IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v48y2021i2p164-176..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effective science and technology assessment advice for congress: comparing options

Author

Listed:
  • Peter D Blair

Abstract

Effective science and technology (S&T) assessment capabilities providing advice for Congress must be both credible and suitable to congressional needs. To be credible, from the perspective of those who will use the advice, its provision must be (1) authoritative, (2) objective, and (3) independent. To be suitable, the advice must be (4) relevant, (5) useful, and (6) timely. For S&T advice today, Congress draws on many sources but four traditional options stand out as having been used most frequently: (1) The National Research Council, the operating arm of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, (2) The Congressional Research Service, (3) the former Office of Technology Assessment, and (4) the Government Accountability Office. This article chronicles the evolution of these four organizations and evaluates their relative strengths and weaknesses in terms of the six defined key characteristics for providing effective S&T advice for Congress, drawing conclusions for organizational improvements.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter D Blair, 2021. "Effective science and technology assessment advice for congress: comparing options," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(2), pages 164-176.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:48:y:2021:i:2:p:164-176.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scaa070
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:48:y:2021:i:2:p:164-176.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.