{ "id": "R46327", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R46327", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 623265, "date": "2020-04-29", "retrieved": "2020-04-30T22:13:55.339367", "title": "The Office of Technology Assessment: History, Authorities, Issues, and Options", "summary": "Congress established the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) as a legislative branch agency by the Office of Technology Assessment Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-484). OTA was created to provide Congress with early indications of the probable beneficial and adverse impacts of technology applications. OTA\u2019s work was to be used as a factor in Congress\u2019 consideration of legislation, particularly with regard to activities for which the federal government might provide support for, or management or regulation of, technological applications. \nThe agency operated for more than two decades, producing approximately 750 full assessments, background papers, technical memoranda, case studies, and workshop proceedings spanning a wide range of topics. In 1995, amid broader efforts to reduce the size of government, Congress eliminated funding for the agency. Although the agency ceased operations, the statute authorizing OTA\u2019s establishment, structure, functions, duties, powers, and relationships to other entities (2 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7471 et seq.) was not repealed. Since OTA\u2019s defunding, there have been several attempts to reestablish OTA or to create an OTA-like function for Congress.\nDuring its years of operations, OTA was both praised and criticized by some Members of Congress and outside observers. Many found OTA\u2019s reports to be comprehensive, balanced, and authoritative; its assessments helped shaped public debate and laws in national security, energy, the environment, health care and other areas. Others identified a variety of shortcomings. Some critics asserted that the time it took for OTA to define a report, collect information, gather expert opinions, analyze the topic, and issue a report was not consistent with the fast pace of legislative decisionmaking. Others asserted that some of OTA\u2019s reports exhibited bias and that the agency was responsive only to a narrow constituency in Congress, that reports were costly and not timely, that there were insufficient mechanisms for public input, and that the agency was inconsistent in its identification of ethical and social implications of developments in science and technology. In debate leading to OTA\u2019s defunding, a central assertion of its critics was that the agency duplicated the work of other federal agencies and organizations. Those holding this position asserted that other entities could take on the technology assessment function if directed to do so by Congress. Among the entities identified for this role were the Government Accountability Office (then the General Accounting Office), the Congressional Research Service, the National Academies, and universities. \nCongress has multiple options for addressing its technology assessment needs. Congress could opt to reestablish OTA by appropriating funds for the agency\u2019s operation, potentially including guidance for its reestablishment in the form of report language. If it pursues this option, Congress would need to reestablish two related statutorily mandated organizations: the Technology Assessment Board (TAB), OTA\u2019s bipartisan, bicameral oversight body; and the Technology Assessment Advisory Council (TAAC), OTA\u2019s external advisory body. In 2019, the House included $6.0 million for OTA in the House-passed version of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2020 (H.R. 2779); no funding was provided in the final act. Congress might also opt to amend OTA\u2019s authorizing statute to address perceived shortcomings; to revise its mission, organizational structure, or process for initiation of technology assessments; or to make other modifications or additions. \nAlternatively, Congress could choose to create or develop an existing technology assessment capability in another legislative branch agency, such as the Government Accountability Office (GAO) or Congressional Research Service. Since FY2002, Congress has directed GAO to bolster its technology assessment capabilities. From 2002 to 2019, GAO produced 16 technology assessments. In 2019, GAO, at the direction of Congress, created a new office, Science, Technology Assessment, and Analytics (STAA), and announced plans to increase the number of STAA analysts over time from 49 to 140. \nIn addition, Congress could increase its usage of the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine by funding an expanded number of congressionally mandated technology assessments. Alternatively, Congress could opt to take no action and instead rely on current sources of information\u2014governmental and nongovernmental\u2014to meet its needs.\nIn 2018, Congress directed CRS to contract with the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) for a study to \u201cassess the potential need within the Legislative Branch to create a separate entity charged with the mission of providing nonpartisan advice on issues of science and technology. Furthermore, the study should also address if the creation of such entity duplicates services already available to Members of Congress.\u201d The NAPA study recommended bolstering the science and technology policy efforts of CRS and GAO, as well as the establishment of an Office of the Congressional Science and Technology Advisor (OCSTA) and a coordinating council. NAPA stated that it did not evaluate the option of reestablishing OTA due to Congress\u2019 efforts since 2002 to build a technology assessment capability within GAO.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R46327", "sha1": "f26c52251c47e17ce0c0135d55d609078afc7785", "filename": "files/20200429_R46327_f26c52251c47e17ce0c0135d55d609078afc7785.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R46327_files&id=/0.png": "files/20200429_R46327_images_3bbf3afcddc70fd821d8f364d6a1a0c78de03ce9.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R46327_files&id=/1.png": "files/20200429_R46327_images_2e75db834f2f600e7d46660b9ee646c9f6ec69a4.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R46327_files&id=/4.png": "files/20200429_R46327_images_cd26ff0de8084528d1b26f97a3b312a9665ec39d.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R46327_files&id=/6.png": "files/20200429_R46327_images_aa8e2c59517c76f82cd6e80506e654e07286cc52.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R46327_files&id=/2.png": "files/20200429_R46327_images_bb30e41201a95a877eccac171b372e5724be7640.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R46327_files&id=/3.png": "files/20200429_R46327_images_5685ecbc9b7ad5121875a9f402da8a6978784db6.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R46327_files&id=/5.png": "files/20200429_R46327_images_7361c6c7511af58ddb9d667c9c892c69cf695309.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R46327", "sha1": "ccb2df95a922525df3457606c9fd1b4322c6492e", "filename": "files/20200429_R46327_ccb2df95a922525df3457606c9fd1b4322c6492e.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4852, "name": "Science & Technology R&D" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4916, "name": "Technology & Innovation" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 623105, "date": "2020-04-14", "retrieved": "2020-04-28T22:16:23.094300", "title": "The Office of Technology Assessment: History, Authorities, Issues, and Options", "summary": "Congress established the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) as a legislative branch agency by the Office of Technology Assessment Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-484). OTA was created to provide Congress with early indications of the probable beneficial and adverse impacts of technology applications. OTA\u2019s work was to be used as a factor in Congress\u2019 consideration of legislation, particularly with regard to activities for which the federal government might provide support for, or management or regulation of, technological applications. \nThe agency operated for more than two decades, producing approximately 750 full assessments, background papers, technical memoranda, case studies, and workshop proceedings spanning a wide range of topics. In 1995, amid broader efforts to reduce the size of government, Congress eliminated funding for the agency. Although the agency ceased operations, the statute authorizing OTA\u2019s establishment, structure, functions, duties, powers, and relationships to other entities (2 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7471 et seq.) was not repealed. Since OTA\u2019s defunding, there have been several attempts to reestablish OTA or to create an OTA-like function for Congress.\nDuring its years of operations, OTA was both praised and criticized by some Members of Congress and outside observers. Many found OTA\u2019s reports to be comprehensive, balanced, and authoritative; its assessments helped shaped public debate and laws in national security, energy, the environment, health care and other areas. Others identified a variety of shortcomings. Some critics asserted that the time it took for OTA to define a report, collect information, gather expert opinions, analyze the topic, and issue a report was not consistent with the fast pace of legislative decisionmaking. Others asserted that some of OTA\u2019s reports exhibited bias and that the agency was responsive only to a narrow constituency in Congress, that reports were costly and not timely, that there were insufficient mechanisms for public input, and that the agency was inconsistent in its identification of ethical and social implications of developments in science and technology. In debate leading to OTA\u2019s defunding, a central assertion of its critics was that the agency duplicated the work of other federal agencies and organizations. Those holding this position asserted that other entities could take on the technology assessment function if directed to do so by Congress. Among the entities identified for this role were the Government Accountability Office (then the General Accounting Office), the Congressional Research Service, the National Academies, and universities. \nCongress has multiple options for addressing its technology assessment needs. Congress could opt to reestablish OTA by appropriating funds for the agency\u2019s operation, potentially including guidance for its reestablishment in the form of report language. If it pursues this option, Congress would need to reestablish two related statutorily mandated organizations: the Technology Assessment Board (TAB), OTA\u2019s bipartisan, bicameral oversight body; and the Technology Assessment Advisory Council (TAAC), OTA\u2019s external advisory body. In 2019, the House included $6.0 million for OTA in the House-passed version of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2020 (H.R. 2779); no funding was provided in the final act. Congress might also opt to amend OTA\u2019s authorizing statute to address perceived shortcomings; to revise its mission, organizational structure, or process for initiation of technology assessments; or to make other modifications or additions. \nAlternatively, Congress could choose to create or develop an existing technology assessment capability in another legislative branch agency, such as the Government Accountability Office (GAO) or Congressional Research Service. Since FY2002, Congress has directed GAO to bolster its technology assessment capabilities. From 2002 to 2019, GAO produced 16 technology assessments. In 2019, GAO, at the direction of Congress, created a new office, Science, Technology Assessment, and Analytics (STAA), and announced plans to increase the number of STAA analysts over time from 49 to 140. \nIn addition, Congress could increase its usage of the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine by funding an expanded number of congressionally mandated technology assessments. Alternatively, Congress could opt to take no action and instead rely on current sources of information\u2014governmental and nongovernmental\u2014to meet its needs.\nIn 2018, Congress directed CRS to contract with the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) for a study to \u201cassess the potential need within the Legislative Branch to create a separate entity charged with the mission of providing nonpartisan advice on issues of science and technology. Furthermore, the study should also address if the creation of such entity duplicates services already available to Members of Congress.\u201d The NAPA study recommended bolstering the science and technology policy efforts of CRS and GAO, as well as the establishment of an Office of the Congressional Science and Technology Advisor (OCSTA) and a coordinating council. NAPA stated that it did not evaluate the option of reestablishing OTA due to Congress\u2019 efforts since 2002 to build a technology assessment capability within GAO.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R46327", "sha1": "5bff26e439a7365e3024933aa12e91391fe7b468", "filename": "files/20200414_R46327_5bff26e439a7365e3024933aa12e91391fe7b468.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R46327_files&id=/0.png": "files/20200414_R46327_images_3bbf3afcddc70fd821d8f364d6a1a0c78de03ce9.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R46327_files&id=/1.png": "files/20200414_R46327_images_2e75db834f2f600e7d46660b9ee646c9f6ec69a4.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R46327_files&id=/4.png": "files/20200414_R46327_images_cd26ff0de8084528d1b26f97a3b312a9665ec39d.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R46327_files&id=/6.png": "files/20200414_R46327_images_aa8e2c59517c76f82cd6e80506e654e07286cc52.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R46327_files&id=/2.png": "files/20200414_R46327_images_bb30e41201a95a877eccac171b372e5724be7640.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R46327_files&id=/3.png": "files/20200414_R46327_images_5685ecbc9b7ad5121875a9f402da8a6978784db6.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R46327_files&id=/5.png": "files/20200414_R46327_images_7361c6c7511af58ddb9d667c9c892c69cf695309.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R46327", "sha1": "d0ac095d67305133d47641cd30eda80f482eeeb0", "filename": "files/20200414_R46327_d0ac095d67305133d47641cd30eda80f482eeeb0.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "Appropriations", "Foreign Affairs", "National Defense", "Science and Technology Policy" ] }