Governing under the influence (of science)

In November, I was able to spend some time with Professor David Cope of Cambridge University – the former Director of the UK’s Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) – while he was at the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) in Washington. In his time at GAO, David has been working with the Chief Scientist’s team on a project examining how science advice is provided to legislatures.

We all know that policymakers and legislators have a lot on their minds. They’re responsible for decisions about defense, healthcare, taxes and any number of other issues that most members of the public (and most policymakers and legislators) would prioritize above science. Established systems exist to provide decision makers with advice on these and other issues. But what about science? Parliament and Congress aren’t exactly awash with scientists and engineers. Yet it plays a part in all the issues named above and then some.

In his 14 years at the UK Parliament, David saw the demand for impartial advice and analysis on all manners of scientific and technological issues rise dramatically. “I’d always wanted to take some time out to analyze in a more systematic way how we went about providing this service,” he said, “Then discussions with the staff of the Center for Science, Technology and Engineering at GAO when they visited the UK made me aware that they were thinking along the same lines. I’m really grateful to the British Embassy in Washington for enabling me to get our heads together on this. The aim is not to devise a straightjacket methodology but to provide a basis that demonstrates the comprehensiveness and integrity of work output.”

Science advice comes from all over the place. And it’s tough to really call it advice. The Congressional Research Service can produce reports for Congress on topics upon request, but these are reactive. The National Academy of Sciences also produces reactive reports. They also tend to be very long and take months or years to complete – which isn’t great when there’s a vote on a bill or issue that’s hours away. The GAO provides technology assessment, but often couched in terms of a financial analysis.

In the UK, POST provides some of this functionality, but it’s still in the form of longer-term reports (usually with a three month turnaround).  In cases of real emergency, however, such as an oil tanker running aground, or a hastily-called parliamentary debate on provision of vaccination for Human Papillomavirus, it may need to respond much more rapidly.  As an internal office of the UK Parliament, POST does not make direct recommendations – rather it explores policy options and the likely outcome of choices.

After the conclusion of his visit, David will continue to work with the GAO on producing guidance for its future technology assessment activities.  He will be speaking on a panel in February at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), titled “Current Status and Challenges in Conducting Technology Assessments Globally,” where results of the work will be presented.