a Joint Commission made up
of three members each from the House and the Senate, chaired by Senator W. B. Allison. The
Allison Commission discussed proposals for a Department of Science and a national university,
as well as the need for the government to cooperate, not compete, with universities and concerns
13 A. Hunter Dupree, Science in the Federal Government: A History of Policies and Activities (Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press 1986).
14 Bruce L.R. Smith, American Science Policy Since World War II (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1990).
15 A. Hunter Dupree, Science in the Federal Government: A History of Policies and Activities (Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press 1986).
ȱȱȱ
Śȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
ȱ
about duplication. In the end, the Allison Commission affirmed the utility of federal funding of
science, but did not recommend a separate department or any other actions.16
At the beginning of the 20th century, prior to World War I, additional issues became the focus of
the nation’s science and technology policy including conservation, medicine, and public health;
and a number of additional science organizations were established in the federal government
(e.g., Food and Drug Administration). In addition, the first industrial research laboratories and
large-scale mechanized industry were started. World War I brought about additional application of
science and technology to weapon development.17
During the period between World War I and through World War II, the role of the application of
research to provide technology for both military and economic purposes became evident. No
longer were philanthropists the primary sources of funding for research and development (R&D);
instead it was the federal government. This lead to a fundamental change in the relation between
the federal government and the S&T community. This policy for technology focused on areas
such as weaponry, communications, and medical needs such as surgical innovations. During this
period, the capabilities of science and technology were widely recognized due to the use of
chemicals, aircraft, mechanized weapons, radar, and other technological applications in World
War II. As a result, President Franklin D. Roosevelt established the Office of Scientific Research
and Development (1941). The Manhattan project also began its work at this time, managed by the
Manhattan Engineer District of the Army Corps of Engineers, and tasked with the goal of
building an atomic bomb prior to the Japanese or Germans.18
Following World War II, the utility of science and technology to society as exhibited during the
War was crystallized in Science, the Endless Frontier, a 1945 report by Vannevar Bush, director
of the White House Office of Scientific Research and Development, to President Franklin
Roosevelt. This report, which proposed a “program for postwar scientific research,” set the stage
for today’s view of the relationship between the federal government and the S&T community
regarding policy for science.19 In his report, Bush indicated that scientific progress was essential
for the war against disease, for national security, and for the public welfare. The report also
recommended that the federal government should undertake responsibility for renewing the
nation’s scientific talent. To respond to these needs, Bush proposed a new federal agency that
would “accept new responsibilities for promoting the flow of new scientific knowledge and the
development of scientific talent of our youth.” This recommendation eventually led to the
establishment of the National Science Foundation (NSF).
Today, science and engineering research and innovations are intricately linked to societal needs
and the nation’s economy in areas such as energy, transportation, communication, agriculture,
education, environment, health, defense, and jobs. As a result, policymakers are interested in
almost every aspect of science and technology policy.
16 Bruce L.R. Smith, American Science Policy Since World War II (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1990).
17 A. Hunter Dupree, Science in the Federal Government: A History of Policies and Activities (Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press 1986).
18 Bruce L.R. Smith, American Science Policy Since World War II (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1990).
19 Vannevar Bush, Science: The Endless Frontier : A Report to the President by Vannevar Bush, Director of the Office
of Scientific Research and Development, July 1945 (United States Government Printing Office, Washington: 1945) at
http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm.
ȱȱȱ
śȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱ
The following definition of R&D, determined by international intergovernmental guidelines
developed through the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), is used
by the National Science Board (NSB):
• Research and Development (R&D): Creative work undertaken on a systematic
basis to increase the stock of knowledge—including knowledge of man, culture
and society—and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications.
• Basic Research: The objective of basic research is to gain more comprehensive
knowledge or understanding of the subject under study without specific
applications in mind. Although basic research may not have specific applications
as its goal, it can be directed in fields of present or potential interest. This is often
the case with basic research performed by industry or mission-driven agencies.
• Applied Research: The objective of applied research is to gain knowledge or
understanding to meet a specific recognized need. In industry, applied research
includes investigations to discover new scientific knowledge that has specific
commercial objectives with respect to products, processes, or services.
• Development: Development is the systematic use of the knowledge or
understanding gained from research directed toward the production of useful
materials, devices, systems, or methods, including the design and development of
prototypes and processes.20
These definitions are based on the traditional linear model of innovation that some believe creates
a false distinction between basic and applied research. Innovation, they believe, is instead more
nuanced, and there is no need for a distinction between the two. (See later discussion on
perspectives on innovation, particularly the section regarding the Pasteur’s quadrant model.)
These definitions are, however, the most commonly used in congressional and federal agency
discussions regarding federal R&D activities.
ȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ
Although most industries use science and technology to some degree, ten industries have been
identified by the OECD as having a strong linkage to science and technology. OECD organizes
these industries into two categories: knowledge-intensive service industries, which incorporate
science, engineering, and technology in services or the delivery of services, and high-technology
manufacturing industries, which spend a relatively high proportion of their revenues on R&D.
According to the OECD, knowledge-intensive service industries include
• communications services,
• financial services,
• business services (including computer software development),
20 National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 (Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation
2008), Chapter 4 at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/.
ȱȱȱ
Ŝȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
ȱ
• education services, and
• health services.
High-technology manufacturing industries include
• aerospace,
• pharmaceuticals,
• computers and office machinery,
• communications equipment, and
• scientific (medical, precision, and optical) instruments.21
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
¢ȱ¢ǵȱ
The encompassing nature of science and technology policy makes it challenging to provide the
full range perspectives on science and technology policy. The purpose of this section is to
highlight some of the most common differing perspectives that generate discussion regarding
science and technology policy. They include the sometimes different perspectives of the science
and technology community and policymakers regarding science and technology policy. This
section also discusses different perspectives on federal funding of research; policy for science and
science for policy; and policy for technology and technology for policy. The perspectives
identified here may arise regardless of the issue being discussed, whether it be energy,
transportation, agriculture, or science itself.
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢ȱȱ¢ȱ
A number of criteria may determine the utility of scientific and technical knowledge and advice to
policymakers. These include whether or not this advice is relevant, disinterested, and credible.22
Conflicts can occur if these criteria are not met.
Further, the S&T community and policymakers can, on occasion, view science and technology
policymaking quite differently. For example, while the S&T community tends to have a long-time
horizon, policymakers must often make decisions very quickly based on the available knowledge
(see Box 2). Sometimes the reverse occurs. In these situations, the S&T community may believe a
decision is needed quickly due to the nature of the risk involved, while the policymaker is
concerned about the political and economic implications of taking the action recommended by the
S&T community. The S&T community may also believe that the knowledge they communicate
should be the primary factor influencing a policymaker’s decision, while the policymaker
believes they need to take into consideration other factors they believe are equally important.
21 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Knowledge-Based Industries (Paris: OECD),
2001.
22 Bruce L.R. Smith and Jeffrey K. Stine, “Technical Advice for Congress: Past Trends and Present Obstacles,” in M.
Granger Morgan and Jon M. Peha (ed.), Science and Technology Advice for Congress (Washington, DC: Resources for
the Future, 2003).
ȱȱȱ
ŝȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
ȱ
One analyst identifies four different degrees of interaction between scientists and policymakers
from no interaction to substantial interaction. These include:
• The Pure Scientist - seeks to focus only on facts and has no interaction with the
decision maker.
• The Science Arbiter - answers specific factual questions posed by the decision
maker.
• The Issue Advocate - seeks to reduce the scope of choice available to the decision
maker.
• The Honest Broker of Policy Options - seeks to expand, or at least clarify, the
scope of choice available to the decision maker.23
Many would contend, however, that the reality of S&T policymaking is such that there is no clear
delineation as outlined here. Rather, the interaction of scientists, engineers, and health
professionals with policymakers is a mix of each of these categories.
Scientists, engineers, and health professionals, like any other U.S. citizen, also advocate for
action on policies related to the S&T community itself or promote their personal views. For
example, members of the S&T community are recipients of federal funding for research,
employed by universities or colleges impacted by higher education policy, work for industries
influenced by tax policy, and often have a general interest in the quality of science, engineering,
technology, and mathematics (STEM) education at the K-12 level relative to future education and
workforce needs. Scientists and engineers may also have personal preferences with regard to
public policies that may influence their political action on issues such as climate change, stem cell
research, or others.
Box 2. Science: The Interaction with Policy
Scientific knowledge is dynamic, changing as new information becomes available. In this sense, science does not reveal
“truth,” so much as produce the best available or most likely explanation of natural phenomena, given the information
available at the time; in many cases, analysis of data may give an estimate of the degree of confidence in the
explanation. Moreover, scientific conclusions naturally depend on the questions that are asked.
The scientific method has, at its heart, two values that are strongly implied but not often stated: (1) a transparent
approach in which both new and old data are available to all parties; and (2) a continuing effort to update data, and
therefore modify, and even reject, previously accepted hypotheses in light of new information. Together, transparency
and updating are the cleansing mechanisms that gradually sweep away scientific misunderstandings and errors—a sine
qua non for scientific advancement.
Decision-makers usually seek to affect how the world “ought to” or “should” be. Science provides one source of
input for making policy decisions that balance diverse considerations.
Source: Excerpted from CRS Report RL32992, The Endangered Species Act and "Sound Science", by Eugene H. Buck et
al.
23 Roger Pielke, “The Honest Broker,” Bridges, Austrian Office of Science and Technology, April 2007 at
http://www.ostina.org/content/view/2027/699/. This article is based on Roger Pielke, The Honest Broker: Making Sense
of Science in Policy and Politics (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2007).
ȱȱȱ
Şȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱȱ
When discussing research and development (R&D), particularly in regard to funding,
terminology can be important in understanding the premise of an issue. In discussing the federal
funding of research, many analyses focus on R&D. Some, however, believe this provides a false
impression of the degree of federal funding going toward research as it does not distinguish
between federal funding devoted toward research and that focused on federal funding focused on
non-research activities such as testing and evaluation of weapons. Figure 1 illustrates the
magnitude of federal funding in each of the R&D categories, by agency. As shown here,
Department of Defense (DOD) R&D funding, which accounts for approximately half of all
federal R&D funding, is focused on major systems development with approximately 11% for
basic and applied research. The majority of non-DOD (“civilian”) R&D funding, however,
focuses on research, particularly basic research.
Figure 1. Projected Federal Obligations for Research and Development, by Agency
and Character of Work: FY2007
Source: National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 (Arlington, VA: National Science
Foundation, 2008), Figure 4-6 at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/.
Another perspective to the R&D budget regarding federal funding of research is provided by the
federal science and technology (FS&T) budget.24 The White House Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) includes both an R&D and FS&T budget analysis in the President’s annual budget
request to Congress. According to OMB, the FS&T budget “highlights the creation of new
knowledge and technologies more consistently and accurately than the overall R&D data.”25
24 National Academy of Sciences, Allocating Federal Funds for Science and Technology (Washington, DC: National
Academy Press, 2005) at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=5040#toc.
25 Office of Management and Budget, “Research and Development,” Chapter 5 in Analytical Perspectives, Budget of
the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2009, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/
apers.html.
ȱȱȱ
şȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
ȱ
While the R&D budget includes funding for defense development, testing, and evaluation, the
FS&T budget does not. As a result, the federal FS&T budget is generally less than half that of the
federal R&D budget.
¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ
Two fundamental policy issues in policy for science include how much federal funding is
sufficient to achieve national goals, and the degree to which the United States benefits primarily
from its investment in research as opposed to the world at large.
The S&T community also sometimes has fundamentally different perspectives regarding policy
for science issues (see Figure 2). The alternative perspectives shown in Figure 2 do not represent
one side of the S&T community versus another. Rather, they represent views held by various
entities in various ways. For example, junior researchers may favor risk-taking when it comes to
research funding, while at the same time supporting set-aside programs designated for researchers
at the beginning of their career that enhance their ability to obtain funding as opposed to
competing with senior researchers who have already had the opportunity to receive federal
research funding.
Science for policy can be contentious because it informs policy discussions, where there are
sometimes disagreements as to what policy actions should be taken, if any, due to the societal and
economic implications. The same scientific paper may be viewed in different ways depending on
the perspectives of the advocate. Sometimes there are differing views as to the degree of
consensus among the S&T community on a particular issue. Alternatively, a minority in the S&T
community may have strong beliefs regarding the scientific and technical evidence on an issue
that do not agree with the majority. As a result, when science for policy issues are discussed in a
political setting, strong views can emerge on both sides of an issue.
¢ȱȱ¢ȱȱ¢ȱȱ¢ȱ
The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis has estimated that if R&D were treated as investment, it
would have accounted for 5% of real gross domestic product (GDP) growth between 1959 and
2004, and 7% between 1995 and 2004.26 A Stanford University Hoover Institution study found
that if U.S. students performed in science and mathematics education at a level comparable with
the world’s leaders, U.S. GDP would increase.27 As a result, policymakers are often interested in
the innovation process, both policy for technology and technology for policy, particularly the
relationship between science, engineering, economics, education, and job creation.28
26 Bureau of Economic Analysis, “Research and Development Satellite Account 2007 Satellite Account Underscores
Importance of R&D,” press release, at http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/general/rd/2007/rdspend07.htm. The press
release also states: “To put the contribution of R&D in perspective, the business sector’s investment in commercial and
other types of structures accounted for just over 2 percent of real GDP growth between 1995 and 2004.”
27 Eric Hanushek, Dean T. Jamison, Eliot A. Jamison and Ludger Woessmann, “Education and Economic
Growth,”Education Next, Spring 2008 at http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/16110377.html.
28 For more information, see CRS Report RL34328, America COMPETES Act: Programs, Funding, and Selected
Issues, by Deborah D. Stine.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŖȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
ȱ
Figure 2. Major Alternative Perspectives in the Scientific and Technology
Community on the Allocation of Resources for Research
Source: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Federally Funded Research: Decisions for a Decade,
OTA-SET-490 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1991) at http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/
ota/Ota_2/DATA/1991/9121.PDF.
In the case of policy for technology, perspectives on a given policy may differ because of
differing views of the innovation model. One perspective of innovation policy, based on the linear
model of innovation,29 leads some policymakers to believe that it is inappropriate to use federal
resources to invest in technological development. Rather, private resources should be used to
invest in this portion of the innovation process as private entities will receive the returns on
investment. An alternative perspective is that research and innovation can be so interrelated that it
is not possible to separate the two. Policymakers with this perspective on innovation policy
believe that investing federal resources to enhance technological innovation is appropriate and a
wise use of federal funds.30
29 Benoit Godin, The Linear Model of Innovation: The Historical Construction of an Analytical Framework, Canadian
Science and Innovations Consortium, Project on the History and Sociology of S&T Statistics, Working Paper No. 30,
2005 at http://www.csiic.ca/PDF/Godin_30.pdf.
30 For more information, see CRS Report RL33528, Industrial Competitiveness and Technological Advancement:
Debate Over Government Policy, by Wendy H. Schacht.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŗȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
ȱ
Figure 3 illustrates the linear model of innovation. As shown here, the federal government invests
in research and development moving from basic research to applied research to development
creating intellectual property. The responsibility then falls to the private sector including
inventors, entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, and industry to use that intellectual property to
capture that idea and translate it into technology, moving it through several stages: a prototype,
then a product, and finally commercialized in such a way that consumers are interested in
purchasing the result.
Figure 3. One Perspective on the Relationship of Federal Investment to Innovation
Source: Mark Y.D. Wang, Shari Lawrence Pfleeger, David Adamson, Gabrielle Bloom, William Butz, Donna
Fossum, Mihal Gross, Aaron Kofner, Helga Rippen, Terrence K. Kelly, Charles T. Kelley, Jr., Technology Transfer
of Federally Funded R&D: Perspectives from a Forum, prepared for the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy (Santa Monica, CA: Rand Science and Technology Policy Institute, 2003) at http://rand.org/
pubs/conf_proceedings/2006/CF187.pdf.
The gap between these two stages, however, is sometimes called the “valley of death,” because of
the challenges of taking the intellectual property and transferring that idea to private entities who
may or may not be interested in turning that intellectual property into technology. As a result,
some believe that the linear model is insufficient as a basis for S&T policy decisionmaking
today—that the linkage between science and technological innovation is far more complex. One
visual perspective on this theory of science and innovation, called the “Pasteur’s Quadrant”
model, describes a closer link between research and its intended outcome (see Figure 4).31
As described by Stokes, there are four types of research:
• Pure basic research, pursued with the goal of fundamental understanding,
without any consideration of the use (e.g., Niels Bohr, whose goal was to
enhance our understanding of atomic structure);
• Pure applied research, pursued with the goal of use, without any consideration of
fundamental understanding (e.g., Thomas Edison, whose goal was commercially
profitable electric lighting);
• Use-inspired basic research, pursued with the dual goals of basic understanding
and use (e.g., Louis Pasteur’s use of his discovery of the process of disease at the
31 Donald E. Stokes, Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation (Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution Press, 1997).
ȱȱȱ
ŗŘȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
ȱ
microbiological level to develop mechanisms to combat anthrax in sheep and
cattle, cholera in chickens, spoilage in milk, wine and vinegar, and rabies in
people.)
• Phenomena exploration,32 pursued due to research curiosity regarding particular
phenomena, inspired by neither understanding nor use (e.g., the marking and
incidence of bird species or why an apple falls from a tree). Such exploration
might lead to the type of research represented by Bohr’s quadrant or Edison’s
quadrant.33
Figure 4. Pasteur’s Quadrant Model of Science and Engineering Research
Source: Donald E. Stokes, Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation (Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press, 1997).
As with previous models presented in this report, some would contend that the barriers illustrated
in the model are not concrete, but porous. Research can easily move from one category to another
as illustrated by the Pasteur example mentioned earlier. For example, there is little distinction
sometimes between basic research, applied research, development, and commercialization. There
may not be much difference, for example, in biotechnology research conducted at a university or
at a small company funded by venture capital.
32 This is represented by what appears to be an empty quadrant.
33 Ibid., p. 73-75. Donald Stokes, “Completing the Bush Model: Pasteur’s Quadrant,” Paper presented at conference
“Science the Endless Frontier 1945-1995: Learning from the Past, Designing for the Future,” December 9, 1994 at
http://www.cspo.org/products/conferences/bush/Stokes.pdf.
ȱȱȱ
ŗřȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
ȱ
As a result, some policymakers believe that in a knowledge-based economy, federal investment in
R&D should be inspired not only with the goal of fundamental understanding, but also, on
occasion, with the goal of use. In addition, in order for the nation to obtain the return on federal
investment in R&D and the related societal and economic goals, some contend that federal
investment should not stop at the point just before prototype and product technological
development.34 This, some believe, is particularly important as, in a global economy, foreign
firms are as easily able to capture the results of federal investment in research as U.S. firms.35
On the other hand, some policymakers express concerns that investing in R&D in a sector closely
linked to industry—or, for that matter, at any stage of technology commercialization—may result
in the federal government picking “winners and losers.” For example, although some believe that
federal investment in information technology R&D has resulted in benefits for the country and
helps by setting industry standards, others believe that federal investment in information
technology R&D is inappropriate because it is the federal government, not industry, who is
determining the direction for research and determining technological “winners and losers.”36
In terms of technology for policy, differing views regarding policy issues are not that dissimilar as
those for policy for technology. Differing perspectives in technology for policy focus on the
degree to which it is appropriate for the federal government to focus on a particular technology.
Some believe it is important to undertake policies to encourage implementation of a technology.
Others believe that such policy actions might inappropriately influence the market by supporting
one technological option more than another. For example, some may question which is better, a
hybrid electric vehicle, a plug-in electric vehicle, a fuel cell vehicle, or enhancing current
vehicles?37 Although there may be a common policy goal of reducing fossil fuel consumption,
undertaking policies that may favor one of these technologies versus another creates “winners and
losers,” which some policymakers believe is inappropriate. Others, however, believe that unless
the government does select a technology, there are insufficient incentives for companies to invest
in technologies that would potentially reduce fossil fuel consumption.
ȱȱȱȱȱȱ
¢ȱ¢ȱȱǵȱ
Congress makes decisions regarding all four of the S&T policy facets described earlier: science
for policy, technology for policy, policy for science, and policy for technology. Science and
technology policy guidance can be used to frame policy issues, craft legislation, oversee federal
activities, and govern. In addition, the decisions Congress makes influence S&T issues such as
the funding of research and technological development, setting priorities for that funding, and
supporting science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. In making its decisions,
Congress receives advice from both internal sources such as congressional staff, S&T policy
34 Ibid.
35 CRS Report RL33528, Industrial Competitiveness and Technological Advancement: Debate Over Government
Policy, by Wendy H. Schacht.
36 CRS Report RL33586, The Federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program:
Funding Issues and Activities, by Patricia Moloney Figliola.
37 CRS Report RL30484, Advanced Vehicle Technologies: Energy, Environment, and Development Issues, by Brent D.
Yacobucci.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŚȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
ȱ
fellows, hearings, and congressional support agencies (see Box 3) as well as external sources that
will be described later in this report.
řŞȱ
Almost every congressional committee is in some way involved in S&T policy decisionmaking or
uses the scientific and technical knowledge currently available to help them make decisions.
Generally these issues fall into the category of science for policy and technology for policy.
Examples include how to improve nutrition and food safety in the nation’s schools, implement the
Endangered Species Act, determine drinking water standards, respond to a bridge collapse, and
create jobs.
The primary committees that focus on policy for science and policy for technology include the
House Committee on Science and Technology and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation. The House Committee on Science and Technology activities generally
includes many policy areas related to S&T policy including energy, astronautical and civil
aviation, environmental, and marine research as well as the commercial application of
technology, science scholarships, and a general category of scientific research, development, and
demonstration. As a result, the House Committee on Science and Technology is the authorizing
committee for the non-defense research activities of many federal agencies. In addition, the
committee also has special authority to “review and study on a continuing basis laws, programs,
and Government activities relating to nonmilitary research and development.” The Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation generally includes science, engineering,
and technology research and development and policy.
These committees activities, however, generally do not directly include biomedical research and
development such as that supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which is the
federal agency that receives the majority of federal research funding. Biomedical research policy
issues are generally discussed by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Senate
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Defense research likewise is discussed by other committees than those which have science in
their name. The House Committee on Armed Services generally includes issues related to
scientific research and development in support of the armed services. The Senate Committee on
Armed Services generally discusses issues that involve military research and development.
The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations play an important role in S&T policy.
Although the authorization of federal funding of research often has wide and bipartisan support,
appropriated research funding faces a greater challenge when it competes for the limited amount
of discretionary funding with other federal programs. In addition, several Appropriations
subcommittees may discuss issues related to science and technology policy. For example, the
funding for NSF, NASA, NIST, and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP) is generally discussed by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations’
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies. Funding for energy
research activities is generally discussed by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations’
38 It is important to note that the House and Senate Parliamentarians are the sole definitive authorities on questions
relating to the jurisdiction of congressional committees and should be consulted for a formal opinion on any specific
jurisdictional question.
ȱȱȱ
ŗśȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
ȱ
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. For NIH, it is the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education,
and Related Agencies. For DOD, it is the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
Subcommittee on Defense.
All committees may conduct oversight and investigations on issues that fall within their purview.
In addition to the committees described above, the House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform and Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
also play an active role in S&T policy and use scientific and technical knowledge and
information.
ȱ
Science and technology policy related caucuses frequently organize symposia open to the public
on topics of interest to their sponsoring Members. This provides a mechanism for congressional
staff to gain a better understanding of a scientific or technical topic and provides a networking
opportunity for staff who represent a Member interested in the topic. Because many
Congressional committees discuss S&T policy, caucuses and other informal groups can bring
together those Members who are interested in S&T policy issues.
Caucuses, coalitions, ad hoc task forces, or working groups are examples of the titles given to
these voluntary alliances of Members of Congress that operate without direct recognition in
chamber rules or line item appropriations (unlike formal leadership and party groups).39 Financial
support for the caucus events such as a luncheon symposium may be provided by interested
groups. For example, a coalition of scientific and engineering disciplinary societies often sponsor
the events of the Senate Science and Technology Caucus.
A list of the registered House caucuses, formally called “congressional Member organizations,”
can be found on the Committee on House Administration website.40 Although there is not a
similar website for Senate caucuses, some of those listed on the House website are bicameral,
sponsored by both Senate and House Members. Some of the caucuses related to S&T policy
include the
• Biomedical Research Caucus
• Congressional Competitiveness Caucus
• Congressional Diversity and Innovation Caucus
• Congressional High Technology Caucus
• Congressional Internet Caucus
• Congressional Research and Development Caucus
39 More information on these groups is available from CRS Report RL30301, Informal Congressional Groups and
Members Organizations: Selected Questions and Responses, and CRS Report RL30288, Informal Congressional
Groups and Member Organizations, 106th Congress: An Informational Directory, both by Sula P. Richardson.
40 See http://cha.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=45&Itemid=37 for more information. The
U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate telephone directories also provide a list of caucuses. Another source
of information on caucuses including the membership of each caucus is available through the Leadership Library.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŜȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
ȱ
• Congressional Robotics Caucus
• Congressional Science Caucus
• House Aerospace Caucus
• House Biotechnology Caucus
• House Diversity and Innovation Caucus
• House Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education Caucus
• Senate Science and Technology Caucus
• Senate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education Caucus
• U.S. Senate Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus
The list of caucuses changes constantly to reflect Member interest. The Members of Congress
who host each of these caucuses is posted on the website.
Box 3. Congressional Support Agencies
Members of Congress may call upon three congressional support agencies: the Congressional Research Service
(CRS), the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) for information
and advice. All of these offices include staff with expertise in science and technology policy.
CRS offers research and analysis to Congress on all current and emerging issues of national policy. Its staff of
approximately 700 employees includes lawyers, economists, reference librarians, and social, natural, and physical
scientists. Of the 450 analytic staff, approximately 70 analysts conduct research and analysis on S&T policy issues,
about one-third of whom have Ph.D.s in science, engineering, or health. This estimate does not include economists,
who often work on finance and other non-science and technology policy issues. One section is devoted toward policy
for science and policy for technology; however, CRS science and technology policy analysts conduct analysis on all facets
of S&T policy including science for policy and technology for policy on issues such as the environment, natural resources,
energy, minerals, agriculture and food, transportation, industry, and health.
GAO—with more than 3,100 staff positions—is the largest of the support agencies and the only one with a
nationwide field structure. GAO acts as an independent auditor of government agencies and activities. Sometimes
called “Congress’s watchdog” and its “investigative arm,” GAO now provides a variety of services to Congress that
extend beyond its original functions and duties, including oversight, investigation, review, and evaluation of executive
programs, operations, and activities.
CBO’s mission is to support the House and Senate in the federal budget process by providing budgetary analysis and
information in an objective and nonpartisan manner. CBO’s staff of 230 economists and public policy analysts prepare
annual reports on the economic and budget outlook and on the President’s budget proposals, cost estimates of
legislation, scorekeeping reports, assessments of unfunded mandates, and products and testimony relating to other
budgetary and policy matters.
Source: Some text includes excerpts from CRS Report RL33471, The Congressional Research Service and the American
Legislative Process, by Ida A. Brudnick; CRS Report RL30349, GAO: Government Accountability Office and General
Accounting Office, by Frederick M. Kaiser; and CRS Report RL31880, Congressional Budget Office: Appointment and
Tenure of the Director and Deputy Director, by Robert Keith and Mary Frances Bley.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŝȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱ
¢ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¡ȱǵȱ
Key decisionmakers in the executive branch include those in White House offices such as the
Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Office of Management and Budget. Presidential
science and technology appointees also play a critical role along with federal agency staff. These
organizations advise the President, the Vice-President, and other senior Administration officials,
who take their views, along with others not involved in S&T policy, into consideration when
making a decision.41
ȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
The White House includes several S&T policy related organizations. These include the OSTP, the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the Council of Economic Advisors (CEA), and the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The role each of these organizations play in S&T
policy decisionmaking changes with each President. Particularly for OSTP and CEQ, the
influence of these organizations has been variable.
ȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ¢ŚŘȱ
The organization and institutional structure for S&T policy guidance has evolved over time. In
addition, the influence of such organizations has varied among Presidential administrations. Prior
to the 20th century, Presidents primarily obtained this guidance informally through friends, via
referrals, or federal agency scientists and engineers.
The growing importance and influence of science and technology led President Franklin D.
Roosevelt to establish the first formal Presidentially appointed science advisory mechanism,
called the “Science Advisory Board,” in 1933. The purpose of this board, in place until 1935, was
to provide the President with recommendations and a central organization for federal government
science policy. Prior to the United States entering World War II, the National Defense Research
Committee (NDRC) coordinated research activities sponsored and conducted by the federal
government. In 1941, President Roosevelt replaced the NDRC with the Office of Scientific
Research and Development (OSRD) by executive order.43
41 For more information, see, Science Advice to the President (New York: Pergamon Press, 1980) and William T.
Golden (ed.), Science and Technology Advice to the President, Congress, and Judiciary, (New York: Pergamon Press,
1988).
42 For more information on OSTP, see CRS Report RL34736, The President’s Office of Science and Technology
Policy: Issues for Congress, by Deborah D. Stine. On November 12, 2008, CRS hosted a seminar entitled “The Role of
the President's Office of Science and Technology Policy,” with outside experts providing different perspectives on
OSTP. A video of this seminar is available at CRS Report MM70117, The Role of the President's Office of Science and
Technology Policy Online Video. DVD.
43 Ibid.; Jeffrey K. Stine, A History of Science Policy in the United States, 1940-1985 , Report for the House Committee
on Science and Technology Task Force on Science Policy, 99th Cong., 2nd sess., Committee Print (Washington, DC:
GPO, 1986), available at http://ia341018.us.archive.org/2/items/historyofscience00unit/historyofscience00unit.pdf. The
report appendix provides a chronology of federal science policy developments from 1787 to 1985 prepared by Michael
E. Davey of CRS.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŞȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
ȱ
President Harry S. Truman established a Science Advisory Committee in 1951 in the Office of
Defense Mobilization within the executive office “to advise the President ... in matters related to
scientific research and development for defense.44 Following the launch of Sputnik,45 President
Eisenhower created the Office of Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology in
October 1957. Eisenhower transferred to this office an enlarged and reconstituted Science
Advisory Committee, renamed the President’s Science Advisory Committee (PSAC), in
November 1957.46
In 1961, the Senate Committee on Government Operations Subcommittee on National Policy
Machinery, following a series of hearings, recommended the creation of an Office of Science and
Technology (OST) within the executive office of the President. President Kennedy established
OST in 1962. When President Nixon was elected in 1973, he did not appoint members to PSAC
and the OST was abolished. Later that same year, Nixon announced that the director of the NSF
would also serve as the President’s science advisor. There was no longer an S&T policy office in
the White House; rather, a science policy analysis office was located within NSF. When Gerald
Ford became President, he supported the return of a science advisory mechanism to the White
House, but wished to establish it through legislation, not executive order.47
In the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-
282), signed into law by President Ford on May 11, 1976, Congress established OSTP within the
Executive Office of the President. As a result, OSTP reports to both Congress and the White
House. Further, from the Ford Administration until today, all Presidents have had an OSTP with a
stable organizational structure and a director who also serves as the President’s science advisor.
The role and influence of this office, however, has varied among Administrations depending both
on the President and the individual who undertakes the role of OSTP director.
OSTP serves as a “source of scientific and technological analysis and judgment for the President
with respect to major policies, plans, and programs of the Federal Government.”48 OSTP defines
its major objectives, based on the act, as follows:
• Advise the President and others within the Executive Office of the President on
the impacts of science and technology on domestic and international affairs;49
• Lead an interagency effort to develop and implement sound science and
technology policies and budgets;
44 Ibid.
45 For more information, see CRS Report RL34263, U.S. Civilian Space Policy Priorities: Reflections 50 Years After
Sputnik, by Deborah D. Stine.
46 Dwight D. Eisenhower Library, U.S. President’s Science Advisory Committee: Records, 1957-61, February 1975 at
http://www.eisenhower.utexas.edu/listofholdingshtml/listofholdingsU/
uspresidentsscienceadvisorycommitteerecords195761.PDF.
47 Jeffrey K. Stine, A History of Science Policy in the United States, 1940-1985 , Report for the House Committee on
Science and Technology Task Force on Science Policy, 99th Cong., 2nd sess., Committee Print (Washington, DC: GPO,
1986), available at http://ia341018.us.archive.org/2/items/historyofscience00unit/historyofscience00unit.pdf.
48 OSTP webpage at http://www.ostp.gov/html/_whatwedo.html.
49 For more information on this topic, see CRS Report RL34503, Science, Technology, and American Diplomacy:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Deborah D. Stine.
ȱȱȱ
ŗşȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
ȱ
• Work with the private sector to ensure Federal investments in science and
technology contribute to economic prosperity, environmental quality, and
national security;
• Build strong partnerships among Federal, State, and local governments, other
countries, and the scientific community; and
• Evaluate the scale, quality, and effectiveness of the Federal effort in science and
technology.50
The Director of OSTP is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate along with up to
four Associate Directors.51 The OSTP Director co-chairs the President’s Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology (PCAST) and supports the President’s National Science and Technology
Council (NSTC). PCAST is a federal advisory committee and will be discussed in the section on
Federal advisory committees later in this report. NSTC, a cabinet-level council within the
executive branch, was established by Executive Order 12881 on November 23, 1993, to
coordinate S&T policy across the federal government. OSTP staff manage NSTC activities in
conjunction with federal agency staff. The NSTC establishes national goals for federal science
and technology investments and prepares coordinated research and development strategies.52
The question of the appropriate status and role of OSTP and a science advisor to the President has
been discussed at great length by the S&T community.53 In particular, the role of the OSTP
director and the science advisor to the President relative to Congress is a rather complicated one.
If an individual serves only as an assistant to the President for science and technology (APST),
then no Senate confirmation is required. Congress does, however, confirm the director of OSTP
and that individual can be required to testify before Congress, unlike someone who is only
appointed APST, whom Congress may not require to testify due to executive privilege.
50 This is the OSTP mission as described on its webpage at http://www.ostp.gov/html/_whatwedo.html.
51 The number of associate directors has varied. Currently there are two associate directors. One is focused on science
and the other on technology.
52 National Science and Technology Council, website at http://www.ostp.gov/cs/nstc.
53 See for example, National Academies, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, Science and
Technology in the National Interest: Ensuring the Best Presidential and Federal Advisory Committee Science and
Technology Appointments (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2005); Henry Kelly, Ivan Oelrich, Steven
Aftergood, and Benn H. Tannenbaum, Flying Blind: The Rise, Fall and Possible Resurrection of Science Policy Advice
in the United States (Washington, DC: Federation of American Scientists, 2004) at http://www.fas.org/pubs/_docs/
flying_blind.pdf; Jennifer Sue Bond, Mark Schaefer, David Rejeski, Rodney W. Nichols, OSTP 2.0: Critical Upgrade:
Enhancing Capacity for White House Science and Technology Policymaking: Recommendations for the Next President
(Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, June 2008) at http://wilsoncenter.org/news/
docs/OSTP%20Paper1.pdf.
ȱȱȱ
ŘŖȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
ȱ
Perhaps a more important distinction is whom the science advisor represents.54 Is it the role of the
science advisor to serve as an advocate and voice of the President? Or is the science advisor’s role
instead to make the President aware of the views of the S&T community in regards to national
policy? Or is the science advisor to provide their personal views on an S&T policy issue to the
President? Or is it a combination of the three? Past science advisors have undertaken all of these
roles. For example, George Keyworth, who served during the Reagan Administration, is generally
viewed as an advocate of that Administration’s policies. On the other hand, Frank Press, who
served during the Carter Administration, is generally viewed as representing the voice of the S&T
community.55
Other issues discussed by the S&T community are the appropriate size, budget, organization, and
staffing for OSTP. This includes the appropriate role and status of the existing advisory
mechanisms managed by OSTP—the National Science and Technology and the President’s
Council of Advisors for Science and Technology—and the OSTP presidential appointees under
the director, the assistant directors.56 Some organizations have proposed that OSTP manage
additional advisory mechanisms that focus on issues such as science, technology, engineering and
mathematics education, and federal-state science and technology policy.57
ȱȱȱȱȱ
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) assists the President in overseeing the preparation
of the federal budget and supervises its administration in Executive Branch agencies.58 Specific
actions include formulating the President’s spending plans, evaluating the effectiveness of agency
programs, policies, and procedures, assessing competing funding demands among agencies,
54 A historical perspective is provided by H. Guyford Stever Presidential Science Advisor to Presidents Nixon and Ford
and the first director of OSTP, in his book In War and Peace: My Life in Science and Technology (Washington, DC:
Joseph Henry Press, 2002). The reflections of Allan Bromley, the first individual to hold the title of APST, are
available in D. Allan Bromley, The President’s Scientists—Reminiscences of a White House Science Advisor (Yale
University Press: New Haven,1994). Other perspectives are offered by Frank Press, APST in the Carter Administration
in “Science and Technology in the White House, 1977 to 1980: Part 1,” Science, January 9, 1981 211:139-145 at
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/211/4478/139.pdf, and by the two APSTs during the Clinton Administration,
John H. Gibbons, “Reflections of a Science Advisor: General Considerations, the Superconducting Supercollider
(SSC), and the Space Station” and Neal Lane, “Personal observations on advice to the President,” in the Forum on
Physics & Society of The American Physical Society, October 2006, 35:4 at http://units.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/
2006/october/articles-lane.cfm.
55 A list of previous presidential science advisors is available at http://www.ostp.gov/cs/about_ostp/
previous_science_advisors. An overview of the roles each science advisor played in the Administrations in which they
served, from a personal perspective, is available in American Physical Society, Science Advisors Past and Present
Gather at APS Centennial at http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199907/advisors.cfm.
56 See, for example, National Science Board, International Science and Engineering Partnerships: A Priority for U.S.
Foreign Policy and Our Nation’s Innovation Enterprise, NSB 08-4 (Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation,
2008), at http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2008/nsb084.pdf.
57 See, for example, National Science Board, National Action Plan for Addressing the Critical Needs of the U.S.
Science, Technology, and Mathematics Education System (Ballston, VA: National Science Foundation, 2007) at
http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2007/stem_action.pdf; Jennifer Sue Bond, Mark Schaefer, David Rejeski, Rodney
W. Nichols, OSTP 2.0: Critical Upgrade: Enhancing Capacity for White House Science and Technology
Policymaking: Recommendations for the Next President (Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars, June 2008) at http://wilsoncenter.org/news/docs/OSTP%20Paper1.pdf.
58 For more details, see CRS Report RS20167, The Role of the Office of Management and Budget in Budget
Development, by Bill Heniff Jr.
ȱȱȱ
Řŗȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
ȱ
setting funding priorities, and ensuring that agency reports, rules, testimony, and proposed
legislation are consistent with the President’s Budget and with Administration policies.59
Each year, the directors of OSTP and OMB issue a joint memorandum outlining the President’s
priorities and the Research and Development Investment Criteria.60 The OMB staff are often a
key component in implementing the President’s budgetary priorities including which federal
science and technology programs are proposed for elimination as well as funding decreases or
increases.
ȱȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱ¢ȱȱȱ
Several other White House organizations play a role in science and technology policy. Three that
fall into the “science for policy” facet are the National Security Council (NSC), the Council of
Economic Advisors (CEA), and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The NSC provides
the President with a forum for considering national security and foreign policy matters with his
senior national security advisors and cabinet officials, advises and assists the President on
national security and foreign policies, and coordinates these policies among various government
agencies.61 The CEA provides the President with “objective economic analysis and advice on the
development and implementation of a wide range of domestic and international economic policy
issues.”62 CEQ “coordinates federal environmental efforts and works closely with agencies and
other White House offices in the development of environmental policies and initiatives.”63 The
President may also obtain advice from the President’s cabinet (who may provide their advice
based on federal scientists and engineers), White House staff, and Presidential appointees such as
the director of the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (see next section).
¢ȱȱ
Fewer than 100 Presidential appointees and others hold leadership positions in science and
technology-related agencies that support scientific, engineering, and industrial research and
development; manage large-scale defense, space, energy, health research, and environment
programs; and regulate activities that have large technology components.64 These leaders play an
important role in the S&T policy decisionmaking process. Many, though not all, of these
individuals must undergo Senate confirmation before they can take office.65 Some appointments,
59 Office of Management and Budget, webpage, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/organization/role.html.
60 The evaluation criteria are indicated each year in a joint OSTP/OMB Memorandum. See http://www.ostp.gov/html/
FY2009FINALOMB-OSTPRDPriorityMemo.pdf.
61 National Security Council, webpage at http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/.
62 Council of Economic Advisors, webpage at http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/.
63 Council on Environmental Quality, webpage at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/aboutceq.html.
64 National Academies, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, Science and Technology in the
National Interest: Ensuring the Best Presidential and Federal Advisory Committee Science and Technology
Appointments (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2005) at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11152.
65 For more details on which Senate committees confirm which appointments, see CRS Report RL30959, Presidential
Appointee Positions Requiring Senate Confirmation and Committees Handling Nominations, by Henry B. Hogue,
Maureen Bearden, and Terrence L. Lisbeth.
ȱȱȱ
ŘŘȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
ȱ
such as the director of the National Science Foundation, are “term appointments” so that an
individual may serve across Administrations.
Executive branch positions are frequently retitled, eliminated, or added during each
Administration. Just prior to each Presidential election, a list of all the presidentially-appointed
positions with a list of the individuals holding the position is published, alternately, by the Senate
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform in a document known as the “Plum Book,” officially titled
United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions.66
ȱȱ
Federal agencies are generally broken up into two categories: agencies that conduct or sponsor
research, and agencies whose mission is related to science and technology. Federal agencies
whose major focus is conducting or funding research include the
• National Science Foundation (NSF),
• National Institutes of Health (NIH),
• National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
• National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and
• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
In addition, many important federal research agencies and major research activities are located
within more general departments including
• Department of Defense (DOD),
• Department of Energy (DOE),
• Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
• U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),
• Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
• Department of Transportation (DOT),
• Department of Veterans Affairs (VA),
• Department of Education (ED),
• Department of Justice (DOJ),
• Department of Interior (DOI), and
• Department of Labor (DOL).
66 The following website provides access to both current and past Plum Books: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/plumbook/
index.html.
ȱȱȱ
Řřȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
ȱ
For example, NIH, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), and Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) are all part of the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS). Additional independent federal organizations that support research and
development include
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
• Social Security Administration (SSA),
• U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID),
• Consumer Product and Safety Commission (CPSC), and
• Smithsonian Institution.
In some cases, many federal agencies work together on an issue where a variety of scientific and
technical expertise is needed. Examples include nanotechnology and climate change.67
Science.gov is a search engine for government science information and research results.
Federal agencies can fund external, non-federal employee researchers who are generally, though
not exclusively, at universities (“extramural”), and researchers within the agency or at national
laboratories (“intramural”). The major federal laboratories are operated by DOE, DOD, NIH,
NASA, and USDA.68 (See later section on FFRDCs for more details on some of these
laboratories.)
ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱ¢ǵȱ
The judicial branch uses scientific and technical knowledge in making its decisions. The S&T
community provides this knowledge to the judiciary through its writings and expert testimony.
Examples of cases where scientific and technical knowledge can be useful include product
liability, medical malpractice, and environmental litigation, as well as public policy debates such
as differences of opinion between political parties regarding elections and voting that involve
statistical analysis. While the science and engineering research community is constantly refining
its theories through empirical testing, the judiciary must make decisions based on the scientific
“facts” at a particular point in time. The judiciary also makes decisions that influence that same
science and engineering community.69 As Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer states:
The practice of science depends on sound law—law that at a minimum supports science by
offering the scientist breathing space, within which he or she may search freely for the truth
67 For more information, see CRS Report RL34401, The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Overview,
Reauthorization, and Appropriations Issues, by John F. Sargent Jr. and CRS Report RL32997, Climate Change:
Federal Expenditures for Science and Technology, by Michael M. Simpson and John R. Justus.
68 Federally funded research can also be conducted through a federally funded research and development corporation
(FFRDC), a mix of the two approaches. FFRDCs are discussed later in this report.
69 Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government, Science and Technology in Judicial Decision
Making: Creating Opportunities and Meeting Challenges (New York: Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology,
and Government, March 1993) at http://www.carnegie.org/sub/pubs/science_tech/judicial.txt.
ȱȱȱ
ŘŚȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
ȱ
on which all knowledge depends. It is equally true that the law itself increasingly requires
access to sound science. This need arises because society is becoming more dependent for its
well-being on scientifically complex technology, so, to an increasing degree, this technology
underlies legal issues of importance to all of us. We see this conclusion illustrated
throughout the legal system.70
The U.S. Supreme Court has determined when judges should assess the reliability of the scientific
methodology and reasoning that supports expert testimony.71 At a 2006 workshop, some experts
expressed concerns regarding the judiciary’s use of scientific evidence and expertise including
whether courts
• sufficiently recognize minority views in science;
• appreciate differences among the sciences in collecting, validating, and
synthesizing evidence;
• understand that much of the available research relates to populations rather than
to individuals and that complex questions may arise in extrapolating data to a
particular person;
• define validity in a way that corresponds with the scientific community’s
understanding of the term;
• provide an appropriate level of scrutiny to forensic evidence in criminal cases.72
The Federal Judicial Center provides a reference manual, training, and videos for judges on
scientific topics such as management of expert evidence, statistics, economic estimation, DNA
evidence, and engineering practices to help guide judges in managing cases centered around
science and technology issues.73 The American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS) provides a Court Appointed Scientific Experts (CASE) service to assist federal and state
judges, administrative law judges and arbitrators in identifying highly qualified scientists,
engineers, and healthcare professionals to serve as scientific experts.74
The judiciary system can also influence science and technology. In science, the courts are
involved with two types of cases: those involving charges of scientific misconduct, such as
research with human subjects; and those related to religious or moral opposition to particular
kinds of scientific research or the teaching of science, such as biotechnology research or the
teaching of evolution in schools.75 Judiciary activities related to technology focus on issues such
as patent policy, particularly for emerging technologies when a research discovery moves from
the realm of basic research to something that can be patented. An example in this area is a
Supreme Court decision to allow patenting of a genetically engineered microorganism.76
70 Stephen Breyer, “The Interdependence of Science and Law,” Science, 280(5363): 537-538, April 24, 1998 at
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/280/5363/537.
71 For more information, see National Research Council, Discussions of the Committee on Daubert Standards:
Summary of Meetings (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2006).
72 Ibid.
73 For more information, see http://www.fjc.gov/public/home.nsf.
74 For more information, see http://www.aaas.org/spp/case/case.htm.
75 Sheila Jasanoff, Science at the Bar: Law, Science, and Technology in America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1995).
76 Mark Frankel and Brent Garland, “Law and Technology,” in Science, Technology, and Society: An Encyclopedia,
(continued...)
ȱȱȱ
Řśȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱ£ȱȱȱȱ
¢ȱȱȱ¢ǵȱ
The amount of scientific and technical knowledge and data produced by the S&T community can
be sometimes be overwhelming given the nature of the scientific and engineering research
enterprise which relies on a system of peer review and replication. Organizations that provide
scientific and technical advice to policymakers can help provide an overview and synthesis of
scientific and technical knowledge and data, and provide their view of a consensus of the S&T
community.
The science and engineering community, however, is not represented by one individual or
organization. On matters of scientific and technical knowledge and guidance, its opinions are
consensus-based with groups of scientists and engineers coming together from different
perspectives to debate an issue based on the available empirical evidence. In the end, consensus is
achieved if there is widespread agreement on the evidence and its implications. If this occurs, the
knowledge is conveyed to policymakers so they can determine, among other factors, whether or
not to take policy actions in response. If there are major disagreements within large portions of
the community, however, the lack of consensus adds to the uncertainty facing policymakers
responding to a concern.
Several organizations, when requested by the federal government or Congress, provide formal
science and technology policy advice: federal advisory committees, congressionally chartered
honorific organizations, and federally funded research and development corporations. These
organizations are constantly changing (see Box 4). Federal advisory committees and the
congressionally chartered honorific organizations described in this report are under the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (P.L. 92-463).77 FFRDCs are funded by the federal government. Federal
government officials and members of the S&T community also participate in the activities of
international organizations, which also provide a source of knowledge and advice to
policymakers. Federal government officials and members of the S&T community also participate
in the activities of international intergovernmental organizations, another source of knowledge
and advice.
In addition, many other organizations and individuals—policy institutes, the public, professional
organizations and disciplinary societies, universities and colleges, advocacy, special interest,
industry, trade associations, and labor—also provide their thoughts (see Figure 5). These
organizations may agree on the scientific and technical knowledge, but disagree on what actions
to take in response on an S&T policy, as their values on a proposed policy may differ. For
example, there may be agreement that action needs to be taken in response to concerns about
climate change, but proposed policy responses may range from calls for additional research to
emission reductions to a gasoline tax. If the groups agree on a general policy response, such as
emission reduction, they may still disagree on the best way to achieve that goal. These
organizations, described below, use a variety of mechanisms including papers, reports, and events
to convey information to policymakers.
(...continued)
edited by Sal Restivo (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005).
77 For more information, see CRS Report RL30260, Federal Advisory Committees: A Primer, by Wendy R. Ginsberg.
ȱȱȱ
ŘŜȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱ
Federal advisory committees, established by Congress, the President, a cabinet secretary, an
independent agency administrator, or an agency executive, provide independent advice and
recommendations to the nation. Many of these committees provide S&T policy related guidance.
According to a National Academies report, S&T policy related advisory committees fall into five
categories (see Table 2).
Figure 5. Organizations and Individuals Who Influence Science and Technology
Policy Decisionmaking
Source: Congressional Research Service
ȱȱȱ
Řŝȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
ȱ
Table 2. Federal Science and Technology Policy-Related Advisory Commit ee
Categories
Category
Example of Advisory Committee Created by Congress
Science for Policy
EPA Clean Air Act Advisory Committee
Policy for Science
DHS Science and Technical Advisory Committee
Program Evaluation and
NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
Direction
Proposal Review
USDA Collaborative Forest Restoration Program Advisory Panel
Event Driven
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States—9/11
Commission
Source: National Academies, Science and Technology in the National Interest: Ensuring the Best Presidential
and Federal Advisory Committee Science and Technology Appointments (Washington, DC: National Academy
Press, 2005) at http://www.nap.edu/html/national-interest/index.html.
As previously noted, the two major overarching federal advisory committees are the President’s
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) and the National Science Board
(NSB). The President appoints members of both PCAST and NSB. Both PCAST and NSB draw
their members from industry, education, research institutions, and other nongovernmental
organizations and issue reports on S&T policy.
Each President determines whether to have a science advisory council or committee, which
generally focuses on policy for science issues. Beginning in the 20th century, many Presidents, but
not all, have decided to do so. For example, President Theodore Roosevelt created a Committee
on Organization of Scientific Work in 1903.78 PCAST was originally established by President
George H. W. Bush, and has been reestablished in subsequent Presidential Administrations, each
time by an executive order. The current executive order indicates that PCAST is “to receive
advice from the private sector and academic community on technology, scientific research
priorities, and math and science education.”79
Congress created NSB in the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 at the same time that it
established NSF. According to the act, NSB’s mission is to “recommend and encourage the
pursuit of national policies for the promotion of research and education in science and
engineering.” NSB also provides oversight and establishes NSF policies within the framework
established by the President and Congress and serves as an independent body of advisors to each
on broad national policy issues related to science and engineering research and education.80 Every
two years, the NSB collects information and data from across the federal government to develop
its Science and Engineering Indicators. This report serves as one of the primary resource guides
for S&T policy.81
78 Jeffrey K. Stine, A History of Science Policy in the United States, 1940-1985 , Report for the House Committee on
Science and Technology Task Force on Science Policy, 99th Cong., 2nd sess., Committee Print (Washington, DC: GPO,
1986) http://ia341018.us.archive.org/2/items/historyofscience00unit/historyofscience00unit.pdf.
79 For more information on PCAST, see http://www.ostp.gov/PCAST/pcast.html.
80 For more information about the NSB, see http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/about/index.jsp.
81 See the most recent edition at National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 (Arlington, VA:
National Science Foundation 2008) at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/.
ȱȱȱ
ŘŞȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
ȱ
Many other federal departments and agencies also have overarching advisory committees that
provide them with scientific and technical advice. Some examples include the NIH’s Advisory
Committee to the Director (ACD),82 EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB), and DOD’s Defense
Science Board (DSB).83 Not all government executives, however, decide to have such advisory
committees. For example, although the Secretary of Energy had a science advisory board for
many years, it was disbanded in 2006.84
The General Services Administration (GSA) Committee Management Secretariat conducts an
ongoing review to evaluate whether advisory committees are fulfilling the purpose for which they
were established. The number of committees and committee members varies from year to year,
but ranges from 900-1,100 committees with over 50,000 committee members that provide advice
to over 50 departments and agencies. In almost all cases, committee members do not receive any
Federal compensation for their advice other than their travel and per diem expenses.
¢ȱȱ
ȱ£ȱ
Another source of S&T policy advice are honorific nonprofit organizations chartered by
Congress.85 The chief of these is the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), established by a
congressional charter approved by Abraham Lincoln in 1863, to provide independent advice on
science and technology matters.86 The NAS is a private, nonprofit organization, whose new
members are elected by current members based on their research accomplishments. The NAS,
along with its partner organizations, the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) and the
Institute of Medicine, known collectively as “The National Academies,” issue approximately 200
reports a year on a wide range of science and technology topics. Some of these reports are issued
in response to congressional requests either in law, via letter, or through informal discussions
through its operating arm, the National Research Council. The National Academies develop
reports through a committee process that includes an extensive review process. All committee
members serve on committees pro bono, but the Academy needs funding for staff and support
before a congressionally-requested study can proceed. Reports requested by Congress are
generally funded through a federal agency, but there is no requirement for them to do so unless
funding is appropriated for this purpose.87
Another honorific organization that sometimes issues reports related to S&T policy is the
National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA). NAPA is an independent, nonprofit
organization established by congressional charter in 1984 (P.L. 98-257). Fellows are elected by
their peers and include policy makers, public administrators, scholars of public policy and public
administration, business executives, labor leaders, current and former cabinet officers, Members
82 For more information about ACD, see http://www.nih.gov/about/director/acd/index.htm.
83 For more information about DSB, see http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/.
84 For more information about SEAB, see http://www.seab.energy.gov/.
85 For more information on such organizations, see CRS Report RL30340, Congressionally Chartered Nonprofit
Organizations ("Title 36 Corporations"): What They Are and How Congress Treats Them, by Kevin R. Kosar.
86 See this charter at http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ABOUT_incorporation and its amendments
at http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ABOUT_incorporation_amendment.
87 For more information on the National Academies, see http://www.nationalacademies.org/. Those interested in
developing a congressional request for a National Academies study might wish to discuss it first with the National
Academies congressional affairs office at http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/. National Academies reports are
also available at no cost to congressional staff through this office.
ȱȱȱ
Řşȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
ȱ
of Congress, governors, mayors, state legislators, and diplomats. NAPA’s mission focuses on
issues related to improving the effectiveness and administration of government, often in response
to congressional request. For example, NAPA has examined the administration and performance
of NASA in response to a congressional committee. The process and funding of congressionally
requested studies is similar to that of the National Academies.88
¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ǻǼȱ
FFRDCs are not-for-profit organizations, financed on a sole-source basis, exclusively or
substantially by an agency of the federal government. Each Center is administered, through a
contract with the sponsoring federal agency, by either an industrial firm, a university, or a
nonprofit institution.89 As of May 2007, there were 38 FFRDCs.90 DOE sponsors the majority,
followed by DOD. The other federal agencies sponsoring FFRDCS include HHS, DHS, NASA,
NSF, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Department of Transportation (DOT), and the
Department of the Treasury. Examples of FFRDCs include Los Alamos National Laboratory
(DOE), Lincoln Laboratory (DOD), Homeland Security Institute (DHS), Jet Propulsion
Laboratory (NASA), and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NSF).
Battelle, Mitre, the Aerospace Corporation, and the Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA) are
examples of nonprofit independent research organizations who manage FFRDCs, including
providing advice and analysis for the federal government. Much of Battelle’s S&T policy analysis
focuses on energy and national security issues. Mitre’s focus is on defense, information
technology, and aviation issues. The Aerospace Corporation focuses on space and launch systems.
IDA manages an FFRDC called the Science and Technology Policy Institute (STPI). STPI
provides advice and analysis for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and
other government users. Congress created STPI, originally called the Critical Technologies
Institute, in 1991. Rand managed STPI from 1993 until 2003 when IDA took over STPI.
ȱ ȱ£ȱ
International intergovernmental organizations also provide S&T policy advice. The Organisation
for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), established in 1961, “brings together the
governments of countries committed to democracy and the market economy from around the
world to support sustainable economic growth, boost employment, raise living standards,
maintain financial stability, assist other countries’ economic development, and contribute to
growth in world trade.”91 Thirty countries, including the United States, are members of the
OECD. OECD provides comparative data and policy analysis for its member countries.
88 For more information on NAPA, see http://www.napawash.org/index.html.
89 For more information on FFRDCs, see CRS Report RS21542, Department of Homeland Security: Issues Concerning
the Establishment of Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), by Michael E. Davey.
90 National Science Foundation, “Master Government List of Federally Funded R&D Centers,” Special report NSF 06-
316, May 2007 at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf06316/.
91 OECD, “About the OECD,” webpage at http://www.oecd.org/pages/
0,3417,en_36734052_36734103_1_1_1_1_1,00.html.
ȱȱȱ
řŖȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
ȱ
Founded in 1945, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) “promotes international co-operation among its 193 Member States and six Associate
Members in the fields of education, science, culture and communication.”92 UNESCO’s S&T
policy activities have two strategic objectives: “improving human security by better management
of the environment and social change and, enhancing scientific, technical and human capacities to
participate in the emerging knowledge societies.”93
Another U.N. office involved in S&T policy is the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs
(UNOOSA). This office provides a forum for intergovernmental discussions on space policy,
primarily through the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS), and manages
discussions through its Secretariat of international treaties related to outer space. UNOOSA also
assists developing countries interested in using space technology for development.94
An organization active on a current issue with high science and technology salience is the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which received a Nobel Prize in 2007 “for
their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and
to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.”95 The World
Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
established the IPCC as a scientific intergovernmental body to provide an assessment of the
causes of climate change, its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences, and the
adaptation and mitigation options to respond to it.
ȱȱȱȱ
¢ȱ ȱ
A policy institute, sometimes referred to as a “think tank,” is an organization that provides policy
analysis and advice. Think tank reports may be authored by individual scholars, teams of
scholars, or committees. Many think tanks are nonprofit organizations and some are funded by
interest groups. Some are disciplinary focused; some promote a particular point of view on
policies, while and others profess to be neutral. Some have a large staff and are well-funded,
others consist of just a few staff members and have limited funding. Referring to a report from a
particular think tank will often create an image in people’s mind as to the policy perspective that
may influence the analysis represented in that report.
Some think tanks that work to maintain a sustained expertise in S&T policy include Resources for
the Future, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Public Citizen, the World Resources
Institute, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Urban Institute, and the Council on
Competitiveness. Examples of think tanks who comment on many policy areas and sometimes on
S&T policy include the American Enterprise Institute, Center for American Progress, the Heritage
Foundation, the Brookings Institution, Council on Foreign Relations, and the Cato Institute.
92 For more information, see http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-
URL_ID=3328&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html.
93 UNESCO, webpage at http://portal.unesco.org/science/en/ev.php-
URL_ID=5572&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html.
94 For more information on UNOOSA, see http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/OOSA/index.html.
95 Norwegian Nobel Prize Institute, webpage at http://nobelpeaceprize.org/eng_lau_list.html.
ȱȱȱ
řŗȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱ
Public opinion about science and technology influences S&T policy decisionmaking. The degree
to which the public is willing to invest federal funds in research whose outcome is uncertain, but
which has the potential of enhancing society or solving or ameliorating problems, reflects their
trust in scientists, engineers, and health professionals. The public also influences whether or not
research is conducted in certain fields of research, such as embryonic stem cell research; research
methods, such as the use of animals in laboratory research; and STEM education. Public attitudes
can also influence public policies related to the application of a technology, such as the use of
genetically-modified organisms as agricultural crops or irradiated foods.96
Based on NSF surveys, the majority of Americans believe
• the benefits of scientific research outweigh harmful results,
• science and technology makes our lives healthier, easier, and more comfortable,
• more opportunities will be available for the next generation due to science and
technology,
• Americans depend too much on science and too little on faith, and
• the federal government should fund basic research.97
In 2006, the percentage of Americans who profess a great deal of confidence in the leaders of the
scientific community was 41%, second only to military leaders at 47%.98 On the other hand,
many Americans do not give correct answers to basic factual questions about science and the
scientific inquiry process, are skeptical of some established scientific ideas even when they have
some basic familiarity with the idea, and are receptive to including nonscientific views in science
classrooms.99
On occasion, individual opinion leaders become a major spokesperson on an S&T policy topic.
Although they do not represent a particular organization, they have often held, in the past,
leadership positions in government, business, industry, or nongovernmental organizations that
have heightened their visibility and prominence on an issue. An example of such an individual is
Colin Powell, former Secretary of State, who often speaks on behalf of himself rather than an
organization.
ȱ£ȱȱ¢ȱȱ
Many scientific and engineering professional organizations and disciplinary societies are active in
the S&T policy decisionmaking process. The goals of the organization or society are generally to
96 National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, (Rosslyn, VA: National Science Foundation),
Chapter 7 at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/.
97 National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, (Rosslyn, VA: National Science Foundation,
2008), Appendix Tables 7-12, 7-13, and 7-16 at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/.
98 National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 (Rosslyn, VA: National Science Foundation),
Appendix Table 7-20 at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/.
99 National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, (Rosslyn, VA: National Science Foundation),
Chapter 7 at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/.
ȱȱȱ
řŘȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
ȱ
advance and highlight research in their professions or fields. The nonprofit organizations and
societies, in turn, represent the views of their Members in Congress amongst many other
activities. According to one assessment, there are over 3,000 such organizations worldwide.100
Although these groups do have a self-interest, this does not necessarily imply that their science
and technology advice should be discounted or doubted. For example, the American Society of
Civil Engineers (ASCE) warned well before the Minneapolis bridge collapse about the nation’s
deteriorating infrastructure.101
A professional organization is an organization whose goal is to advance a particular profession.
Examples of professional organizations include the National Science Teachers Association
(NSTA), the National Society of Teachers of Mathematics (NSTM), and the National Society of
Professional Engineers (NSPE). Professional organizations conduct activities similar to
disciplinary societies as well as, in some cases, offering professional certification activities.
The goal of a science and engineering disciplinary society is to advance that field of science,
engineering, or a multidisciplinary field. For example, the mission of the American Physical
Society (APS) is “to advance and diffuse the knowledge of physics.”102 The American Chemical
Society (ACS) objective is to encourage the advancement of chemistry, promote research in
chemical science and industry, improve the qualifications and usefulness of chemists, increase
and diffuse chemical knowledge, promote scientific interests and inquiry, and foster public
welfare and education. The mission of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS) is to represent the S&E community broadly and “advance science, engineering, and
innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all people.”103 Examples of other disciplinary
societies active in the Washington DC area include the Federation of Societies in Experimental
Biology (FASEB), the American Mathematical Society (AMS), the American Geophysical Union
(AGU), ASCE, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME).
There are also organizations that represent S&T professionals, but which are not limited to
particular disciplines. For example, some organizations focus on enhancing the status of women
and underrepresented groups in science and engineering such as the Association of Women in
Science (AWIS), the Society of Women Engineers (SWE), the National Action Council for
Minorities in Engineering (NACME), and the Center for the Advancement of Hispanics in
Science and Engineering Education (CAHSEE).
Many of the major science and engineering societies and professional organizations sponsor
congressional fellowships where individuals with science and engineering backgrounds have an
opportunity to spend time learning about congressional policymaking, while they in turn provide
scientific and technical expertise and analysis for Members of Congress. In general, fellowships
last for one year with the fellows acting as special assistants in legislative and policy areas that
would benefit from scientific and engineering input. Any congressional office may request a
100 For a list of these organizations, see the following site developed by the Department of Energy at
http://eprints.osti.gov/cgi-bin/search_societies.pl#browse.
101 American Society of Civil Engineers, Report Card on America’s Infrastructure at http://www.asce.org/reportcard/
2005/index.cfm.
102 American Physical Society, “History and Vision,” webpage at http://www.aps.org/about/history/index.cfm.
103 American Association for the Advancement of Science, “About AAAS,” at http://www.aaas.org/aboutaaas/.
ȱȱȱ
řřȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
ȱ
fellow. The most prominent of the fellowship programs is that sponsored by AAAS in cooperation
with approximately 30 national scientific and engineering societies.104
ȱȱȱ
Universities, colleges, and other post-secondary educational institutions are also active in science
and technology policy. These organizations issue educational materials and position statements to
support their points of view on a variety of issues. Some universities have Washington DC offices
and others have Washington representatives who monitor the status of Congressional activities
that might impact their institution. Examples include the University of California and the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
In addition, there are about 50 organizations that represent post-secondary institutions.105 These
include the American Council on Education (ACE), the Association of American Universities
(AAU), the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC), the
Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U), Council of Graduate Schools
(CGS), and the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC).
ACE serves as the umbrella organization by developing consensus amongst all these
organizations on higher education policy issues. AAU represents the major research universities
and NASULGC represents state universities and land grant colleges. AAC&U focuses on
liberal106 undergraduate education, CGS on graduate education, and AAMC on medical
education. In addition, some organizations may focus on a specific topic. For example, the
Council on Government Relations (COGR) focuses on the financial and administrative aspects of
federally funded research. Universities and colleges may be simultaneously active in many of
these organizations.
¢ǰȱȱ ǰȱȱȱ ȱ
Advocacy, special interest, or action groups are individuals or organizations whose goal is to
influence public policy or decisionmaking on an issue. One advocacy organization, the Pugwash
Conferences on Science and World Affairs, received the Nobel Prize in 1995 “for their efforts to
diminish the part played by nuclear arms in international politics.”107
Examples of advocacy groups active in S&T policy are overarching groups such as the Union of
Concerned Scientists, Federation of American Scientists, and the Center for Science in the Public
Interest as well as issue-specific organizations such as Research! America that advocates for
increased funding for health research, and the Natural Resources Defense Council that advocates
on environmental policy issues. There are also coalitions where a number of organizations work
together on a particular issue, such as the Task Force on the Future of American Innovation,
104 For more information, see http://fellowships.aaas.org/02_Areas/02_Congressional.shtml and Jeffrey K. Stine,
Twenty Years of Science in the Public Interest: A History of the Congressional Science & Engineering Fellowship
Program (Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1994).
105 For more information, see http://www.whes.org/members.html.
106 AAC&U defines liberal education as a “philosophy of education that empowers individuals with broad knowledge
and transferable skills, and a strong sense of value, ethics, and civic engagement.” For more information, see
http://www.aacu.org/resources/liberaleducation/index.cfm.
107 Norwegian Nobel Prize Peace Prize, webpage at http://nobelpeaceprize.org/eng_lau_list.html.
ȱȱȱ
řŚȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
ȱ
where industry and academia advocate for increased federal support for research in the physical
sciences and engineering.
Many of these organizations have scientists and engineers on their staff who help the organization
base their positions on their views of scientific evidence as opposed to rhetoric. While some
believe it is appropriate and critical for scientists and engineers to take positions on public policy
issues, others believe it is inappropriate and that scientists and engineers should be careful to
separate their personal viewpoints from their professional obligations so they remain neutral and
do not influence their research activities. Some professional organizations and disciplinary
societies may take a middle ground—taking positions on particular issues, but clearly separating
their lobbying activities from their educational activities.
¢ȱȱȱȱ
To represent its point of view in Washington, DC, an industrial company has several options. It
may represent its point of view individually, either through a Washington office or in its
congressional district, or it may work with other industries in a trade association or other
organization focused on business. A trade association is an association of people or companies in
a particular business or trade or chamber of commerce organized to promote their common
interests.108 Examples of trade associations that may speak on S&T issues include the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Biotechnology Industry
Organization, the Electronic Industries Alliance, the American Petroleum Institute, and the
American Chemistry Council.
ȱ
Labor groups may also influence S&T decisionmaking. A labor group may be a professional
association (discussed above) or a labor union. Many of these groups are interested in safety
issues—for example, how knowledge-intensive and manufacturing industries can enhance the
safety of workers, what scientific and technical research can tell workers about their safety, and
how science and technology can enhance worker safety. An example of a labor union active in
this area is the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-
CIO), a voluntary federation of 55 national and international labor unions.
Labor groups are also interested in influencing decisions that impact their job market and their
ability to compete for employment, such as immigration issues or increasing the number of H-1B
visas.109 In addition to labor groups, some professional organizations (see earlier description) are
also active on these issues. Examples include the Programmers Guild, the American Engineering
Association, and the IEEE. Labor unions that are active include the Washington Alliance of
Technology Workers and the Communication Workers of America.
108 For more information on trade associations and their political activities, see CRS Report RL33377, Tax-Exempt
Organizations: Political Activity Restrictions and Disclosure Requirements, by Erika Lunder.
109 For more information, see CRS Report 95-408, Immigration: The Effects on Low-Skilled and High-Skilled Native-
Born Workers, by Linda Levine; CRS Report RL31973, Programs Funded by the H-1B Visa Education and Training
Fee, and Labor Market Conditions for Information Technology (IT) Workers, by Linda Levine and Blake Alan
Naughton; CRS Report RL30498, Immigration: Legislative Issues on Nonimmigrant Professional Specialty (H-1B)
Workers, by Ruth Ellen Wasem. And CRS Report RL34091, Globalization, Worker Insecurity, and Policy Approaches,
by Raymond J. Ahearn.
ȱȱȱ
řśȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
ȱ
Faculty, graduate students, and postdoctoral scholars also advocate for their views in Washington,
DC, and on university campuses as part of labor groups or professional organizations. For
example, the National Postdoctoral Association is a professional organization that represents
postdoctoral scholars, and the American Association of University Professors represents faculty
viewpoints. The graduate students at Columbia University are represented as a chapter of the
UAW, the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America.
Box 4. Congressional and Administration Interest in
Science and Technology Policy Advice
The creation and long-term support of institutions whose mission is to provide science and technology knowledge
and policy analysis for policymakers in Congress and the executive branch has not been a smooth progression. As
noted earlier, the first executive-created organization, PSAC, was abolished, then statutorily resurrected. Similarly,
the perceived need for technical assistance led to the statutory creation of two post-World War II agencies that were
effectively closed down due to a lack of an appropriation for their operation in the 1990s: the Office of Technology
Assessment (OTA), a congressional-support agency, and the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS),
an independent agency of the federal government, also charged with providing advice to Congress.
Congress established OTA in 1972 to assess the consequences of applying technology by preparing comprehensive
reports that discussed the pros and cons of policy options about an issue. The law created a support agency to
provide objective and authoritative analysis of complex scientific and technical issues to aid in policymaking. It was
intended to facilitate congressional access to expertise and permit legislators to consider objectively information
presented by the executive branch, interest groups, and other stakeholders to controversial policy questions. OTA
was effectively eliminated when Congress did not appropriate funds for FY1996 for its continued operation and
appropriated funds to close down the office.
Congress established ACUS in 1964 to promote improvements in the efficiency, adequacy and fairness of procedures
by which federal agencies conduct regulatory programs, administer grants and benefits, and perform related
governmental functions. The Conference conducted research and issued reports on S&T policy issues such as making
a statement on effective decisionmaking techniques for the evaluation of scientific studies based on an evaluation of
the FDA’s public board of inquiry procedures when there are disputes regarding scientific studies. As with OTA, the
conference was terminated in FY1996 when funds were appropriated for its closure. Although reauthorized in 2004,
no funds were appropriated, and this authorization expired on September 30, 2007.
There are recurring congressional discussions regarding the revival of these organizations.
Source: Excerpt from CRS Report RS21586, Technology Assessment in Congress: History and Legislative Options, by
Genevieve J. Knezo. U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science, Scientific and Technical Advice for the U.S.
Congress, hearing, 109th Cong., 2nd Sess., July 25, 2006 (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 2006) at
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.181&filename=28757.wais&directory=/diska/
wais/data/109_house_hearings; U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and
Administrative Law, Reauthorization of the Administrative Conference of the United States, hearings, 108th Cong.,
2nd Sess., May 20 and June 24, 2004 (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 2004) at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/
useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.183&filename=93774.pdf&directory=/diska/wais/data/108_house_hearings.
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱ¢ȱ
ȱǵȱ
This primer on S&T policy decisionmaking provides an overview how science and technology
influences policy, and how policy influences S&T policy. The report also describes the major
sources of knowledge and advice for policymakers. In surveying this landscape, it is perhaps
worthwhile to also reflect on the opportunities and challenges facing the current S&T policy
decisionmaking process.
ȱȱȱ
řŜȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
ȱ
Science and technology policy decisionmaking is both democratic and decentralized. In other
words, many organizations and individuals representing a wide array of ideas and opinions
participate in S&T policy decisionmaking. No one organization or individual is viewed as
speaking on behalf of the entire scientific and technical community—either inside or outside the
federal government. Each freely offers sources of knowledge and advice. This provides
policymakers with an overwhelming amount of information, and it can be challenging to sort
through it all to determine which information is the most germane to a particular issue or
decision.
Communication between policymakers and the science and engineering community can also be a
challenge due to fundamentally different perspectives, regardless of the issue. In addition, the
science and engineering community may find it challenging to recognize that the information
they provide is only one factor in a policymaker’s decision process, which can include cultural,
economic, and other values.
Another challenge is that many federal government agencies can simultaneously influence a S&T
policy issue. Agencies often have overlapping roles that can influence assessments of risk,
allocation of responsibility, problem-solving, and patterns of participation.110 For example, federal
decisionmaking regarding nuclear power includes
• Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Safety and design;
• Federal Power Commission - Rate bases and authority;
• Occupational Safety & Health Administration - Worker safety;
• Environmental Protection Agency - Environmental impact studies;
• Department of Energy - Nuclear power research and development;
• Federal Emergency Management Agency - Nuclear power plant emergency;
• Department of Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Federal
Aviation Administration, U.S. Coast Guard, and others - Nuclear power plant
security; and
• Department of Transportation - Shipment of radioactive materials.111
Critics of the current S&T policy decisionmaking process say it can be challenging to make
logical and consistent policies as each of these federal agencies may assess the risk of a given
policy from a different perspective without a unified assessment.112 There are many organizations
and individuals in Congress, the judicial branch, state and local governments, and outside of
government such as industry, advocacy groups, think tanks, and others who also offer their
thoughts on any given S&T policy. As a result, this diversity leads some experts to believe that
S&T policy decisions can not be made coherently and consistently.
Further, some critics say that public policies do not always reflect what is known about science
and technology, and neither policymakers nor the public have sufficient understanding to make
110 Richard Barke, Science, Technology, and Public Policy (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1986).
111 Ibid. Modified based on information at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission website at http://www.nrc.gov/.
112 Ibid.
ȱȱȱ
řŝȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
ȱ
appropriate decisions.113 A reliance on experts may help policymakers make decisions, but some
express concerns that the experts themselves are unable to separate their personal biases
sufficiently to provide an independent analysis of the situation. For example, on climate change,
some have expressed concerns that some scientists are unable to separate their personal beliefs
regarding public policy when providing the results of their research to policymakers.114 In
addition, experts do not always agree with one another due to the inherent uncertainty in science.
As a result, policymakers may find it challenging to obtain a sufficiently clear answer for
decisionmaking. Policymakers must often decide whether to make a choice on a current
assessment of the costs and benefits of taking action based on imperfect information or to await
additional scientific and technical information. Moreover, while scientific knowledge and
technological development is changing constantly, the same is not always true of public policy.
As a result, policies developed a number of years ago may not reflect the latest scientific and
technological knowledge.
Finally, critics say that accountability for political decisions can also be a challenge.115 The
decentralized nature of S&T policy decisionmaking can make it challenging to separate sources
of advice and make those providing advice accountable. For example, a Member of Congress
may rely on a presidential appointee who in turn relies on his or her science and engineering staff.
That staff may develop their opinion based on federal advisory committees, and experts outside
the federal government, who in turn rely on peer reviews of the work of individual scientists and
engineers, who are not able to be held accountable to the public for public policies based on their
knowledge and guidance.
Despite these challenges, scientific and technical knowledge and advice has the potential of being
useful in making decisions related to public policy. Policymakers have an opportunity to make
their decisions based on the best knowledge and guidance available, along with the other factors
they must take into account. Perhaps one way to recognize the value of scientific and technical
knowledge and guidance in the policymaking process is to think of the many countries in which
policymakers must make decisions with limited scientific and technical advice. An intuitive sense
can only go so far in such situations, while scientific and technical knowledge and guidance can
help policymakers assess the potential risk and benefits of a decision they make so that societal
and economic benefits are enhanced and losses are mitigated.
ȱȱ ȱ
Deborah D. Stine
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
dstine@crs.loc.gov, 7-8431
113 Ibid.
114 See, for example, Edward J. Wegman, David W. Scott, and Yasmin H. Said, “Ad Hoc Committee Report on the
‘Hockey Stick’ Global Climate Reconstruction,” at http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/
07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf, p. 65.
115 Richard Barke, Science, Technology, and Public Policy (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1986).
ȱȱȱ
řŞȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱ
řşȱ