A coalition of consumer, science advocacy and environmentalist groups have launched a campaign to recreate the Office of Technology Assessment, which was eliminated by the Newt Gingrich-led Republican Congress in 1995. OTA and the related Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, which was eliminated at the same time, pioneered in evaluating the value of new technologies.

Both organizations played a CBO-style role in helping Congress figure out if new technologies were worth continued funding. The OTA and AHCPR also pioneered in comparative effectiveness research. (For good background on elimination of AHCPR, see this 2007 Washington Monthly article by Shannon Brownlee.)

Thanks to $1.1 billion in comparative effectiveness research spending in last year's stimulus bill, health care technology analysis is reviving. But efforts to evaluate environmental, energy, and basic science government projects have not.

For instance, the president in his budget submission to Congress earlier this month, proposed scrapping several space programs. I have no idea if that was the right move. It would be nice if the public, the press and members of Congress had an objective government report analyzing the programs before they voted on such drastic measures.

The draft letter calling for refunding OTA is now being circulated for additional signatures by the Union of Concerned Scientists, Breast Cancer Action and the Arthur R. Marshall Foundation (an environmental group that focuses on the Florida everglades). The draft letter argues that:

With the rise of the Internet, more information is available than ever before-yet it is difficult if not impossible to separate facts from the agenda-driven spin of special interests. Congress needs an independent body of experts to offer guidance on issues directly related to public health and safety, national security, the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars, and how innovation and competitiveness can create viable American jobs.

Reviving OTA won't require new legislation since the legal authority for the agency still exists. But it would require an appropriation. At the time it was defunded, the government was spending a scant $20 million on technology assessment. Earmarking several hundred million dollars from the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency budgets for a rejuvenated OTA would be a wise expenditure of funds. It would make the rest of those agencies' research-and-development budgets go a lot farther.

For more information, contact the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington at 202-223-6133.