From a response I just wrote to a comment on a Lessig blog post about dreaming up a US CTO position:

The OTA was recently reinstated, although in a different form, when Congress passed (and President Bush signed) the most recent legislative branch appropriations bill. I work for the Sunlight Foundation, and we helped push for this measure to be adopted. (see http://www.theopenhouseproject.com/2007/06/04/ota-endorsement/ or http://www.theopenhouseproject.com/2007/06/07/ota-renewed-gets-25-million/ )

Instead of reinvoking funding for the still-authorized OTA department, the new approps bill adds funding to the GAO’s budget, letting them venture explicitly into the realm of technological assessment. This is probably a good thing, given GAO’s excellent reputation, and that their work is public, as are their evaluative criteria.

Having a congressional support agency with an explicit mandate to provide research on technological issues will go a long way toward giving congressional decisions on technology the background they need to be sound, and re-funding an OTA, whether as a stand-alone agency or as part of the GAO is the right way to go about it.

A separate issue entirely, however, is whether Congress has adequately organized their administrative appendages to address their own technological coordination issues. Having dedicated researchers available will help lead to better policy, but without clear jurisdiction, proper implementation and foresight get passed over, as agencies and departments struggle to prioritize and act within their budgets. Complex incentives surround the question of whether or not to take on a problem that is outside your department’s statutorily authorized responsibilities. A central non-political body coordinating these responsibilities across Congress would streamline the process of implementing and planning new technological transitions, a very complicated task for such a complex institution.

What I didn’t get into, however, is the main thrust of Lessig’s post, that is, should the US have a CTO position?

I don’t know the answer to that question, but I’m inclined to suggest that centralizing and institutionalizing technological expertise leads to better policy and decisions. The issue I have with this suggestion, however, is one of jurisdiction. How does the complex of fought-over jurisdictions, executive orders, tradition, and expectations come to cough up a new cabinet level position? The history American choices addressing emergent needs by creating new administrative appendages is probably full of illustrative examples, which might suggest the best way to centralize technological expertise in American executive administration.

Is this best filled by an informal advisory role, a cabinet level position, an Office of Management and Budget office, a separate technological affairs office, a temporary task force? Consciously considering the choices beforehand makes it less likely that we choose whatever is most expedient when the issue is raised in earnest.