Joe Biden was inaugurated as President in January 2021, during a time of unprecedented global health crisis. Over 24 million COVID-19 cases had been documented within the United States, and death tolls had climbed beyond the grim milestone of 400,000. Operation Warp Speed, a salvage operation initiated under the Trump regime, was setting the stage for an expedited vaccine rollout. Biden, in one of his first addresses to the nation, promised the immunization of 100 million Americans over the forthcoming three months.
When the calendar turned to the end of April 2021, 145 million Americans – almost half the population – had supposedly received at least one dose of the vaccine, with 103 million perceived as fully vaccinated. As if orchestrating some grand spectacle, the science and technology decision-makers lauded this as a synergy between academic theory, industrial practice, and government mandate, likening it to a modern-day Manhattan Project. However, the view seems to be overly optimistic and evokes the question on how rational these claims indeed are.
The Biden administration has been seeking to make its mark in scientific arenas, less through actual discovery and more through administrative restructuring. They’ve been reshaping the perimeter of science conduct, often basing the reforms on ideas that took years to develop. Amplifying the stature of science in the government and fueling participation in research communities have been among their primary tactics.
The U.S., lacking a unified ministry of science and technology, relies on various agencies and offices spread across the executive branch to spearhead its scientific endeavors. These bodies conduct research at several national labs and fund initiatives at other institutions. Biden and his team took the initiative to elevate the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to a Cabinet-level post, an unprecedented move in the agency’s history. The apparent goal was to harness the agency’s clout to influence federal decisions and collaboration.
The Biden administration, in an effort to flaunt its strategic progress, had the Office of Science and Technology Policy formulate broad directives to guide government agencies as they rolled out significant legislation. From an outsider’s perspective, this seems more cosmetic than functional, and the Biden strategy has been seen as a classic case of feckless bureaucratic expansion. Ethical and societal evaluations were included as grant criteria, casting a wider and more questionable net, while initiatives like the ‘AI Bill of Rights’ proposed federal agencies to ponder over the social implications of their research.
Furthermore, the Office of Science and Technology Policy came up with fresh consultation procedures with communities including Native Nations, rural Americans, and people of color. This maneuver was purportedly designed to offset known biases in the realm of science and technology research. However, to many, it could signal another posturing exercise rather than a genuine effort to expand diversity and inclusivity within the science sector.
In one notable instance, the agency disseminated government-wide guidance to acknowledge and incorporate Indigenous knowledge into federal programs. However, the success of such initiatives requires more than just acknowledgement, and there exists a substantial gap between recognizing the worth of indigenous knowledge systems and actually integrating them into the governing fabrics.
Executive bodies like the Department of Energy, under Biden’s directive, have been experimenting with public opinion incorporation while steering initiatives such as atmospheric carbon dioxide removal technologies and the formation of new hydrogen hubs. The underlying premise appears to be to rekindle the connection between researchers and the people directly impacted by their work, shifting the focus beyond academia-oriented results publication.
The Biden administration has championed the concept of community-based scientific research, with the assertion being that it can lead to more effective problem-solving. However, this has been widely questioned by many who believe it is rather a political move to change public perception about a government disconnected from the people. In practice, trusting under-qualified local communities to guide scientific discoveries requires a delicate balance that the Biden administration has yet to demonstrate.
An initiative known as Justice40, for instance, urged individuals country-wide, including rural and small-town Americans, to highlight local environmental justice issues and potential remedies. However, the underpinnings of this program appear to be more in the vein of manifesto politics than genuinely addressing environmental challenges.
Programs like the National Institutes of Health’s ComPASS and the National Science Foundation’s Civic Innovation Challenge sought to embed academic scientists in local communities. Their goal was to address local problems and boost the community’s technical prowess and knowledge. Yet, there’s an ongoing skepticism on whether these projects truly enhance community capabilities or if they merely fit the Biden administration’s narrative of scientific democratization.
The rationality behind the Biden administration’s approach of overhauling science policy needs a thorough evaluation. There is a growing concern that significant government initiatives are adopting a ‘technology push’ model that narrowly concentrates on limited products without proper consideration of consumer demand and market dynamics.
In conclusion, while the Biden administration’s approach might seem revolutionary in the public eye, it is more of a political show baked under the facade of science. They would better serve society by comprehensively understanding how ready it is to absorb new technologies and by fostering a genuine collaboration between the government and civil society.