Government
John Gibbons takes the reins at OTA New head of Office of Technology Assessment mixes affability and technical soundness, shuns "holistic" approach of predecessor
Congress' Office of Technology As sessment now moves into "Era III" of its turbulent six-year history, with the swearing in June 20 of its third di rector, John Gibbons, lately of the University of Tennessee. Gibbons, 50, is a physicist with administrative credentials mainly in energy and en vironmental issues. His personality is warm and fun-loving, his thinking precise, his interests relatively global, and his approach to the job appro priately self-effacing. Humility is probably the most de sired characteristic of an OTA direc tor, especially when combined with a strong sense of purpose. The job is to answer to the desires of Congress as a whole and to the 12-member Con gressional board that oversees the agency. Neither Congressmen nor their staffs take much backtalk from an OTA director but a balance must be struck for the director to be effec tive. For the past five years Gibbons has been head of the University of Ten nessee's environmental center, a unique facility that served as an en vironmental/energy/natural re sources extension service to the counties, towns, and cities of Ten nessee. Before that, Gibbons suffered the headaches of trying to administer energy conservation policies in the Federal Energy Administration dur ing the dying months of the Nixon Administration. OTA staffers, among the most dedicated and hard-working in Washington, are eager to get on with the work of analyzing technological issues. They seem happy that the word "holism" has gone to a welldeserved rest with the passage of Russell Peterson's succession. Whether Gibbons was responsible for its official desanctification is moot. No one except Peterson seemed comfortable with trying to convert
in generalities, engage in open ex change and productive debate, try to meet deadlines, and take "bite-sized" pieces of problems rather than un manageable (translation: holistic) chunks. "I'd be satisfied now if I could merely change gold into lead," he quips. The study closest to being a tech nology assessment, according to Gibbons, concerns the potential of biomass as a major energy source. He says the assessment will be a total look at the biomass issue but that one can see that the issue already has difficulties. "Transferring the federal automobile fleet to gasohol may be a noble intention," he says, "but the critical path is under question." OTA could come under legislative oversight this year. Rep. Don Fuqua Gibbons: bite-sized approach better (ϋ.-Fla.), chairman of the House Science & Technology Committee, OTA's purpose to something more has introduced a bill—H.R. 4399— than the sum of its disconnected that would alter the organizational parts. And it takes only simple ob makeup of OTA considerably and servation to see that OTA remains a give more power to the director. The largely unintegrated agency without bill eliminates the Technology As a philosophical, humanistic base, in sessment Advisory Council a field that demands the best that the (TAAC)—a body that has done little science of systems can give it. To date, effective advising in the past—and OTA has hired no one trained in the supplants TAAC with councils as field of general systems theory able to sembled at the discretion of the di pull off the correct philosophical rector. connections that would give OTA a It also establishes a five-member larger sense of its relevance. executive board, with the director as Gibbons, however, believes too chairman. Two members would come much has been expected of OTA from the Senate side of the 12-mem anyway. Much of what Congress asks ber board, and two from the House. OTA to do has scant relationship to The executive board would oversee technology assessment, to long-term management of OTA and would have impacts, or to that larger sense of its the power to speak for the whole purpose as a steers man. For example, board. one of six new projects approved by At the same time, the House Ap the board requires OTA to do a com propriations Committee has delivered parative study of chemical techniques a sharp critique of OTA in its report for tagging explosives so that they can on the agency's fiscal 1980 budget. It be traced to source of purchase after slashes more than $3 million from the demolition. Thus, on such mean- $12.5 million OTA requested and derings expires the dream of a Con limits the staff to a ceiling of 130 gressional agency guiding Congress to persons. That would mean OTA must a social and political understanding reduce its staff by about 10. of technology and its impacts. In an unusual comment, the com Gibbons articulated a few of his mittee also criticizes OTA for an own guiding principles for OTA dur "inadvertent amount of technical ing a reception held for him after his content" in its reports. It says OTA's installation. "It seems that we ought reports focus too much on techno to admit to the complexity of prob logical detail at the expense of its lems but also that we can solve them," primary mandate of concentrating its he says. He adds that the agency has findings on the social impact of to become more specific and not deal technical change. July 2, 1979 C&EN
17
Gibbons could be one to force OTA into becoming an agency that con centrates on social impact of tech nology—if the board wants it to head that way. But the signs aren't good. A recent request to begin a study of al ternatives to expensive health tech nology was voted down recently by the board. The study would have ex plored low-cost, nontechnological
alternatives to maintaining health and preventing disease, an important Congressional interest. Yet board member Ted Stevens (R,-Alaska) says OTA should stick to technology, missing the obvious point that the Technology Assessment Act requires OTA to do the very thing proposed in the study. Wil Lepkowski, C&EN Washington
More firms set up government relations units It wasn't too long ago that many U.S. companies' reaction to the great wave of social-issues legislation from Washington and state capitals was belated shock or defeatism. Caught in reflex negativism and with no strong organization to present their views, chemical companies saw themselves quickly tangled in new regulation and badly embarrassed by exposure of toxic waste dumps and other horrors. But that was only the first reaction. The corporate mood on government relations is now decidedly different in chemical and other industries. Past their initial dismay, companies have come up with several types of orga nizations whose vitality and success are beginning to cause dismay among interest groups supporting greater regulation. How pervasive the new thrust in politics by companies has become is the subject of a survey by the Con ference Board, a business research group in New York City. The survey covers 389 government relations ex ecutives in as many companies, 41 in chemicals and drugs. Phyllis S. McGrath, who spear headed the study, says, "The habitual
atmosphere of frustration—'thegovernment-is-killing-us syn drome'—has been dissipating. That earlier mood of negativism has been largely replaced by a more activist stance on the part of the business community. Defensive postures have been giving way to aggressive strate gies." Although still somewhat bewil dered by the diversity of govern ment-related issues they must now confront and perplexed on priorities, companies have hit upon several types of organizations to give voice to their views. Most companies, includ ing 78% of chemical and drug com panies, have set up a government relations unit. Among chemical and drug firms, 80% have units at head quarters and 75% in Washington. For most companies, the govern ment relations units are not large— five persons is the average both at headquarters and in Washington. But the sphere of activity has greatly ex panded, and most of the people in these units are lawyers or public af fairs professionals with previous ex perience in government. Traditional lobbying is now just part of the pic ture. The rest involves systematic
Many chemical firms have government relations units.
...but they trail in grass-roots political efforts
Per cent of respondents 100Γ
Per cent of respondents 1001
J
/ /
Source: Conference Board
18
C&EN July 2, 1979
monitoring of government develop ments, identifying key political issues, and communicating to many levels of the company. In return, companies are giving their government relations units much more attention, notably by the chief executive officer. Increased support from the top was reported by 76% of the chemical and drug execu tives in the Conference Board's survey. Companies have not stopped at setting up groups to focus corporate influence directly on legislators and regulators. In more controversial moves after a favorable court decision in 1976, companies have established indirect grass-roots organizations. Formed largely to involve employees at the plant level in politics, the grass-roots movement's most signif icant work has been sending cam paign money to political candidates through political action committees. These committees have become a substantial factor in campaign sup port. In the grass-roots campaigns, the chemical industry has lagged behind the overall pace in U.S. manufactur ing. The Conference Board survey finds that 48% of chemical and drug companies now have grass-roots programs. This is the lowest partici pation among manufacturing indus tries, whose average is 60%. The highest figures are 71% for transpor tation equipment companies and 70% for both forest products and petrole um firms. Setting up a grass-roots program can be a large-scale effort. First, companies pick a key person, fre quently the plant manager or sales manager, at every facility of appre ciable size. Then there is a training phase, often by the government rela tions department. Plant people learn about the legislative process, specific legislators, lobbying laws, key issues, the companies' own stake in those issues. With this background, employees use their own local contacts to present their positions to community groups or directly to politicians. In specific cases, the Conference Board points out that a fairly broad campaign on a specific issue can cost relatively little. One example is a $10,000 program by National Gypsum on the energy crisis that reached an estimated 20,000 people. Oddly enough, in 1977 and 1978 elections, more political action com mittee support went to Democrats than to Republicans. The major rea son is that there are more Democratic incumbents, and the committees are quite pragmatic in supporting poli ticians, in power. D
