President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

Background

Impact on Science and Technology Policy

Before its revocation, President Barack Obama's executive order established the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), which significantly impacted federal science and technology policy. PCAST served as an influential advisory body that directly informed the President on various issues affecting the fields of science, technology, and innovation. By incorporating experts from outside the federal government, the council embraced a diversity of perspectives, which enabled it to provide comprehensive evaluations and recommendations on pressing scientific and technological matters. This was particularly relevant in areas like the economy, energy, environment, and public health, where scientific advancement and policy intersect.

Regulatory and Policy Adjustments

PCAST's involvement extended beyond mere advisory functions; it played a pivotal role in fostering regulatory and policy adjustments across multiple sectors. For example, as the advisory body under the High Performance Computing Act of 1991 and the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, PCAST influenced national approaches to computing and nanotechnology, guiding substantial developments in these fast-evolving domains. It advised not only on traditional scientific research but also on the practical applications and potential regulations necessary to harness the burgeoning technology responsibly and effectively.

Operational and Scalable Impacts

The operational reach of PCAST under Executive Order 13539 was marked by the creation of subcommittees and technical advisory groups that supported its wide-ranging mandate. The council's structure allowed for agile and informed responses to emerging technological challenges, facilitating collaborations between federal entities and the broader scientific community. In doing so, it acted as a bridge, fostering dialogue and information-sharing between researchers in academia, the private sector, and various government agencies. The council also engaged in efforts to inform public policy impacting key societal challenges such as climate change mitigation, underscoring the role of scientific insight in legislative decision-making.

Reason for Revocation

Ideological Shifts

The revocation of this executive order by President Donald Trump in 2019 can be attributed to broader ideological shifts characteristic of his administration. President Trump's approach to governance reflected a pronounced skepticism towards expert-driven, science-based policy recommendations, particularly in fields such as climate change and environmental regulation. This skepticism often manifested as a preference for deregulation, which proponents argued would relieve burdens on businesses and stimulate economic growth. These priorities marked a departure from the previous administration's strategy that emphasized the integration of scientific expertise into policy-making processes.

Political Context

Revoking Executive Order 13539 was consistent with a larger strategy of dismantling Obama-era policies that had championed environmental sustainability and innovation in emerging technologies. This decision was not made in isolation but rather reflected a concerted effort to reduce federal oversight and emphasize state and individual responsibilities. This was part of a broader narrative under the Trump administration that positioned federal expertise as intrusive or misaligned with certain economic goals, thereby questioning the necessity of panels like PCAST in their existing form.

Reevaluation of Science Advisory Mechanisms

Moreover, the decision to rescind the executive order represented an attempt to reevaluate and, in some cases, eliminate standing advisory committees that were perceived as contributing little to immediate administrative goals. It suggested a preference for allowing individual departments and agencies to operate independently, without reliance on external advisory bodies. By revoking the order, the administration aimed to streamline advisory processes, reducing what it perceived as unnecessary bureaucratic layers.

Focus on Immediate Economic Metrics

Another contributing factor to the executive order's revocation was the administration’s focus on immediate economic growth and energy production, often sidelining long-term considerations that were central to the council’s previous directives. By shifting focus away from scientific innovation as a basis for policy, the administration aligned its governance philosophy with interests prioritizing economic freedom and less regulation, reflecting a fundamental ideological shift in how science and technology policy should be crafted and implemented.

Winners

Industries Benefitting from Deregulation

Specific industries, particularly those in fossil fuel and related sectors, were likely to benefit from the revocation of the order, which dismantled a key body that could advocate for stringent environmental regulations. Oil, natural gas, and coal companies stood to gain from a diminished role for scientific advisory in policy-making processes, which potentially slowed the imposition of restrictions based on environmental or technological reviews. Their operations could continue with fewer constraints, capitalizing on deregulation efforts that characterized the broader administration agenda.

The Private Sector’s Innovation Latitude

The private sector, in general, might have found increased flexibility in the absence of PCAST, which often provided comprehensive reviews that could slow product development timelines or introduce additional layers of scrutiny based on evolving scientific and technological standards. By minimizing direct governmental oversight from expert panels, companies had more latitude to innovate and pivot in response to market demands, without the interjection of federally mandated compliance related to scientific advisories.

Proponents of Smaller Federal Government

Individuals and groups advocating for smaller federal government functionalities, especially within the realm of science and technology oversight, perceived the revocation as a positive step. By eliminating what they might label as unnecessary bureaucratic entities, resources could instead be reallocated towards empowering local and state entities to tailor technological advancement and policy to fit their immediate needs, aligning with principles of decentralization and localized governance.

Losers

Science and Research Communities

The dissolution of PCAST represented a notable setback for the scientific community, which valued the council as a conduit for integrating scientific findings directly into federal policy-making. Researchers and institutions relying on federal backing and alignment with evidence-based policy-making experienced a diminution in visibility and influence on the national stage. The absence of a coordinated advisory structure made it challenging to address complex, interdisciplinary issues like climate change, health pandemics, and technological ethics, which benefit from consolidated scientific perspectives.

Environmental Advocates and NGOs

Environmental advocates and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) dedicated to sustainability and environmental technology saw the revocation as a hindrance to their mission. With the advisory body dissolved, their efforts to ensure that science-based recommendations informed ecological policies were less likely to gain traction in federal arenas. This potentially stymied progressive environmental action that had relied on close alignment with a science-forward government stance, thereby delaying advancements in policy that academic and advocacy groups jointly championed.

Public Policy Transparency and Accountability

The general public, particularly those who advocate for transparency and accountability in governance, lost a valuable oversight mechanism with the council's abolishment. PCAST was instrumental in bridging the gap between scientific discovery and public policy, facilitating a transparent process where scientific deliberations were integrated into public considerations. Its elimination reduced opportunities for citizen participation and consortia that relied on federal acknowledgment of scientific expertise to scrutinize or challenge federal initiatives, curtailing democratic engagement in policy development processes.