By Steven W. Popper
Steven W. Popper, associate director of the Science and Technology Policy Institute at RAND, coordinated the institute's effort to help identify the science and technology issues of greatest importance to the new administration.
Emerging scientific and technological developments are posing unprecedented challenges to government and society, making the need for a comprehensive, long-term perspective all the more important. Yet no area of federal responsibility is as widely dispersed across agencies and congressional committees as is science and technology policy. Moreover, with every change of administration, there is a risk of losing focus on many issues not raised explicitly during the ordinary course of political campaigns. Today, the potential costs associated with such institutional memory loss are especially pronounced.
To help identify the most pressing science and technology issues facing the nation, a RAND research team worked first with a bipartisan group of former top officials in science and technology. This group nominated over 50 candidate issues that were then presented to an advisory panel that included Erich Bloch, former director of the National Science Foundation; Edward David, former science advisor to President Nixon; Steve Dorfman, former vice-chair of Hughes Aircraft Company; Arati Prabakhar, former director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology; Frank Press, former science advisor to President Carter and former president of the National Academy of Science; and Robert White, former president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The panel concluded that the new administration should focus policy attention on ten science and technology issues. Three of the issues represent new challenges that require greater government attention: protecting "critical infrastructures," managing the capabilities of genomic technologies, and meeting other governance challenges posed by emerging technologies. Three issues represent ongoing safety and security challenges: strengthening the national aviation system, reviewing U.S. export controls on sensitive technology, and reassessing national missile defense options. Three issues represent other urgent, continuing challenges: rethinking global climate change policy, anticipating energy crises, and improving education research. The remaining issue entails juggling research priorities to best serve the overall public interest.
"Critical infrastructures" are systems so vital to economic well-being, national security, and public safety that any sustained degradation of the systems could debilitate the country. These systems include information networks and other assets controlled predominantly by the private sector. The "public goods" nature of these private infrastructures suggests a role for government in working with the private sector to protect such assets for society at large.
To gain routine access to the often proprietary data necessary to protect critical infrastructures, the federal government needs to establish trusting relationships with industry and address industry concerns. The concerns include immunity from self-incrimination caused by sharing information with law enforcement entities, a quid pro quo whereby the government shares its own information about threats to private infrastructures, and the provision of federal resources to defend against attacks.
The Y2K experience shows that government can help the private sector meet national goals. For Y2K, the federal government created a single point of contact to coordinate private efforts. In return, the government placed limitations on legal liability for damages flowing from Y2K disruptions and allowed commercial competitors to share information as necessary without being subject to antitrust action. Comparable arrangements could be made, for example, to neutralize computer viruses, to deflect other electronic intruders, or to map entire networks.
With respect to genomics, the administration is likely to face issues never before confronted by the nation--or even humankind. Human genetic research could soon offer capabilities never before possible, among them: (1) altering damaged or disease-prone genes; (2) altering genotypes in ways that make the alterations transmissible to succeeding generations; and (3) replacing or enhancing human traits, such as strength or intelligence, beyond what is available in nature.
Such capabilities will also raise serious questions. Opportunities for huge profits will encourage the investment of private capital into genetic research in excess of government spending. Uneven access to superior health care may increase the disparities of care between rich and poor. Some individuals or groups may even be inclined to use genomic technologies against other individuals, regardless of the legality of such actions. It will be important for the government to define the potential illegal use of genomic technologies and to provide adequate disincentives and safeguards against such use.
The policy mechanisms called on to do this job will, more than ever before, require an appreciation for science, a respect for democracy, a concern for citizens and their rights, and an appreciation of the complex role that private enterprise plays in our economy and quality of life.
These considerations raise more general issues of fundamental challenges to governance. Emerging technological developments could well swamp the response times and capabilities of traditional government structures. Some of the emerging technology-related challenges include safety protocols and trade rules for the commercial sale of genetically modified foods; privacy of information sent over wireless networks; taxation equity between Internet-based businesses and traditional businesses; and intellectual property protection not only for software but also for new "business methods," such as online shopping or marketing, and even for strings of genetic code.
|
| AP/WIDE WORLD PHOTOS/THE DENVER POST/BRIAN BRAINERD |
| Jack and Lisa Nash leave a press conference at the Colorado Center for Reproductive Medicine in Denver on Jan. 10, 2001. The Nash's son, Adam, was conceived in a test tube and genetically screened in hopes he could be a blood donor for his sister, Molly. The case is the first known instance in which parents screened and selected an embryo to find a suitable tissue donor for an ailing sibling. |
Success in governing these emerging issues will depend on cooperation among state and local governments, international organizations, and private industry. The administration can lay the foundation for future cooperation by (a) designating one person to coordinate national responses to the emerging technological challenges, (b) assigning a liaison to the science and technology committees of the National Governors' Association to solicit input from the states, and (c) asking the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology to solicit input from private industry regarding appropriate government responses to these challenges.
Many problems threaten the vitality and safety of the national aviation system. First, the system becomes overburdened during peak periods because there are few constraints on how airlines schedule flights, select fleets, and price tickets. Second, the fatal accident rate has been stubbornly consistent for the past 20 years; meanwhile, both the non-fatal accident rate and the number of close calls are growing. Third, the United States has only one remaining manufacturer of large transport aircraft: Boeing. That company is locked in tough competition with European builders. By 2015, 40 percent of the international commercial fleet will be of non-U.S. manufacture--a doubling of market share since 1995.
As a near-term priority, the administration should pursue a national aviation policy that stresses both economic vitality and constantly improved safety. To retain its leadership in these areas, the United States needs not only regulations that are more streamlined and effective but also research to help improve the performance of aircraft, flight crews, and ground controllers. Additional funds are needed for research on advanced aviation technologies. Currently, however, aviation research is fragmented. It is spread across NASA, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Department of Defense in programs that are only loosely coordinated. Greater coordination is needed if we are to ensure that we get the most from the funds we invest.
Similarly, U.S. export controls on potentially sensitive technology are currently a patchwork of outdated laws and regulations that appear to be onerous, ineffective, and poorly suited to modern conditions. A new approach might be to hold only those technologies developed by or for the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, or intelligence community and classified at the "top secret" level or higher as subject to formal review prior to release abroad.
All other technical information could be regulated by a new "Technology Control Commission" (TCC), a body operating in a manner similar to the Federal Communications Commission. The president, as well as the majority and minority leaders of Congress, could each nominate a commissioner and thereby enhance bipartisanship. The TCC would develop "effectiveness measures" for controlling sensitive technologies. Unlike current practice, any investigations of alleged violators would require officials to demonstrate damage before penalizing a violator, and all export restrictions would have sunset clauses. Greater transparency and accountability would engender broader support for the policies. They would also be easier to understand and to enforce and thus more likely to work.
Also in the security realm, the president needs access to an authoritative, independent, scientific review of all national missile defense issues beyond the political and military considerations. To this end, we recommend two actions. The administration would be well-served by commissioning a panel of recognized experts in the suitable fields to advise the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy about missile defense technology. The administration could also profit from establishing an independent research effort to study the issues and to inform the panel.
Evidence is mounting that greenhouse gases are changing the earth's climate. Numerous alternative energy technologies show great promise for reducing the human impact on global climate without causing adverse economic impacts. However, the Kyoto Protocol's targets and timetables for reducing greenhouse gas emissions around the world are producing stalemate rather than progress. The Kyoto Protocol relies on forecasts of climate change over the next 50 years and on the policies negotiated on the basis of those dubious forecasts. This static and inflexible approach fails to account for the dynamics of change and the inherent uncertainties we face. A new, more flexible and adaptive approach is required.
The administration could pursue such an approach in the following ways: (1) Continue to encourage firms and local jurisdictions to develop better technological options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions; (2) employ market mechanisms, such as tax breaks, in favor of the better options; (3) support international institutions to monitor global emissions and, if necessary, eventually regulate them; and (4) encourage research into new capabilities that could help all nations adapt to potentially severe impacts of climate change, should those impacts become evident.
The administration is facing critical energy issues as well--notably energy shortages and price rises but also questions of long-term strategy. The nation's most deregulated electricity market, California, is in a state of chaos. Natural gas prices are higher than ever. Oil prices are at 20-year highs. And the United States continues to increase its vulnerability to the world oil market with increased oil imports. Underlying each of these problems is a deeper set of infrastructure problems that span the energy spectrum.
As demand increases rapidly, price rises are to be expected. A well-functioning market would increase supply and reduce demand, but many energy markets are not yet fully competitive. The natural gas market is still relatively new. Electricity markets are even newer. And oil markets have always been subject to international pressures. Accordingly, the U.S. Department of Energy should create multiple programs to help energy markets function better. At the same time, there is a need for improved energy efficiency, for new sources of energy supply--including small distributed generation facilities and renewable energy technologies--and for a fundamental science and technology-based reexamination of overall strategy.
The federal government has traditionally played a limited role in K-12 education, providing only about 8 percent of nationwide expenditures. However, education research is one area where the federal government is the predominant force. As many states adopt reforms and infuse massive new resources into their public schools, the federal government has a unique opportunity to strengthen the scientific research base in education. A solid research base could, in turn, help states and districts use their resources more productively.
Educational research could adhere more closely to the health research model. Health research relies on clinical trials and longitudinal studies to track health behaviors and health problems. It rests on an institutional infrastructure of teaching hospitals, schools of public health, and academic research centers that closely link research to training, practice, and public education. All of these components are reinforced by a central federal funding agency, the National Institutes of Health, that is able to set priorities and achieve more efficient investment in infrastructure.
 |
| AP/WIDE WORLD PHOTOS/CHARLIE NEIBERGALL |
| Lead project engineer Roger Morton stands in the switchgrass storage room of the Alliant Energy power plant in Chillicothe, Iowa. The company is involved in an innovative research project with the U.S. Department of Energy to burn agricultural waste, or biomass, for energy. Using switchgrass as an alternative fuel source can also substitute for coal, thereby offsetting greenhouse gas emissions of carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide. |
In contrast, education research has almost no scientifically structured clinical trials, relatively few longitudinal surveys tracking children, and no equivalents of teaching hospitals or schools of public health that combine research with practice. Further, education research is notable among public programs for the exceedingly low ratio of dollars spent on research compared with overall expenditures. Education research can strengthen its scientific base by moving toward the health model--and should receive a higher level of funding.
The final issue is a subtle one. Science and technology investments are increasingly seen as being the wellsprings of our current and future well-being. Yet the large stake in federal investments in these areas is not managed as a coherent whole. To ensure balance across priorities, the administration should consider better ways to manage the federal research enterprise as an investment portfolio. While management approaches typical of the private sector will not translate directly, steps can be taken to provide better coordination. The administration could ensure greater compatibility in the collection, storage, and dissemination of data on federal research. Better communication among agencies could provide federal officials with better insight into the entire portfolio during each annual budget cycle as well as promote widespread adoption of "best practices." No matter the total level of budgetary support, steps are required to ensure that the government's investments in scientific research will serve the public interest to the greatest extent possible.
Addressing these ten priority issues could yield far-reaching benefits for the economy, public well-being, personal and national security--and the success of the new administration.