Lawmakers need science translated

In the past year, I've had the opportunity to work in the area of technology policy analysis through a couple of internships, and in those jobs I've worked with several lawmakers charged with the responsibility of making primary policy decisions regarding science and technology. To the credit of some, especially regarding their ages, there are legislators who will not only admit to not knowing much about the issues about which they are making decisions but are willing to learn about them.

Unfortunately, these people are the exception rather than the rule in our lawmaking bodies. More often than not, legislators and politicians know nothing about these issues and have no desire to learn. When it comes to the vote, they, at best, abstain; or, at worst, make their decision based on what their friends or party is voting-a decision that is also often made in ignorance. I will never forget the time when, during one of my internships, I overheard one lawmaker say to another, "I don't know anything about this stuff, and I'm too old to learn, so I don't really care," in regard to technology issues.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt was spot-on when he referred to the generation gap that exists regarding technology. "The average person in government is not of the age of people who are using all this stuff," he said at a National Academies' Computer Science and Telecommunications Board symposium.

As a result, we get legislators like Sen. Ted Stevens making misinformed statements like the now-infamous "The internet is made up of tubes," declaration he made regarding the issue of network neutrality. This man is the chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation! Sen. Stevens isn't the only offender but he is one of the most high-profile examples.

This unfortunate phenomenon isn't just limited to U.S. lawmakers. Former Hong Kong governor Chris Patten relates similar issues and attitudes in the E.U., particularly relating to the issue of identification. The issue of identification is becoming increasingly fraught with technological issues as many nations, including the U.S., are moving toward RFID standards in passports, driving permits and other forms of identification-standards which have been shown to be insecure and vulnerable to tampering. "The NHS [National Health Service] program for IT and the ID cards scheme both stand as a testament to the government's complete failure at forward planning [in technology schemes] and its inability to understand technology in the real world," said Simon Davies, chairman of No2ID, a non-partisan campaign opposed to the national ID and identity register in the UK.

This real-world understanding is where technology policy analysts like me come in. "The challenge is to develop a language politicians can understand, as well as politicians taking the time and trouble to understand it. What often happens is you get somebody speaking technical jargon to someone who doesn't understand the basics," said Richard Allan, head of government affairs for Cisco Systems U.K.

And that is precisely what my colleagues and I do. When I tell people that I'm a technology policy analyst, they always wonder what that really means. Pretty much, I serve as a Technobabble-to-Political BS translator. My colleagues and I take complex, technical subjects such as cryptography and cellulosic ethanol (two that we've worked with recently) and break them down into simple terms that (hopefully) even my kid brother could understand.

These days, I'd like to think that it's an important job. In my current internship at the Office of Policy Analysis and Research (OPAR) at GTRI, we just held a roundtable discussion on the science and technology policy agenda for the upcoming state legislative session. Five state representatives served as panelists, and a broad range of issues, including nanotechnology, identity management and internet safety, were discussed. The panelists had some very interesting, and sometimes surprising, insights into these issues.

As someone whose job it is to foster an understanding of technology issues and to trigger dialogues about them, however, the open question-and-answer portion of the roundtable session really proved fruitful. An actual conversation about some related issues that I hadn't considered developed between the technologists and the legislators present. And that's as much, if not more, than any technology policy analyst could hope for.