preparing public managers for the technological issues of the 1980s

Preparing Public Managers for the Technological Issues of the 1980sAuthor(s): W. Henry LambrightSource: Public Administration Review, Vol. 41, No. 4 (Jul. - Aug., 1981), pp. 410-417Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public AdministrationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/975701 .

Accessed: 11/06/2014 03:32

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Public Administration Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.96.190 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 03:32:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aspa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/975701?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


410 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW

From the Professional Stream

CURRENTS and SOUNDINGS

PREPARING PUBLIC MANAGERS FOR THE TECHNOLOGICAL ISSUES OF THE 1980S

W. Henry Lambright,* Syracuse University

Public managers at all levels of government will be faced increasingly with the tasks of identifying, assessing, introducing, institutionalizing, and possibly arresting technology-based innovations during the 1980s. Consequently, the public administration community should focus on new ways of dealing with the requirements such innovations will bring. On the academic front, new curricula should be prepared and courses should be developed to better reflect the scientific and technological changes forthcoming. On the practical level of public administration, government officials must try to better anticipate the technological problems and opportunities pending. How the various institutions within the public administration community should accomplish this task will no doubt differ. Never- theless, there would seem to be a general obligation on the part of us all to identify a coherent and coordinated approach for coping with the technological issues of the 1980s.

The Problem

Science and technology as an aspect of public management is not a new phenomenon. The federal government has generously supported the development of new technologies since World War II. Numbers of federal agencies are either primarily technology-oriented or have major components which are. Similarly, there is nothing generally new about universities, including schools of public affairs, providing attention to science and technology. Courses in science and technology policy are offered in the curricula of many colleges and universities today.

The problem centers on the new emphases in the science and technology issues of the 1980s. Each of these emphases has precursors. Each is likely to become ever more apparent and pressing in the next 10 years.

The first emphasis may be termed the ambivalence fac-

*The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Elaine Schosman of The Maxwell School, Syracuse University, in the preparation of this article.

tor. More and more we will see technologies as having both positive and negative implications at once. No innovation is entirely good. And what is good about a particular technological change must also be considered in terms of the negative impacts that are carried along with it. Hence, there is a need for greater selectivity among the technologies that are becoming available. As such technologies become even more powerful and pervasive, the need to manage them so that the positive effects outweigh the negative becomes essential.

Second is the intergovernmental factor. Technology is moving increasingly from a predominantly federal to an intergovernmental enterprise. As a federal enterprise, the international aspects were always strong. These will remain so. What is likely to be novel about the 1980s is the degree to which the issues in science and technology will have intergovernmental aspects. In short, there is a great future for "interdependency" among governments from the local to the federal to the international level with respect to new technological applications.

The third emphasis is the intersectoral dimension of technology. This refers to government-business relations. New technologies are forcing government officials to assume new types of relationships with private sector managers. These new public-private interfaces grow out of the new demands and relationships linked to the development, deployment, and regulation of new technologies.

The Technologies

In addressing the foregoing issues, three particular areas of rapid innovation will be drawn upon: communications, biotechnology, and synthetic fuels. Although other fields

W. Henry Lambright is a professor of public administration and political science in The Maxwell School at Syracuse University. He is the author and co-author of several books and numerous articles on science and technology policy. He is also affiliated with the Science and Technology Policy Center of The Syracuse Research Corporation. He is a former member of the board of editors of PAR.

JULY/AUGUST 1981



FROM THE PROFESSIONAL STREAM 411

might have been selected, these seem to have the most likely potential for becoming the dominant technologies of the immediate future from a public policy standpoint. Each will develop in a context that is "value-laden, intergovernmental, and intersectoral." And, each will have tremendous implications for the public administration community.

Communications

The communications revolution was recently introduced into American households in the form of cable TV. Cable TV (CATV) is not a new technology in the sense that it was just recently invented. The rapid, large-scale diffusion of CATV is new, however. This sudden expansion is the consequence of recent changes in regulation which, subse- quently, opened up numbers of new options for household use. Not only have many new channels become available, but there is also the availability of different sets of programs, ranging from adult films to more family-oriented entertainment. CATV is just one example of a communications revolution that is only beginning, one that has great import for learning, management, and virtually every other aspect of life. There are many other examples, however. Consider the following:

(1) Computerized Conferencing System (CCS)-CCS links computers with the communications process. It en- ables users to structure, store, and process written communications with other groups of people. When something is entered into one terminal, it may be obtained by a recipi- ent's terminal immediately, or at any time in the future until it is removed from the computer's memory. Instead of face to face meetings in which only one person may speak at one time and everyone must be present at the same time and place, bringing the computer into the communications network means that all individuals may enter and receive materials at a time and place of their own convenience, whether it be at home or at the office. The computer stores the entries and delivers them to whomever they may be ad- dressed. Thus, participants could conceivably all be making entries simultaneously; they could be spread out in loca- tions all over the world; and they could send and receive materials minutes, hours, days or weeks apart.'

The potential effects of CCS on the bureaucratic structure are considerable. Once employed, the systems would not only increase communications within and between agencies, but they would also allow for better informed managers due to the constant flow of information. Time savings would also be substantial because of the rapidity with which information could flow through the bureaucratic organization. In short, CCS would likely produce a more decentralized organizational structure as the system decentralizes information exchange and decision making, as well as open the communications process to many more individuals.

(2) Videotext-A videotext is a two-way interactive medium which links computer data to television through telephone or CATV lines. Examples of its uses include mail delivery, banking transactions, telephoning, and data links to information systems, such as newspapers, libraries, stock exchange, travel and weather information.

JULY /AUGUST 1981

(3) Teletext-This innovation is similar to videotext in that it transfers information onto a television screen. Tele- text can be transmitted by a regular or CATV line, however. This difference means that teletext is only a one- way noninteractive system. Its uses are similar to videotext, such as information transfer, mail delivery, etc., but it cannot be used for purposes which require two-way transmis- sions.'

While these are not necessarily the only innovations now occurring in communication technology, they certainly represent the major new forms of communications which are likely to take hold in the very near future.

Biotechnology

In the field of biotechnology, there are four principal areas of rapid innovation. These include:

(1) Biomedical-One of the more important and soon achievable products of recombinant DNA research will be in the area of medication both for the maintenance and cure of illnesses. These include the production of insulin and interferon. Because gene splicing makes it possible to isolate, purify and recombine single genes before they are transmitted into new host bacteria, bacteria can be modi- fied with the addition of purified genes which may then produce useful protein hormones. This will mean that medications such as insulin can, in effect, be cultured and grown commercially. Most importantly, the bacterial production of human insulin could circumvent the problems that many diabetics face today, including the ever tighten- ing supply of the drug and the allergic reactions suffered from insulin which now must be extracted from animals.3

This same method could also be used to mass produce interferon, the body's natural anti-viral substance. It may be possible to use interferon to produce useful quantities of scarce proteins, including the blood-clotting factor for hemophiliacs, antibodies for viruses and other disease agents, and natural enzymes such as eurokinase, a kidney enzyme that is used to dissolve blood clots. While there are still several problems to be resolved before commercially producing interferon, researcher Victor G. Eddy believes, "None of them in itself is insuperable."4

Gene splicing is also being used to make less dangerous vaccines. Vaccines now often contain highly volatile and potentially dangerous viruses. Through gene splicing, the virus coat which contains the antigens that induce the body to produce its antibodies can be removed from the DNA which actually causes the disease.5

In addition to the creation of new drugs, genetics will also play a large part developing more precise diagnostic techniques. Already amniocentesis allows the physician to detect genetic defects in fetuses. Hutton estimates, "This test may well be the precursor of prenatal diagnosis of more subtle genetic diseases, as well as in utero chemical treat- ment and cure."' Another potential diagnostic technique involves the use of immunoglobins to quickly detect illnesses and other disorders. This technique could help con- siderably to lower medical costs by replacing the need for many long and drawn-out test procedures.

(2) Chemical production-It may also be possible to




modify bacteria or enzymes to synthesize products, such as methane from sewage sludge or garbage. Using these cata- lysts for biomass conversion would substantially speed the process, and thus make biomass conversion a far more feasible energy alternative.

(3) Food generation-Genetic recombination also presents the potential for equipping crop plants with their own nitrogen-fixing genes, thus replacing the need for synthetic fertilizers. This would, of course, require altering the genetic structure of plants, something which is a long way from reality. Experiments are now underway, however, which could bring that reality closer.7

Direct democracy may well be possible with the new interactive communications technology. But is this a desirable step? How do we distinguish between the options the technology makes possible and should be pursued, and those which should not? Public managers of the future will be forced to address such matters.

(4) Pollution control-The most recent development in this field is General Electric's creation of a new strain of bacteria which decomposes crude oil into the constituents carbon dioxide and protein. This oil-eating "bug," intended to combat oil-slicks and oil-spills, was the subject of serious controversy when in June 1980 the Supreme Court permitted GE to patent the new life form. Although the development of the new bacterium did not directly involve DNA recombination, its creation did open new and enter- prising directions for researchers in the field of biotechnology. Particularly relevant to pollution control, new organisms, such as the GE "bug," which disintegrate once they have digested the pollutants targeted, could represent an important means for fighting many specific biological and chemical pollution problems. Skeptics, on the other hand, fear that introducing such organisms into the open environment could seriously upset nature's balance. It seems possible that these organisms could react with other plants and animals, and reproduce indefinitely, thereby causing a pollution problem more serious than the one they were designed to cure. As research into this area continues, however, these will be the issues and technical problems to be resolved before practical use of the new pollution fighting organisms are realized!8

Synthetic Fuels

The third area of technological change for the 1980s will certainly occur in energy. Within energy, perhaps the most portentous program of the decade will be the creation of a synthetic fuels capability. Projects using coal, oil shale, tar sands, lignite, peat, "heavy oil," unconventional natural gases, solid waste and renewable resources called biomass are involved.

The following technologies have been highlighted by Schuyten in a recent New York Times article as particularly central to the synfuels "solution":'

(1) Coal Liquefaction-"Hydrogen is added to coal in all conversion processes. In so-called 'direct' processes, which have attracted the most attention in the United States, coal is dissolved in an organic liquid and exposed to pressurized hydrogen gas. Indirect processes, used in the world's only commercial liquefaction plant in South Africa, heat the coal in the presence of steam and chemically convert the gas to liquid fuels.

(2) Coal Gasification-"The production of natural gas is much the same as liquefaction, but simpler. Research has focused on adapting the technologies to various grades of coal.

(3) Oil Shale Extraction (Extraction from kerogen shale) -"One method calls for mining the shale, which is located primarily in Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah, and heating it to force the oil out of the rock. Another technology, which will not be available for several years, calls for the shale to be heated underground until the liquid seeps out and forms a pool that can be pumped to the surface.

(4) Tar Sands Extraction (Extraction from tar sands)- "Most commercial deposits of the sands are located in Alberta, Canada. The sands are combined with hot water and steam, and the resulting mixture is refined into coke, a crude oil and natural gas."

(5) Biomass Conversion-The conversion of biomass involves the fermentation of organics, such as grains, sugar cane, wood wastes, and other residues, for the production of methane and other alcohol fuels.

(6) Resource Recovery-These technologies make possible the recovery of energy and materials from municipal garbage. The major types of technologies in this area include pyrolysis, waterwall incineration, and refuse-derived fuel.

The Ambivalence Factor

The management of these technological areas will necessarily involve trade-offs between both positive and negative factors. The new communications technologies, for example, have tremendous implications for learning, in general, and improving management, in particular. But what can be done technically and what should be done are two different matters. A host of institutional constraints are in the way of using communications technology for public purposes. Regulation inhibits much of the practical development of these technologies and it remains uncertain at this time ex- actly how to categorize them. Are they an alternative to the telephone? Are they a computer technology? Do they represent a new method of television broadcasting? These questions not only make management and regulation dif- ficult, but they also inhibit the technology's large scale deployment. Should the new communication technologies be organized by a single monopoly as is currently the case with the telephone system or should competitive industries be permitted to provide these communication services? These are just some of the questions that will plague public managers throughout the 1980s. Moreover, there will have to be considerable thought given to what information should be processed, how this should be done, and under what conditions. These issues not only involve questions of

JULY /AUGUST 1981




personal privacy and the potential for data base monopo- lies, but they also signal changes that may have to be assumed within the current copyright system. There are even some serious implications for democratic practice.

Many of the synfuelplants that would be built in the West would not only cost billions, but they would also require great supplies of water in a place where water is already scarce. The competition over these scarce water supplies can be expected to growfierce.

Moss notes that some suggest using interactive telecommunications for referendums and polling on public issues through digital feedback devices. He points out Ithiel de Sola Pool's argument, however, which states, "The notion (of the instant referendum) is that the ancient dream of direct democracy, in which the people themselves vote on the issues instead of merely periodically choosing representatives can at last be made a reality. This is sheer fantasy. It rests upon a total misunderstanding of the legislative process." Legislative decision making is a time consuming and complex process characterized by bargaining, negotiation, and, as Pool notes: "(On) most bills the crucial vote is not the final vote for or against the bill . . . but the prior votes . . .on matters of detail never covered in the press, yet decisive in determining the social consequences of the action. ' "0

Direct democracy may well be possible with the new interactive communications technology. But is this a desirable step? How do we distinguish between the options the technology makes possible and should be pursued, and those which should not? Public managers of the future will be forced to address such matters. The issues are already on the decision-making agenda, and even more will be forthcoming. It seems the first step must begin with an awareness of what the new capabilities are and could become. Public administration schools, for example, have a responsibility to enhance this awareness on the part of their students and to prepare them to deal practically and effectively with such concerns.

The ambivalence which pervades the policy decisions in communications technology is also apparent in the field of biotechnology. Despite the tremendous social benefits which could be derived through biotechnical advances, the technology also presents some serious risks. For example, there is the matter of laboratory safety. The controversy over laboratory safety began almost immediately after Stanley Cohen successfully spliced the first gene. The Asilomar Conference, attended by leading geneticists, held in 1975, centered on this issue. Nicholas Wade in The Ulti- mate Experiment, presents a complete account of the controversy and conference proceedings." The major questions which were raised then and are still the focus today can be summarized as follows: (1) Is it possible to proceed with research in this area, which includes work with infec- tious and toxic materials, without presenting serious risk to laboratory workers or the public in general? (2) What would be the consequences of creating new bacteria to

JULY /AUGUST 1981

which humans had no immunity, if that bacteria were acci- dentally released from the laboratory into the environment? (3) Can research be regulated and safety standards enforced without impeding scientific progress? and (4) Should genetic research continue or are its risks simply too great?

In 1976, NIH produced the first safety regulations for recombinant DNA research. As expected, many felt the standards were too restrictive, while others argued that they were too lax. Basically, the regulations set safety standards for genetic experiments depending on the level of risk they presented. They also banned certain of the most dangerous experiments from being conducted.

Despite these actions, the debate rages on. Many want to continue with the more high-risk experiments, while others want to reduce even further the dangers involved.

Especially as the public's participation in the controversy grows, how should public administrators approach the issue? A string of questions come immediately to mind. For example, what are the implications of the recent Supreme Court decision allowing GE to patent a living organism? How will new advances change the course of medical care? How will they affect the cost of medical care? How will life- styles change as a consequence of these advances? How can we direct them in the most socially beneficial way? How can we avoid the creation of a Brave New World? Just a short time ago, such questions would have seemed fan- tastic. In the 1980s, the technology stemming from recombinant DNA may alter completely our view of what can and cannot be accomplished in the field of genetics.

With regard to synfuels development, a national decision was made by President Carter. President Reagan is attempting to remake the decision in certain significant ways. What Congress will do remains to be seen. The Reagan administration still intends to see synfuels developed, however. The question for it is not whether, but how. The issues relate to how fast, by whom, with what government role, etc. Should such a capability be developed, it could well provide a measure of national security against a sudden cut-off of oil supplies from the Middle East.

To this end, the federal government, under Carter, in- itiated a highly ambitious synfuels program. His goal was "to produce the equivalent of two million barrels of oil a day by 1992, enough to replace about a third of today's oil imports." As originally planned, the government- stimulated effort would eventually have cost the taxpayer $88 billion in an assortment of loans, grants, and subsidies to industry. In addition, the government was also a possible market for the output. The investment in synthetic fuels was potentially such as to "dwarf that in the Apollo moon program and the interstate highway system combined."'

Reagan's cutbacks in synfuels have not terminated the program, although certain expensive proposed pilot plants have been scratched. Rather, the program has been moved, except for long-range R&D, from the Department of Energy to the Synfuels Corporation, a quasi-public, quasi- private organization created by Carter to make use of wind- fall profits tax dollars. A lot of money will still be allocated, but DOE will be spending less, and the federal budget will thus show decreases in synfuels expenditures. What Syn-




fuels Corporation will do depends on many factors, including private sector decisions, but it will indeed be launching a massive effort, give or take a few billion dollars. Unless the program dies of its own weight, the creation of a synthetic fuels capability could have enormous environmental costs, particularly in the West. Many of the synfuel plants that would be built in the West would not only cost billions, but they would also require great supplies of water in a place where water is already scarce. The competition over these scarce water supplies can be expected to grow fierce. The pollution consequences could also be vast. There is the question of what to do, in the case of one technology, with enormous quantities of processed shale. Other objections will surely arise from the many communities that will find miles-long coal trains rambling through more frequently, thus creating unbearable traffic congestion.'3 Far removed, both geographically and technically, from Western projects aimed at converting coal into gas or oil are the urban-oriented projects which would convert municipal garbage into energy. These are also classified as synfuel projects and would have enormous numbers of problems associated with them.

... synthetic fuels implementation could indeed become the Apollo project of the 1980s. But this particular project would be carried out on earth, not in space. Clearly, this will make an enormous difference in terms of its political context.

Weighing the costs and benefits of these various synfuel projects is a task not limited to politicians. Often, politicians delegate such decisions to public administrators. Under Reagan, the attempt is being made to delegate them to the Synfuels Corporation, and, beyond it, to "the market." To some extent, the motive for creating the new Syn- fuels Corporation was to insulate this organization some- what from the sort of daily political pressure that traditional bureaucracies face. It is not at all clear that this will be possible. Also, as noted, DOE will continue to play a role in the field at the R&D end of the innovation con- tinuum. Synfuels Corporation will emphasize commercialization activities. Where does R&D end? Where does commercialization begin? Who does what in the critical middle ground of pilot plants and demonstration projects? There is a high likelihood for bureaucratic conflict on a grand scale in synfuels. The public, moreover, is extremely concerned with environmental degradation. Synfuels pollute. The reason synfuels are highly likely to move ahead, in spite of pollution and ideological issues of government versus the market, is that they represent a hedge against the threat of oil cut-offs. It might not take much in the way of further disruption in the Middle East to persuade everyone that there is a genuine national security interest in developing this capability which should probably occur at the expense of environmental protection and free market consideration. In the event of a Middle East disruption, synthetic fuels implementation could indeed become the Apollo project of the 1980s. But this particular project would be carried out

on earth, not in space. Clearly, this will make an enormous difference in terms of its political context.

The Intergovernmental Emphasis

In the 1980s, we can expect science and technology to become more of an intergovernmental enterprise. It already is in the case of communications technology, in which federal, state, and local agencies are playing key roles. Our impression, however, is that there is extreme fragmentation in policy making, not only among the levels of government, but also between agencies at the different levels. It seems unlikely that traditional regulatory approaches will work, especially because of this chaotic policy process. Thus, the initiation of new and innovative policy approaches will be key to the practical development of this technology.

DNA and biomedical technologies may seem farther removed from the concerns of intergovernmental relations. But they are not as far removed as the scientific community and the corporations new to this field might like. State and local governments have responsibilities for the public health of their citizens. Some of the major concerns relating to DNA have to do with what would happen if mutant bacteria would be released into a community. The scientific community and the federal government have taken great precautions to make certain that possibility never becomes a reality. The risk is always there, however. Moreover, the risk is perceived by at least some state and local leaders. The 1976 Cambridge, Massachusetts controversy, which involved the mayor, university researchers, city council members, and a variety of citizens groups, served, temporarily, to limit genetic research in this highly populated area. It sparked similar controversies in New York, California, New Jersey, Maryland, Michigan, and other states as well over the issues of safety. One can reasonably assume that state and local governments will become increasingly active in this area as experiments diffuse, and as the public's participation grows.

Synfuels raise other issues. Traditionally, when the federal government supported the development of a new technology, it was the technology's principal consumer. Energy, however, is a great harbinger of new trends in federal science and technology policy. Here, new technologies are destined for use beyond that of the federal agencies. The agencies will both use the new energy technologies themselves and promote or regulate their development and use by others. Moreover, state and local sectors are involved in ways which often pit one state against the other. Sunbelt states have one set of energy policies and the frost- belt another. What may benefit one region may work to the disadvantage of other regions.

When the Synfuels Act was passed during the Carter administration, its companion bill, intended to create an Energy Mobilization Board to cut environmental and other red tape for "fast track" projects, failed to pass through Congress. One reason was that the states objected to provi- sions indicating the federal government could overrule state laws. States have become increasingly jealous of their pre- rogatives. If the United States is to reach its synfuels goal, it

JULY /AUGUST 1981




will have to do so in cooperation with, or perhaps in spite of, its intergovernmental system.

Intersectoral Context

It is not every day that old industries are transfigured, as is happening in communications. It is even more rare when new industries come into being, as is occurring with biotechnology. It is rarer still that the government pledges publicly to help create a new industry, as it is doing in synfuels.

The entire realm of government/business relations is likely to undergo changes in the 1980s under the impact of new technologies. Each of the areas mentioned-communications, biotechnology, and synfuels-is creating a gold rush mentality among many industrial firms. There is a rush to invest in and commercialize the new technologies as rapidly as possible, whether the technologies may be ready or not, whether the public is ready to receive them or not.

Within the communications field, CATV is at the fore- front of the debates occurring in city after city. What is public, what is private? Which of the current communications industries should take the lead to develop this technology? There is the concern that private companies will not seek out public service oriented activities, and that such uses will lie fallow. There are equally strong concerns that certain of the technological uses will be pushed ahead by the private sector without adequate public protection.

Genetic engineering raises regulatory issues that are in many ways unprecedented. The business ownership of new life forms through the patent clause was hardly foreseen by the founding fathers. Yet this is now possible, as a consequence of the Supreme Court ruling. Molecular biologists have left the university to become business men. Moreover, their financial success could be tremendous. The London Times has called biotechnology "one of the biggest industrial opportunities of the late twentieth century."'94 Science magazine reports: "Corporate investors have become so enamored of recombinant DNA that the paper value of the four small enterprises that specialize in gene splicing has more than doubled in the last six months alone."' On Oc- tober 14, 1980, the day Genentech, Inc. decided to offer its stock publicly, its price-per-share rose from $35 to a stag- gering $89. "Genentech was expected to be the hottest issue to hit Wall Street in some time, but the explosion in its price was the most striking that many brokers had ever seen.""96 Thus, it seems the 1980s promise to be the decade in which we see the commercialization of molecular biology-something almost unthinkable just a short time ago. Neverthe- less, the problems of determining which technologies should be commercialized, and how fast, are clearly public issues too important for scientists or business to answer alone. Yet, who in government, at what level, should be involved in this regulatory task?

Also, a particular problem in biotechnology is disting- uishing how far the regulatory reach should go. For example, the regulation of business in its effort to exploit genetic engineering is perplexing enough. But how far should government regulate scientific experiments in universities that conduct genetic research? NIH has set guidelines out-

JULY/AUGUST 1981

lining the types of experiments which may be done, and those which may not. At least one University of California researcher has lost his job for an alleged violation. But universities and basic scientific research have traditionally been set apart from business and applied research. The dis- tinction has long been recognized between research in the name of science, conducted primarily by universities, and research in the name of profit, as done by industries.

Communications, biotechnology, and synfuels are each creating a gold rush mentality among many industrialfirms. There is a rush to invest in and commercialize the new technologies as rapidly as possible, whether the technologies may be ready or not, whether the public is ready to receive them or not.

In biotechnology, however, the connections between science and technology have grown exceptionally close, and the ties between some universities and some business firms create public policy concerns. The connection, moreover, grows particularly complex when major universities such as Harvard University consider creating genetic engineering firms of their own. Although Harvard recently decided not to initiate the proposal to create a genetic company, it "left the door to future commercial ventures open if a means could be found to protect traditional academic values. " President of the university, Derek C. Bok, explained, "If safeguards can be found, the university might obtain a bad- ly needed source of additional funding for its teaching and research while also benefiting the public through hastening the translation of basic knowledge into useful products and devices."'7 This sort of unconventional thinking raises several fundamental questions. For example, when is research in a university for the university? When is it being performed, indirectly, for business? At what point should government concern itself with the answer? Such questions also relate to another dispute, in which the ownership of a human gene to produce interferon has become the subject of a legal dispute between the pharmaceutical company Hoffman-LaRoche and the University of California at Los Angeles.'8 Together, the cases illustrate all too clearly how university-business relationships in biotechnology heighten the competition for the profitable fruits of research.

Finally, in energy, and particularly in synfuels, there is a government attempt to create or at least encourage a new synfuels industry. Government is not well versed in industry-building, although if enough money is spent for a long enough period, and if government assumes all the risks, perhaps it can be done. Synfuels, however, cover quite a bit of territory. There is a vast difference between getting oil from shale in the mountains in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah, and generating energy from garbage in New York Ci- ty. Yet both technologies are aspects of synfuels, each with its own unique set of government-business relations. As the federal government promotes these technologies, will state and local government regulate? Which businesses will make up the new synfuels industry? Will they be new firms? Or will they be the old giant oil companies seeking new gov-




ernment money? Should government be concerned with who does what in the private sector so long as the industry grows?

There is much that can go wrong with America's plunge into synthetic fuels and there is little comfort to be taken in the government's history of similar crash programs. One of the very earliest efforts by Washington to create a new civilian industry from scratch involved the production of synthetic rubber during World War II. Robert Solo, professor of economics at Michigan State, has studied the crash synthetic rubber program and sees many parallels with the new push for synthetics. He declares: "There are things to be learned from that experience which was a scan- dalous, a complete, a nearly catastrophic foul-up."'

The new technologies of the 1980s will raise significant questions of public-private relations that are real and will not quickly disappear. They will be at the heart of new problems in public policy and will create enormous pressures for public managers. Will public managers be ready? Are the schools of public affairs and administration assuming the responsibility to see that they are better prepared?

Conclusion

The gap is large between what is needed and what is currently being considered within the public administration community. Reform and improvement will be required in both the university and the professional world as well.

With respect to the university, two types of courses are needed, and special curricula materials will be necessary for both. First, courses in science and technology will also be required. One could say that the latter are already available in departments of science and schools of engineering. But for the typical student of public administration, courses in science or technology remain a mystery. Moreover, the aim of such courses in science and technology is not to make scientists or engineers out of public administration and public policy students. Rather, it is to provide the public administration student with enough technical literacy so that he/she can intelligently assess a technology and relate it to the political, economic, and social aspects of a public policy. For example, technology assessment, which is a form of policy analysis, requires some degree of technological literacy.

Second, courses about science and technology must have an equal imperative with those in science and technology. The conceptual elements discussed above-those pertaining to values and institutions-must be given their due to be fully appreciated by the student. Technology and policy must move concurrently. Such a concurrent and parallel relationship must be more clearly emphasized in future courses dealing with science, technology, and administration. Syracuse University, New York University, and SUNY Stony Brook, under a Sloan Foundation grant, are now attempting to produce case studies that will serve both courses about, and courses in science and technology. These may well be significant contributions to the kind of curricula materials needed.

As there are new obligations on the university and par-

ticularly its schools of public affairs, so too are there requirements that public administration practitioners must fulfill. These requirements fall into two categories: (1) those involving what the practitioner does in his role as government official; and (2) those involving the professional's assistance to others in the public administration community, including those charged with bringing on the next generation of administrative leaders.

Public administration practitioners must become more cognizant of the implications that major science and technology advances have for public policy. What are the opportunities presented by new advances? What are the problems? Typically, practitioners become so enmeshed in the day-to-day struggles of an agency that they seldom scan the horizon for discontinuities down the road. They muddle through when they should be searching strategically for better ways to conduct the public's business. All too often, they fail to anticipate new public business which may be rapidly approaching because of technological change. The public administrator today needs to take a more proactive (rather than reactive) stance toward science and technology.

In terms of assistance to those affected by science and technology, the practitioner must look for ways to help clients as he simultaneously helps himself. Indeed, in looking out for his clients, he should not only look ahead to the ways in which science and technology may affect their in- terests, but he should also determine how the impacts of technological change can best be molded to produce more positive policies.

Finally, the public administration practitioner needs to work more closely with academic colleagues to assure that the ideas, and, especially the curricula materials professors and students use, are forward looking rather than obsolete. Quite often, the practitioner sits astride "decisions-in-the- making."20 That is, he is involved in a decision-making process which often includes the types of technological issues mentioned earlier. But, because he is directly in the midst of the process, he sees primarily trees and very little forest. While the academic can generally comprehend the whole, he, on the other hand, has little insight into the realities of day-to-day pressures. A closer relationship between the practitioner and the academic might very well improve public administration practice, as well as public administration teaching and research. Such a relationship between practitioners and academics concerned with science and technology policy might even provide some vision into alternative futures, a vision so desperately needed today, yet so frequently missing in the development of new policies.

In conclusion, science and technology portend a decade of multiple challenges for the public administration community. Communications, genetics, and synfuel energy represent technological changes that are far from incremental. We as members of the public administration community must be as creative in our public management of new technologies as scientists and engineers are in bringing them about. The sooner we begin this process of innovation, the more likely we will tackle effectively the technological issues of the 1980s.

JULY/AUGUST 1981




Notes

1. Starr Roxanne Hiltz, Murray Turoff, The Network Nation: Human Communications Via Computer (Reading: Addison- Wesley, 1978).

2. Susan Sparta Cherry, "Telereference: The New TV Informa- tion System," American Libraries, Vol. II, February 1980, pp. 94-98; and Michael Tyler, "Videotext, Prestel and Tele- text: The Economics and Politics of Some Electronic Pub- lishing Media," Telecommunications Policy, March 1979.

3. Richard Hutton, Bio-Revolution: DNA and the Ethics of Man-Made Life (New York: New American Library, Inc., 1978).

4. Marjorie Sun, "Making Interferon: Gains Come Slowly," Science, Vol. 210, November 7, 1980, p. 618; and Hutton, pp. 114-115.

5. Ibid., pp. 114-115 (Hutton only). 6. Ibid., p. 115 (Hutton only). 7. Nicholas Wade, The Ultimate Experiment (New York:

Walker and Company, 1977). 8. "Out of the Bottle," Progressive, August 1980, p. 8, vol. 44,

no. 8. Nicholas Wade, "Supreme Court to Say if Life is Patentable," Science, Vol. 206, November 9, 1979, p. 664.

9. Peter J. Schuyten, "The Synthetic Solution: The Rub Is in

the Cost," New York Times, July 15, 1979. 10. See Mitchell Moss, "Cable Television: A Technology for

Citizens," University of Detroit Journal of Urban Law, Vol. 53, No. 3, Spring 1978.

11. Nicholas Wade, op. cit. 12. "Synthetic Fuel Plan: A Boon for Business," New York

Times, August 25, 1980. 13. Robert D. Hershey, Jr., "Blessing or Boondoggle? The $88

Billion Question for Synthetic Fuels," New York Times, September 21, 1980.

14. Nicholas Wade, The Ultimate Experiment, pp. 127-144. 15. "Cloning Gold Rush Turns Basic Biology into Big

Business," Science, Vol. 208, May 16, 1980, p. 688. 16. Nicholas Wade, "Gene Splicing Company Wows Wall

Street," Science, Vol. 210, October 31, 1980, p. 506. 17. Michael Knight, "Harvard Rules Out Role for Now in

Genetic Engineering Company," New York Times, Novem- ber 1980.

18. Anne C. Roark, "Drug Company Challenges UCLA over Ownership of Human Gene," The Chronicle of Higher Edu- cation, Vol. 21, No. 7, October 6, 1980.

19. Robert D. Hershey, Jr., op. cit. 20. I am obligated to my Maxwell colleague, Professor Edwin

Bock, for the term "decisions-in-the-making."

A THIRD DIMENSION FOR SCIENCE POLICY

Philip B. Yeager

Early in this century a gifted 19-year-old girl from Maine wrote one of the great poems in American literature. The poem concluded with this couplet:

For he whose soul is flat the sky Will cave in on him, by and by.

In these few words Edna Millay diagnosed a philosophical illness which would become increasingly prevalent in the 20th century as specialists moved in and generalists moved out.

Her perceptions in composing "Renascence," undoubt- edly intuitive at the time, seem to have an almost universal significance-and so it may be that they form an apt bench- mark against which to gauge the effectiveness not only of personal endeavors but national ones as well.

This brings me around to what I perceive to be a flat, two-dimensional federal science policy.

Not being a scientist or an engineer may be an advantage for one who has been embroiled in the government-science milieu and who may wish to undertake some philosophical observations about that relationship. At least in that case there is no choosing up sides in advance-no joining with phalanxes of scientific cheerleaders exhorting the faithful fans of R&D to "Go Science-Beat OMB." Nor, on the other side, to espouse the budget team's perennial style of play: "Defense-Defense-Defense!" Not that being a

JULY/AUGUST 1981

non-scientist is a guarantee of objectivity, but it does per- mit a few judgment calls without being quite as suspect as the main participants on the playing field.

When we talk of "Science Policy"-and particularly the policy of the federal government in adopting or formu- lating one-this, of course, means where, how, and why federal money is distributed to the many levels and categories of scientific endeavors throughout the country: academic, industrial and otherwise. The "where" and "how" are not too tough to follow. The "why" is something else again.

Although I have dealt with these questions at relatively close range for many years-the latest convolution having involved an assembly of thoughtful and expert dissertations on the subject1 from some well qualified people-the essence of the policy in question is still surprising in one sense. For, when the rhetoric and the ceremonial trappings are filtered, it turns out to be a remarkably uncomplicated policy.

In 1976 Congress enacted the first national Science Policy Act' which purported to deal with policy per se. Title I of that act is a comprehensive statement of the federal government's science policy. Having passed through many hands and having been subjected to a bevy of blue pencils,

Philip B. Yeager is general counsel for the Committee on Science and Technology of the United States House of Representatives.



preparing public managers for the technological issues of the 1980s

Documents