Comments on: Science, Delayed

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 23:52:03 +0000

Nice post. I also just posted info about the AAAS holding a session about reinstating the OTA

By: Michele S.

Michele S. — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 18:20:34 +0000

I am a doctoral student and in coming across a cite in research I was doing offering by a document from the Office of Technology Assessment appealed to me and so I thought that I could find more up to date info by going to this website. I had no idea that the Office of Technology Assessment had closed in 1995. I feel that the implications are critical to the research that comes out of this office. If I can do anything to assist in bringing about a renewal of this critical factor in government, please email me.

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 06:50:18 +0000

The dismantlement of OTA is why we have ultra-conservative faith-based people whispering in the ear of the President about how condoms don’t work, about how there are uncertainties related to the cause of global warming and about how the EPA needs to be undermined for the good of business. As an example, the novelist Micheal Crichton recently advised the president on the science of climate change.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/national/19warming.html

By: DamionKutaeff

DamionKutaeff — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 08:11:49 +0000

Hello everybody, my name is Damion, and I’m glad to join your conmunity,
and wish to assit as far as possible.

By: Jon Mackay

Jon Mackay — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 02:28:56 +0000

Oh, good grief… I’m the one behind the times. In my defense, by just days.

It seems Carty was dropped from the PM’s office. Instead, the Science, Technology and Innovation Council has been created.

No science in the PM’s ear: Canada dismisses National Science Adviser at its peril
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/quirks-blog/2008/01/no_science_in_the_pms_ear.html

and

Feds to close science adviser office
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/01/22/tech-science-advisor.html

Just when you think it is safe to press “submit”…

By: Jon Mackay

Jon Mackay — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 02:17:22 +0000

Mike Spear, generally I agree with you, but I think you’re painting with a broad brush.

I agree that there are no shortage of problems with the disconnect between objective scientific alternatives and policy in Canada. However, the Royal Society of Canada (www.rsc.ca) is just one body which has as its purpose:

“assessing issues of importance to Canadians and providing independent expert advice, notably to government, on matters of public interest”

Additionally, there is a National Science Advisor, Dr. Arthur J. Carty:
http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/ic1.nsf/en/00092e.html

Yes, I agree that there needs to be a formal body with the same institutional mandate as the OTA. That we are lacking, I believe. Canadians have a political culture that seems to foster “expert panels” which often reflects the biases of those repeatedly chosen to sit on such panels.

I’m not an expert, but I think we would benefit from a little more sunlight in our official decision making process. Having an office dedicated to giving politicians honest policy alternatives, like the OTA, would be a good start.

Just my 2 cents.

By: Asa

Asa — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 01:20:40 +0000

Laurie — try http://speaker.house.gov/contact/ rather than her personal district site.

By: Laurie D. T. Mann

Laurie D. T. Mann — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:06:04 +0000

I got an odd auto-response back from Pelosi, along the lines of “I can’t correspond to you if you’re not in my district.” This is strange, as I was not writing as a Congressional representative, but as the Speaker of the House!

By: Joshua M

Joshua M — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 05:55:38 +0000

How did they ‘literally shoot down’ the star wars project with a report? To ‘literally’ shoot, you have to use a gun, or something that can _actually shoot_. ‘literally’ doesn’t mean ‘really’ or ‘gosh a lot’. It means ‘literal’, ‘exactly what the words mean’.

By: Mike Spear

Mike Spear — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 03:55:38 +0000

Welcome to Canada.
No dedicated science department or ministry at the federal level. No Chief Science Advisor to the federal cabinet. No Department of Science of Technology.
As a country we’ve tried various models to try to look for the right road to funding and understanding science but in the end we always seem to end up letting politicians (well meaning and otherwise ) try to sort it out themselves to decide which direction they should steer the myriad of funding agencie and scientific endeavours.
If you ever figure out how to restore your system you’re free to pop up here to help develop one for your Northern neighbour.

Mike Spear
Genome Alberta

By: Laurie D. T. Mann

Laurie D. T. Mann — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:00:02 +0000

I sent the following letter to Speaker Pelosi today. I may write something similar to my representative Tim Murphy.

Dear Speaker Pelosi,

I know this has been a very challenging year for you, and it’s been tough to bring about the kind of changes many of us so hoped for.

I really hoped that the Congress would reinstate the Office of Technology Assessment. For many years now, the U. S. government has not been paying enough attention to science. In fact, many voices in the government have been doing their damndest to suppress scientific evaluation.

Please help do what you can to re-integrate science in governmental decision-making.

Sincerely yours,

Laurie D. T. Mann
McDonald, PA 15057-2187