Science and Technology Policymaking: A Primer

Science and Technology Policymaking:
A Primer
Updated June 20, 2008
Deborah D. Stine
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division



Science and Technology Policymaking: A Primer
Summary
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.



Contents
Overview of U.S. Science and Technology Policy ........................2
Science and Technology Policy Facets.............................3
Historical Changes in U.S. Science and Technology Policy.............5
Definition of Research and Development...........................7
Industries Linked to Science and Technology........................8
What are Some Perspectives on Science and Technology Policy?............8
Science and Technology Community and Policymakers................9
Federal Funding of Research....................................10
Policy for Science and Science for Policy .........................12
Policy for Technology and Technology for Policy...................13
Who Makes Decisions Regarding Science and Technology Policy in
Congress? ...................................................17
Committees .................................................17
Caucuses ...................................................19
Who Makes Decisions Regarding Science and Technology Policy in the
Executive Branch?............................................21
The President and the White House...............................21
Office of Science and Technology Policy......................21
Office of Management and Budget...........................25
Other White House Science and Technology Policy Related
Offices .............................................25
Agency Leadership............................................26
Federal Agencies.............................................26
Who Makes Decisions in the Judicial Branch Regarding Science and
Technology Policy?...........................................28
What Organizations Provide Science and Technology Advice to
Policymakers? ...............................................29
Federal Advisory Committees...................................30
Congressionally Chartered Honorific Organizations..................33
Federally Funded Research and Development Corporations (FFRDCs)...34
International Intergovernmental Organizations......................35
Other Sources of Advice.......................................36
Policy Institutes..........................................36
Public and Individual Opinion Leaders........................36
Professional Organizations and Disciplinary Societies............37
Universities and Colleges..................................39
Advocacy, Special Interest, or Action Groups...................39
Industry and Trade Associations.............................40
Labor ..................................................40
What are the Opportunities and Challenges of the Current Science and
Technology Policy Decisionmaking Process?.......................43



List of Figures
Figure 1. Projected Federal Obligations for Research and Development, by
Agency and Character of Work: FY2007..........................11
Figure 2. Major Alternative Perspectives in the Scientific and
Technology Community on the Allocation of Resources for Research....12
Figure 3. One Perspective on the Relationship of Federal Investment to
Innovation ..................................................14
Figure 4. Pasteur’s Quadrant Model of Science and Engineering Research....15
Figure 5. Organizations and Individuals Who Influence Science and
Technology Policy Decisionmaking..............................31
List of Tables
Table 1. The Relationship Between Science and Technology and
Policymaking .................................................4
Table 2. Federal Science and Technology Policy-Related Advisory
Committee Categories.........................................32



Science and Technology Policymaking:
A Primer
Scientific 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 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 [scientific1
and] technical [workforce] policy.
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


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.

supports public policy decisionmaking as well as performing and funding research
and development.
Overview of U.S. Science and Technology Policy
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 Writings4
and Discoveries.
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).
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


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 Science and Technology Task Force on Science Policy, 99th Cong.,nd

2 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).

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).
Science and Technology Policy Facets
As illustrated in Table 1, science and technology policy has four facets: science11
for policy, technology for policy, policy for science, and policy for technology.
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 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


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&r e c N u m=

327&itemLink=D?hlaw:30:./temp/~ammem_IM yH::%230020327&linkT ext=1].


10 Journals of the Continental Congress, October 26, 1774, p. 108, available at
[http://memory.loc.gov/ cgi-bin/ a mp a ge ?collId=llj c&fileName=001/llj c001.db&recNum=

120&itemLink=D?hlaw:23:./temp/~ammem_IM yH::%230010121&linkT ext=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. .
12 An example is discussed in CRS Report RL34497, Advanced Research Projects
Agency - Energy (ARPA-E): Background, Status, and Selected Issues for Congress,
(continued...)

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 InfluencingScience and
Science andTechnology Informing
Technology Policy
SciencePolicy for Science Science for Policy
e.g., Should the U.S.e.g., Should the United
federal governmentStates take action on
support embryonic stemclimate change?
cell research?
TechnologyPolicy for TechnologyTechnology for Policy
e.g., Should the emerginge.g., Should policy actions
field of nanotechnology bebe taken to enhance the
supported and regulated?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. 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 (...continued)
by Deborah D. Stine.

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/].
Historical Changes in U.S. Science and Technology Policy
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 made13
significant scientific findings in the life sciences.
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


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).

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 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


15 A. Hunter Dupree, Science in the Federal Government: A History of Policies and
Activities (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press 1986).
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).

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.
Definition of Research and Development
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


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] .

useful materials, devices, systems, or methods, including the design and20
development of prototypes and processes.
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.
Industries Linked to Science and Technology
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),
!education services, and
!health services.
High-technology manufacturing industries include
! aerospace,
! pharm aceut i cal s,
!computers and office machinery,
!communications equipment, and
!scientific (medical, precision, and optical) instruments.21
What are Some Perspectives on Science and
Technology Policy?
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


20 National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 (Arlington, VA:
National Science Foundation 2008), Chapter 4 at [http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/].
21 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Knowledge-Based
Industries (Paris: OECD), 2001.

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.
Science and Technology Community and Policymakers
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.
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,23


the scope of choice available to the decision maker.
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).
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).

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, M. Lynne Corn, Pamela Baldwin, and Kristina Alexander.
Federal Funding of Research
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 research24
is provided by the federal science and technology (FS&T) budget. 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 technologies25
more consistently and accurately than the overall R&D data.” 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.
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
[ h t t p : / / www.whi t e house.go v/ omb/ budget / f y2009/ aper s.ht ml ] .

Policy for Science and Science for Policy
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.
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/DAT A/1991/9121.P DF].

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.
Policy for Technology and Technology for Policy
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
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


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, and CRS Report RL34396, The America COMPETES Act and
the FY2009 Budget, both by Deborah D. Stine.
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
[ h t t p : / / www.csi i c .ca/ PDF/ Godi n_30.pdf ] .

policy believe that investing federal resources to enhance technological innovation
is appropriate and a wise use of federal funds.30
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


30 For more information, see CRS Report RL33528, Industrial Competitiveness and
Technological Advancement: Debate Over Government Policy, by Wendy H. Schacht.
31 Donald E. Stokes, Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation
(Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1997).

Figure 4. Pasteur’s Quadrant Model of Science
and Engineering Research


Source: Donald E. Stokes, Pasteurs Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation
(Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1997).
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 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
32 This is represented by what appears to be an empty quadrant.

apple falls from a tree). Such exploration might lead to the type of
research represented by Bohr’s quadrant or Edison’s quadrant.33
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.
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


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].
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.

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.
Who Makes Decisions Regarding Science and
Technology Policy in Congress?
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 fellows, hearings, and congressional support agencies (see Box 3) as well as
external sources that will be described later in this report.
Committees38
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 jurisdiction 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.39 As
a result, the House Committee on Science and Technology is the authorizing


37 CRS Report RL30484, Advanced Vehicle Technologies: Energy, Environment, and
Development Issues, by Brent D. Yacobucci.
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.
39 House Rule X(1)(o), September 14, 2007.

committee for the non-defense research activities of many federal agencies.40 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.”41 The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation jurisdiction is defined in the Senate rules more generally as “science,
engineering, and technology research and development and policy.” 42
The jurisdiction of these committees, however, does 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 is under the jurisdiction of the House
Committee on Energy and Commerce43 and the Senate Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.44
Defense research likewise falls under other committees’ jurisdiction. The
House Committee on Armed Services has jurisdiction over “scientific research and
development in support of the armed services.”45 The Senate Committee on Armed
Services jurisdiction includes “military research and development.”46
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, not all research funding falls into the jurisdiction of the same
committee. For example, the funding for NSF, NASA, NIST, and the White House
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) falls under the jurisdiction of the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations’ Subcommittee on Commerce,
Justice, Science, and Related Agencies. Funding for energy research activities falls
under the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations’ 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 with legislative jurisdiction conduct oversight and
investigations. In addition to the committees described above, the House Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform and Senate Committee on Homeland Security


40 House Committee on Science and Technology, “About the Committee on Science and
Technology,” website at [http://science.house.gov/about/default.htm#jurisdiction].
41 House Rule X(3)(k), September 14, 2007.
42 Standing Rules of the Senate, Rule XXV(1)(f)(1), September 14, 2007.
43 House Rule X(1)(f), September 14, 2007.
44 Standing Rules of the Senate, Rule XXV(1)(m)(1), September 14, 2007.
45 House Rule X(1)(c), September 14, 2007.
46 Standing Rules of the Senate, Rule XXV(1)(c)(1), September 14, 2007.

and Governmental Affairs also play an active role in S&T policy and use scientific
and technical knowledge and information.
Caucuses
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 the jurisdiction of S&T policy is widespread
throughout Congress, 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).47 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.48
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
!Congressional Robotics Caucus
!Congressional Science Caucus
!House Aerospace Caucus
!House Biotechnology Caucus
!House Diversity and Innovation Caucus


47 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.
48 See [http://cha.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=45&Item
id=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.

!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.



Who Makes Decisions Regarding Science and
Technology Policy in the Executive Branch?
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.49
The President and the White House
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.
Office of Science and Technology Policy. 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.50


49 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).
50 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,thnd
99 Cong., 2 sess., Committee Print (Washington, DC: GPO, 1986), available at
[http://ia 341018.us .ar c hi ve .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.



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.51
Following the launch of Sputnik,52 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 1957.53
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.54
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.”55 OSTP defines its major objectives, based on the act, as follows:


51 Ibid.
52 For more information, see CRS Report RL34263, U.S. Civilian Space Policy Priorities:
Reflections 50 Years After Sputnik, by Deborah D. Stine.
53 Dwight D. Eisenhower Library, U.S. President’s Science Advisory Committee: Records,
1957-61, February 1975 at [http://www.eisenhower.utexas.edu/listofholdingshtml/listof
holdingsU/uspresidentsscienceadvisorycommitteerecords195761.PDF].
54 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.,nd

2 sess., Committee Print (Washington, DC: GPO, 1986), available at [http://ia341018.us.


archive.org/ 2/items/historyofscience00unit/historyofscience00unit.pdf].
55 OSTP webpage at [http://www.ostp.gov/html/_whatwedo.html].

!Advise the President and others within the Executive Office of the
President on the impacts of science and technology on domestic and56
international affairs;
!Lead an interagency effort to develop and implement sound science and
technology policies and budgets;
!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 in57
science and technology.
The Director of OSTP is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate
along with up to four Associate Directors.58 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 coordinated59
research and development strategies.
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.60 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


56 For more information on this topic, see CRS Report RL34503, Science, Technology, and
American Diplomacy: Background and Issues for Congress, by Deborah D. Stine.
57 This is the OSTP mission as described on its webpage at [http://www.ostp.gov/html/
_whatwedo.html ].
58 The number of associate directors has varied. Currently there are two associate directors.
One is focused on science and the other on technology.
59 National Science and Technology Council, website at [http://www.ostp.gov/cs/nstc].
60 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/OST P%20Paper1.pdf].

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.
Perhaps a more important distinction is whom the science advisor represents.61
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.62
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.63
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.64


61 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].
62 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].
63 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].
64 See, for example, National Science Board, National Action Plan for Addressing the
(continued...)

Office of Management and Budget. The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) assists the President in overseeing the preparation of the federal65
budget and supervises its administration in Executive Branch agencies. Specific
actions include formulating the President’s spending plans, evaluating the
effectiveness of agency programs, policies, and procedures, assessing competing
funding demands among agencies, setting funding priorities, and ensuring that
agency reports, rules, testimony, and proposed legislation are consistent with the
President’s Budget and with Administration policies.66
Each year, the directors of OSTP and OMB issue a joint memorandum outlining67
the President’s priorities and the Research and Development Investment Criteria.
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.
Other White House Science and Technology Policy Related Offices.
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.68 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.”69 CEQ “coordinates federal
environmental efforts and works closely with agencies and other White House offices
in the development of environmental policies and initiatives.”70 The President may
also obtain advice from the President’s cabinet (who may provide their advice based


64 (...continued)
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/OST P%20Paper1.pdf].
65 For more details, see CRS Report RS20167, The Role of the Office of Management and
Budget in Budget Development, by Bill Heniff Jr.
66 Office of Management and Budget, webpage, at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
organization/role.html ].
67 The evaluation criteria are indicated each year in a joint OSTP/OMB Memorandum. See
[http://www.ostp.gov/html/FY2009FINALOMB-OST PRDPriorityMemo.pdf].
68 National Security Council, webpage at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/].
69 Council of Economic Advisors, webpage at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/].
70 Council on Environmental Quality, webpage at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/
aboutceq.html].

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).
Agency Leadership
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.71 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.72 Some appointments, 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.73
Federal Agencies
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).


71 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].
72 For more details on which Senate committees have jurisdiction over which appointments,
see CRS Report RL30959, Presidential Appointee Positions Requiring Senate Confirmation
and Committees Handling Nominations, by Maureen Bearden, Henry B. Hogue, and
Terrence L. Lisbeth.
73 The following website provides access to both current and past Plum Books:
[ ht t p: / / www.gpoaccess.gov/ pl umbook/ i ndex.ht ml ] .

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).
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.74 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.75 (See later
section on FFRDCs for more details on some of these laboratories.)


74 For more information, see CRS Report RL34401, The National Nanotechnology Initiative:
Overview, Reauthorization, and Appropriations Issues, by John F. Sargent and CRS Report
RL32997, Climate Change: Federal Expenditures for Science and Technology, by Michael
M. Simpson and John R. Justus.
75 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.

Who Makes Decisions in the Judicial Branch
Regarding Science and Technology Policy?
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.76
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 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 throughout77
the legal system.
The U.S. Supreme Court has determined when judges should assess the
reliability of the scientific methodology and reasoning that supports expert
testimony.78 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;


76 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
[ ht t p: / / www.car negi e.or g/ sub/ pubs/ s ci ence_t e ch/ j udi ci al .t xt ] .
77 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].


78 For more information, see National Research Council, Discussions of the Committee on
Daubert Standards: Summary of Meetings (Washington, DC: National Academy Press,

2006).



!provide an appropriate level of scrutiny to forensic evidence in
criminal cases.79
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.80 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.81
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.82 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.83
What Organizations Provide Science and
Technology Advice to Policymakers?
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


79 Ibid.
80 For more information, see [http://www.fjc.gov/public/home.nsf].
81 For more information, see [http://www.aaas.org/spp/case/case.htm].
82 Sheila Jasanoff, Science at the Bar: Law, Science, and Technology in America
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995).
83 Mark Frankel and Brent Garland, “Law and Technology,” in Science, Technology, and
Society: An Encyclopedia, edited by Sal Restivo (New York: Oxford University Press,

2005).



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 Act84
(P.L. 92-463). 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.
Federal Advisory Committees
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).


84 For more information, see CRS Report RL30260, Federal Advisory Committees: A
Primer, by Stephanie Smith.

Figure 5. Organizations and Individuals Who Influence Science and
Technology Policy Decisionmaking


Source: Congressional Research Service

Table 2. Federal Science and Technology Policy-Related
Advisory Committee Categories
CategoryExample of Advisory CommitteeCreated by Congress
Science for PolicyEPA Clean Air Act Advisory Committee
Policy for ScienceDHS Science and Technical Advisory
Committee
Program Evaluation and DirectionNRC Advisory Committee on Reactor
Safeguards
Proposal ReviewUSDA Collaborative Forest Restoration
Program Advisory Panel
Event DrivenNational 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 1903.85 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.”86
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


85 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.,nd

2 sess., Committee Print (Washington, DC: GPO, 1986) [http://ia341018.us.archive.org/


2/items/historyofscience00unit/historyofscience00unit.pdf].


86 For more information on PCAST, see [http://www.ostp.gov/PCAST/pcast.html].

“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.87 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.88
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),89 EPA’s Science
Advisory Board (SAB), and DOD’s Defense Science Board (DSB).90 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 2006.91
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.
Congressionally Chartered Honorific Organizations
Another source of S&T policy advice are honorific nonprofit organizations
chartered by Congress.92 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.93 The NAS is a
private, nonprofit organization, whose new members are elected by current members


87 For more information about the NSB, see [http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/about/index.jsp].
88 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/].
89 For more information about ACD, see [http://www.nih.gov/about/director/acd/index.htm].
90 For more information about DSB, see [http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/].
91 For more information about SEAB, see [http://www.seab.energy.gov/].
92 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 Kosar.
93 See this charter at [http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=
ABOUT_incorporation] and its amendments at [http://www.nasonline.org/site/
Page Server?pagename=ABOUT _incorporation_ame ndment].

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.94
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 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.95
Federally Funded Research and Development Corporations
(FFRDCs)
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.96 As of May 2007, there were97
38 FFRDCs. DOE sponsors the majority, followed by DOD. The other federal
agencies sponsoring FFRDCS include HHS, DHS, NASA, NSF, Nuclear Regulatory


94 For more information on the National Academies, see [http://www.national
academies.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.
95 For more information on NAPA, see [http://www.napawash.org/index.html].
96 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.
97 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/].

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.
International Intergovernmental Organizations
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.”98 Thirty
countries, including the United States, are members of the OECD. OECD provides
comparative data and policy analysis for its member countries.
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.”99 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.”100
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


98 OECD, “About the OECD,” webpage at [http://www.oecd.org/pages/0,3417,en_3673

4052_36734103_1_1_1_1_1,00.html ].


99 For more information, see [http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=3328&URL_
DO=DO_T OPIC&URL_SECT ION=201.html ].
100 UNESCO, webpage at [http://portal.unesco.org/science/en/ev.php-URL_ID=5572&URL_
DO=DO_T OPIC&URL_SECT ION=201.html ].

Secretariat of international treaties related to outer space. UNOOSA also assists
developing countries interested in using space technology for development.101
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.”102 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.
Other Sources of Advice
Policy Institutes. 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.
Public and Individual Opinion Leaders. 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


101 For more information on UNOOSA, see [http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/OOSA/
index.html].
102 Norwegian Nobel Prize Institute, webpage at [http://nobelpeaceprize.org/eng_lau_
list.html].

policies related to the application of a technology, such as the use of genetically-
modified organisms as agricultural crops or irradiated foods.103
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.104
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%.105 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.106
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.
Professional Organizations and Disciplinary Societies. 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 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.107 Although these groups do have
a self-interest, this does not necessarily imply that their science and technology


103 National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, (Rosslyn, VA:
National Science Foundation), Chapter 7 at [http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/].
104 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/ st atistics/seind08/].
105 National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 (Rosslyn, VA:
National Science Foundation), Appendix Table 7-20 at [http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/
seind08/].
106 National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, (Rosslyn, VA:
National Science Foundation), Chapter 7 at [http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/].
107 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].

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.108
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.”109 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.”110
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


108 American Society of Civil Engineers, Report Card on America’s Infrastructure at
[ ht t p: / / www.asce.or g/ r e por t car d/ 2005/ i ndex.cf m] .
109 American Physical Society, “History and Vision,” webpage at [http://www.aps.org/about/
history/index.cfm].
110 American Association for the Advancement of Science, “About AAAS,” at
[ ht t p: / / www.aaas.or g/ about aaas/ ] .

request a fellow. The most prominent of the fellowship programs is that sponsored
by AAAS in cooperation with approximately 30 national scientific and engineering
societies.111
Universities and Colleges. 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.112 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 grant113
colleges. AAC&U focuses on liberal 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.
Advocacy, Special Interest, or Action Groups. 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.”114


111 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).
112 For more information, see [http://www.whes.org/members.html].
113 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].
114 Norwegian Nobel Prize Peace Prize, webpage at [http://nobelpeaceprize.org/
eng_lau_list.html ].

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,
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.
Industry and Trade Associations. 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.115 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.
Labor. 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


115 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.

increasing the number of H-1B visas.116 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.
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.


116 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.

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 theseth
organizations. In the 110 Congress, S. 1602 proposes to authorize appropriations for
OTA, and H.R. 3564 proposes to authorize appropriations for ACUS. H.R. 3564 passedth
the House in the 110 Congress, but it has not been voted upon by the Senate.
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,thnd
Scientific and Technical Advice for the U.S. Congress, hearing, 109 Cong., 2 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&d irectory=/d iska/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,thnd
hearings, 108 Cong., 2 Sess., May 20 and June 24, 2004 (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 2004) at
[ http ://fr web gate. access. gp o . go v/cgi-b i n/useftp . c gi? I P a d d r ess=162.140.64.183&
filename=93774.pdf&d irectory=/d iska/wais/data/108_house_hearings].



What are the Opportunities and Challenges of the
Current Science and Technology Policy
Decisionmaking Process?
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.
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.117 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.118


117 Richard Barke, Science, Technology, and Public Policy (Washington, DC: Congressional
Quarterly, 1986).
118 Ibid. Modified based on information at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission website at
(continued...)

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.119 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 appropriate decisions.120 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.121 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.122 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.


118 (...continued)
[http://www.nrc.gov/ ].
119 Ibid.
120 Ibid.
121 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.
122 Richard Barke, Science, Technology, and Public Policy (Washington, DC: Congressional
Quarterly, 1986).

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.