Office of the President, where he worked on a wide range of environmental science issues, including climate change, risk assessment, and ecosystem management. Prior to that appointment, Mr. Rodemeyer served for fifteen years on the staff of the House Committee on Science, including positions as Chief Counsel, and Staff Director and Counsel of the Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture Research and Environment. Mr. Rodemeyer returned to the Committee as minority legislative director following his position at OSTP. From 1976 through 1984, Mr. Rodemeyer was a staff attorney with the Federal Trade Commission, including four years as attorney-advisor to FTC Commissioner Michael Pertschuk. In that capacity, Mr. Rodemeyer advised the Commissioner on a wide variety of antitrust and consumer protection regulatory issues, including litigation and agency rulemaking. Mr. Rodemeyer graduated with honors from Harvard Law School and received his undergraduate degree with honors from Princeton University. University Press, 1996) as well as many scholarly and general-interest articles about the relationship between science, technology, and social change. His past positions include Dr. James Wilsdon is Head of Science and Innovation at Demos. He advises a wide range of organizations on science policy, emerging technologies, democracy and sustainability, and his recent publications include: 'The Public Value of Science' (with Brian Wynne & Jack Stilgoe, Demos 2005); 'See-through Science: why public engagement needs to move upstream' (with Rebecca Willis, Demos 2004); 'Masters of the Universe: science, politics and the new space race' closed its doors after 23 years of serving the U.S. Congress. During its existence, OTA provided members of Congress and others with non-partisan advice on topics ranging from fertility treatments to global climate change, producing a total of 750 reports and technical assessments. Over the past ten years, there have been periodic attempts to argue OTA back into existence. Predictably, these occur in the wake of some flap over the possible social or ethical impacts of a new scientific breakthrough that then stimulates some journalist or pundit to lament the demise of OTA's assessment capacity. The doors remain closed, though the larger questions of whether OTA's function is needed, and by whom, remain largely unaddressed. After OTA disappeared, we went on to complete the Decade of the Brain, finished sequencing the Human Genome, and launched a multi-billion dollar nanotechnology initiative. Policymakers found themselves dealing with debates around cloning and stem cell research, the ethics of brain scanning, and evolving questions about the …
[1]
K. Höffken,et al.
The European experience.
,
2001,
Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
[2]
Joy Bill,et al.
Why the future doesn’t need us
,
2003
.
[3]
W. Irwin.
"Where do we go from here?".
,
1951,
Radiography.
[4]
J. Durant,et al.
The public understanding of science
,
1989,
Nature.
[5]
Hilary Rose,et al.
Science and Society
,
1969
.
[6]
M. G. Morgan,et al.
Improving Science and Technology Advice for Congress
,
2001,
Science.
[7]
David H. Guston,et al.
Real-time technology assessment
,
2020,
Emerging Technologies: Ethics, Law and Governance.
[8]
A. Rip,et al.
The past and future of constructive technology assessment
,
1997
.
[9]
D. Sarewitz.
How science makes environmental controversies worse
,
2004
.
[10]
Roland Jackson,et al.
Strengths of Public Dialogue on Science‐related Issues
,
2005
.
[11]
James Wilsdon,et al.
See-Through Science : Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream
,
2004
.
[12]
D. Guston.
Boundary Organizations in Environmental Policy and Science: An Introduction
,
2001
.