Chapter I. TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: WHAT IS IT? ITS STATUS

This study was prepared in order to present background materials for the Senate Subcommittee on Computer Services of the Committee on Rules and Administration in reference to the consideration of legislation to create a congressional Technology Assessment organization. The materials relate to an analysis of H.R. 10243 as passed by the House and S. 2302 as introduced into the Senate. Related hearings, published reports, and Member and staff inputs are included. The materials are intended to meet several requirements:

(1) to describe the background, development, and present status of Technology Assessment as a means of improving the legislative process;

(2) to identify areas of agreement and unresolved options, along with the arguments and consequences associated with each; and

(3) to provide some basic materials for preparation of the subcommittee (and later committee) report on the bills.

This first chapter offers abbreviated or working definitions of the structural terms of the House and Senate legislation and the key terms "Technology Assessment" and "technology" which are developed more fully in appendix A. Following this chapter is a brief summary of the rationale behind Technology Assessment and for the creation of a congressional organization to perform it.

DEFINITIONS

H.R. 10243 as passed by the House and Senate describes Technology Assessment as a way of equipping Congress with—

... new and effective means for securing competent, unbiased information concerning the physical, biological, economic, social, and political effects of such applications; and utilize this information whenever appropriate, as one factor in the legislative assessment of matters pending before the Congress.1 The bill further states that a Technology Assessment organization will

provide early indications of the probable beneficial and adverse impacts, of the applications of technology... [and] (1) identify existing or probable impacts of technology or technological programs; (2) where possible, ascertain cause-and-effect relationships; (3) identify alternative technological methods of implementing specific programs; (4) identify alternative programs

1 II.R. 10243, p. 2-3.

for achieving requisite goals; (5) make estimates and comparisons of the impacts of alternative methods and programs; and, (6) present findings of completed analyses to the appropriate legislative authorities...."

By definition, "Technology Assessment" is the thorough and balanced analysis of all significant primary, secondary, indirect, and delayed consequences or impacts, present and foreseen, of a technological innovation on society, the environment or the economy.

The purpose of Technology Assessment is to provide soundly based and authoritative information to aid the political process in arriving at decisions best contributing to the public interest. The task of Technology Assessment is to explore how the benefits of technology can be attained while simultaneously realizing other desirable economic, social and environmental goals and values.

It is important also to note what Technology Assessment is not : it is not a search for only the adverse effects of a technology; it is not a determination that a technology should or should not be employed; it is not a mechanism for arresting the development of technology.

The term "technology" may communicate too limited a notion in the context of Technology Assessment. As used in TA, it means more than physical science applications for equipment, materials and processesit includes innovations like credit cards, information systems, organ transplants, and standardized tests. As used in combination with the word "assessment," technology is the systematic, purposeful application of knowledge, skill, and expertise toward a function or service useful to man. Both of these terms are defined in greater detail in appendix A.

Many different and sometimes contradictory terms have been used to describe the principal components of the proposed Office of Technology Assessment for Congress. The terms "Assessment Board," "governing board," "board of directors," "advisory panel," "advisory group." "operational unit," "Director of the Board," "Director of the Office," and "chief executive" have been used in the numerous reports, hearings, and legislation on the Office of Technology Assessment. In some cases the same term has referred to the total set of activities or to separate units, and the natural result has been confusion and some lack of understanding as to how these units fit together. In order to maintain consistency in the following discussions, this report uses the terms as defined below:

Office of Technology Assessment (OTA).-The Office would include both the policymaking and operational components: the Technology Assessment Board (TAB), the Director and staff, and a Technology Assessment Advisory Council as proposed in the Senate subcommittee hearings and as incorporated in the modified Senate committee version of H.R. 10243 which was reported by the Committee on Rules and Administration and which became public law on October 13, 1972.

Technology Assessment Board (TAB).-The Board is the governing body which would formulate the policies of the Office.3 In

2 II.R. 10243, p. 3-4.

3 The House bill as passed uses the term Board for the TAB. But in various testimony and discussions, the same activity has been referred to as a Joint Committee. In appro priate places, therefore, this report will also use the combined term Board/Committee in

the House bill as passed, the TAB would consist of five Representatives and five Senators. H.R. 10243 as reported by the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration (Public Law 92-484) proposed a bipartisan Technology Assessment Board comprising three majority and three minority Members from each of the two Houses with the Director of the Office serving as a nonvoting member.

Director and staff.-The Director and staff form the operational unit of the OTA, and report to the TAB. In H.R. 10243 as modified by the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, the usual powers and authorities of a functioning agency of Government are provided for the Office of Technology Assessment, including those of promulgating rules and regulations, making contracts, hiring personnel, fixing compensation, etc. The Office would also be authorized to sit and act wherever and whenever

necessary.

The Office would itself be prohibited from operating laboratories, pilot plants, or test facilities in the pursuit of its mission. Technology Assessment Advisory Council.-An Advisory Council to the TAB was proposed in the Senate subcommittee hearings as a mechanism for involving members of the public in the activities of the Office and to compensate for the elimination from H.R. 10243 as reported by the House Science and Astronautics Committee of TAB members who were not Senators or Representatives. In the version of H.R. 10243 (Public Law 92484) reported by the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, a 12-man Advisory Council would be established. Ten of these members would be private citizens appointed for fixed terms by the Board; the remaining two, the Director of the Congressional Research Service and the Comptroller General, would serve as ex officio members.

CONGRESSIONAL REQUIREMENTS

The following motivations for creating a congressional Technology Assessment organization are set forth in H.R. 10243:

The Congress hereby finds and declares that:

As technology continues to change and expand rapidly, its applica

tions are-

Large and growing in scale; and

Increasingly extensive, pervasive, and critical in their impact, beneficial and adverse, on the natural and social environment. Therefore, it is essential that, to the fullest extent possible, the consequences of technological applications be anticipated, understood, and considered in determination of public policy on existing and emerging national problems.

The Congress further finds that:

The Federal agencies presently responsible directly to the Congress are not designed to provide the legislative branch with adequate and timely information, independently developed, relating to the potential impact of technological applications, and

The present mechanisms of the Congress do not and are not

Behind these broad statements are a number of assumptions and findings of fact upon which there is a growing consensus. This consensus is revealed in the long hearings record, numerous studies, meetings, discussions and articles, both within and outside of Government, that have led to the subcommittee's considerations of these bills. Nine propositions are stated below which omit many qualifications, comments and alternatives. But this succinct form reveals the basic notions of the consensus:

1. The pace and scale of technological innovations are increasing ever more rapidly.

2. The social, environmental, and economic impacts of these innovations are growing in complexity (most are beyond man's immediate. senses); these impacts have very far-reaching and sometimes irreversible effects, which may be highly concentrated in urbanized areas as well as throughout the natural environment.

3. Today's changing values and life styles enhance dissatisfaction with the negative effects of technology and foster both an anti-technology mood and a demand for relief.

4. There is concern that this attitude will create a climate for technological "arrestment" at a time when new technologies (and/or new applications) are vitally needed to remedy the ills of past technological excesses and to provide satisfaction of new requirements.

5. Private sector, executive department, or State and local government approaches to the control of the effects of advancing technology are no longer adequate. Congressional leadership and policy guidance. are essential for management of affairs so national in scope and with growing international implications.

6. Advances in the behavioral and systems sciences, in economic and environmental analysis, in technological forecasting, and in many other fields are creating a new capability and sophistication to deal with these large, complex and dynamic problems and opportunities. 7. As the executive branch expands its present assessment, research, and analysis activities, many of the basic policy issues involving the public interest and welfare can be resolved only by the Congress.

8. To identify these issues, to marshal specialized resources, and to be responsive and serve its unique interests full time, the Congress should have a specific organization to respond to these requirements. 9. The need is clear and present. Technology assessment appears to be a concept that can help and should be tried. The Congress now has the opportunity-perhaps the responsibility-to act and to apply

Chapter II. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF PROPOSALS FOR AN OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

ORIGINS OF THE ASSESSMENT CONCEPT

1

The term "Technology Assessment" first appeared in the literature of the Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development, in a report of October 17, 1966. In this report, the dangerous side effects of technology were stressed. "Time was [said the report] when man could afford to look upon the innovations of technology with some complacency. For the innovations came slowly, they were put to use in a relatively slow and modest fashion, and their side effects developed at a sufficiently relaxed pace to permit man to adjust to them-or to alter his course if the threat were great enough." However, the report went on, "We can no longer blindly adapt technology to our needs with the traditional assumption that there will be ample time to iron out any bugs on a leisurely shakedown cruise." It cited technological unemployment, toxic pesticides, pollution, automobile effluents, forest depletion, exhaustion of resources, and more cosmic problems such as the disposal of radioactive wastes, invasions of personal liberty by electronic snooping and computer data banks, the political consequences of television, the CO2 balance and its global effects on climate. In view of these dangers, the subcommittee concluded: What was needed was an "early warning" system, of potential good and bad results. For

Science knows no ethics nor does technology recognize morals. Science and technology are amoral. Whether, in the long run, their force is good or bad depends entirely on the manner in which they are used by men and the ends to which they are put.

The subcommittee report was followed by a bill, introduced by Rep. Emilio Q. Daddario, March 7, 1967, proposing the creation of a "Technology Assessment Board." The proposal was not intended as serious legislation, but rather as the focus and stimulus for discussion of the topic. Then, in a brief report, July 3, 1967, Rep. Daddario presented to Chairman Miller of the full Science and Astronautics Committee a formal statement on the issue. He defined technology assessment as follows:

Technology assessment is a form of policy research which provides a balanced appraisal to the policymaker. Ideally, it is a system to ask the right questions and obtain correct and timely answers. It identifies policy issues, assesses the impact of alterna

1.S. Congress. House. Committee on Science and Astronauties. Inquiries, Legislation, Policy Studies Re: Science and Technology: Review and Forecast. Second Progress Report to Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development, 89th Cong., 2d sess. (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966), p. 25.

(11)