The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

Last weekend, the U.S. inaugurated a new president, George W. Bush. Those of us concerned with the social implications of technology should take this opportunity to reflect on the outgoing and incoming administrations, and to consider what effect the transition will have on technology policy. Phrased more generally, how much influence does a president have over technology and the ways we use and think about it?

The answer is not much. By and large, presidents have very little effect on technology policy, because technological advancement is mostly in the hands of businesses, researchers, and consumers - not government. Take, for example, Bill Clinton's tenure. Clinton presided during a period of economic prosperity that was, in part, the result of innovations in technology, especially information technology. But it is difficult to pinpoint any precise effect the Clinton administration had upon technology, and it is unlikely that the state of technology would be noticeably different today if someone else had been in office for the past eight years. None of the major recent technological advances - including the international space station, the popularization of the Internet, and the first map of the human genome - bears the marks of the Clinton administration.

That is not to disparage the Clinton presidency, but rather to point out that our chief executives are rarely indispensable to the course technology takes. In fact, the only president in the century just ended who can be said to have indisputably and profoundly influenced technology is John F. Kennedy. This year marks the fortieth anniversary of his announcement of a new strategy for space: "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth." By outlining a long-range goal and framing it as an undertaking vital to American pride, Kennedy redefined and reinvigorated the U.S. space program in the 1960s. And the effects of the space effort on technology did not stop with the 1969 Moon landings: we are literally surrounded by the trickle-down results of space-age creativity - like technology that insulates our homes, purifies our water, and shields our eyes from ultraviolet radiation.

The Kennedy example suggests that a president can have a lasting effect on technology by proposing and shaping a broad mission rather than by promulgating policies that deal with details. With that in mind, how might the new president influence technology? Admittedly, there seems to be at present no "great new American enterprise" (Kennedy's words) with the grandeur of the space program, but there are several other technology-related projects of which Bush may avail himself with memorable, if not historical, consequences.

For instance, the Bush Administration could have an enormous effect on the U.S. attitude towards biotechnology. During last year's presidential debates, Bush allied himself with the pharmaceutical industry, arguing that government regulations should not interfere with "important research and development." But while Bush supports research for new medicines, he is also on the record as opposing government funding for any embryo research which conflicts with his views on abortion. Meanwhile, public sentiment about biotechnology is mixed: while some recent advances in cloning and genetic engineering leave people uneasy, Americans are far less concerned than Europeans about genetically modified food. Considering the recent astounding advances in biotechnology, and the potential for these advances to fundamentally alter the way we think about our own humanity, there is great potential for the Bush Administration to have a lasting impact.

The Bush administration could also have a decisive and lasting effect in the area of energy policy. The U.S. energy policy is in shambles, as last year showed: gasoline costs reached record highs, prices for heating oil spiked, the government tapped the emergency petroleum reserves, and California has been in a power crisis since last summer. During the presidential campaign, Bush said he supports research for clean coal technologies and exploration for new domestic sources of oil to make the U.S. "less dependent on foreign sources of crude oil." (This includes the controversial proposal to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.) What stance will President Bush take on fuel-efficiency regulations for cars, or on alternative sources of energy? Will our nation's energy infrastructure be able to meet the strain our increasingly high-tech information economy is placing on it? Cleaning up the nation's energy mess could be an important Bush accomplishment.

The president has much more direct control over a third area of technology policy: government information security. The government has rapidly adopted computers and the Internet, but security practices have not kept pace. The past few years have seen major security lapses in the State Department, the Energy Department, the FAA and the EPA. This is not just a technological issue, but a personnel issue: it involves training employees to respect the power of information technology, and to properly judge which information deserves to be publicly accessible. While this issue is most vitally important where national security information is at risk, government information everywhere must be protected.

Finally, it is nearly certain that the Bush Administration will attempt to implement a national missile defense system. This is an extremely divisive issue, both in terms of Congress (which is split along party lines on this matter) and international opinion (where even U.S. allies disagree with one another). The stakes - millions of lives, billions of dollars, and global security - could scarcely be higher, and the decisions made now will have lasting consequences.

President Bush is predicted to alter specific technology policies; he may drop the government's antitrust prosecution of Microsoft, and may try to require content filters on certain public computers that access the Internet. We shall have to wait and see whether he will also have the opportunity to lay out a broad and decisive technology agenda with lasting importance or whether the Bush presidency will, like most, have only an incidental effect on the history of technology.

How much influence does a president have over technology and the ways we use and think about it?

A president can have a lasting effect on technology by proposing and shaping a broad mission...

The stakes - millions of lives, billions of dollars, and global security - could scarcely be higher, and the decisions made now will have lasting consequences.

The author is president of the Center for the Study of Technology and Society. He can be reached by e-mail at Adam@tecsoc.org.