Informative, well-written. Topical and offering some suggestions at least of a remedy. It's not the messenger's fault if the gov't won't listen. Thumbs up for more from Mr. Richter. My one migiving, which is a big one is, can this Nobel winner (in Science) write more than interesting science articles, which a Pundit would have to do.

Wondering what kind of influence a Congressional OTA would have on the recent spur of U.S. 1-2-3 deals with controversial nuclear states and nuclear energy seeking nations. It seems that the scientific community was sidelined by Brazil during its nuclear developing years. A repeat of the troubling way the worries of the American scientific community were also put on the back burner during the nuclear arms race of the Cold War. Currently, some in the Indian scientific community are pushing for further nuclear tests...the country to which the U.S. granted probably its most controversial 1-2-3 nuclear deals.

Well written and well argued. Most importantly, Mr.Richter makes technology more accessible and less mysterious --

It's nice that the piece has some substance but come on. Its boring. The writing isn't interesting. You can have all the information and substance you want but it was difficult to get to the end. I'm not against having more pieces with scientific info but it still has to be interesting.

Sorry, the 1/140,000th should be 1/700,000th

"in order to save about $20 million out of a congressional budget of $2 billion"

This would have been stronger and more telling if he had said out of a GDP of $14 trillion. That's 1/140,000th of our national income, for something that could have a big impact on our national income by substantially increasing scientific advancement and economic efficiency. That $20 million per year could easily increase economic output by $20 billion per year, or $200 billion per year, or much more.

It's an extremely high expected social return investment.

"in order to save about $20 million out of a congressional budget of $2 billion"

This would have been stronger and more telling if he had said out of a GDP of $14 trillion. That's 1/140,000th of our national income, for something that could have a big impact on our national income by substantially increasing scientific advancement and economic efficiency. That $20 million per year could easily increase economic output by $20 billion per year, or $200 billion per year, or much more.

It's an extremely high expected social return investment.

Well written and interesting. The third 'graph, however, his opportunity to illustrate OTA's value, was confusing and of very limited interest. A much stronger case could have been made.

This is well written and the content is worthwhile, it is informative. My concern is that the choice of subject is not very revealing as to whether this columnist is willing to play with a range of political subjects and approach politically charged issues. As the slightest possible example of this, in this piece you don't say or surmise what actual effect, while it was extant, the OTA ever had on Congress. Was the OTA just lip service and Gingrich was right? Or did it actually inform the legislative process in perceptible ways?

This is the kind of commentary I like! A critique with substance, information that is new to me, AND a constructive suggestion for remedying the problem. Bravo!

As a fellow computer scientist, and a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, I wholeheartedly recommend and encourage more writing like Professor Richter's article. As many commenters have noted, knowledge trumps superstition. We need more voices like Richter's in these public forums, and of course, in congress.

I tend to agree that for regular columns, articles or opinions that substance should trump style, but for this contest there should be both.

Out of these four articles, this is the best in substance, and slightly the best in writing style.

How these four were chosen mystifies me, are the entries submitted really so limited?

This piece is informative, and knowledgeable - too often many of the opinion writers really don't understand what they write about. I enjoy the expertise - especially since I had been wondering why there is so much partisanship on science... well done.

What's this? A substantive topic that hasn't been hashed to death elsewhere? I'll gladly put up with a bit of dry prose in exchange...at least for this round.

Dr. Burton is a scientist of great repute and his point about having a OTA-type office is very well taken. But if the objective of this contest is to discover America's next great pundit from the teeming masses, why did the committee select an entry from someone who is already a pundit in his own right? Perhaps, Dr. Burton should have an op-ed position of his own, and leave this contest for a common man/woman who can relate to the issues of our everyday lives.

JamesSchirco,

Here is the graph I was using for CO2 data

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

Here is what that page says:
---------
This figures shows estimates of the changes in carbon dioxide concentrations during the Phanerozoic. Three estimates are based on geochemical modeling: GEOCARB III (Berner and Kothavala 2001), COPSE (Bergmann et al. 2004) and Rothman (2001). These are compared to the carbon dioxide measurement database of Royer et al. (2004) and a 30 Myr filtered average of those data. Error envelopes are shown when they were available. The right hand scale shows the ratio of these measurements to the estimated average for the last several million years (the Quaternary). Customary labels for the periods of geologic time appear at the bottom.

Direct determination of past carbon dioxide levels relies primarily on the interpretation of carbon isotopic ratios in fossilized soils (paleosols) or the shells of phytoplankton and through interpretation of stomatal density in fossil plants. Each of these is subject to substantial systematic uncertainty.

Estimates of carbon dioxide changes through geochemical modeling instead rely on quantifying the geological sources and sinks for carbon dioxide over long time scales particularly: volcanic inputs, erosion and carbonate deposition. As such, these models are largely independent of direct measurements of carbon dioxide.

Both measurements and models show considerable uncertainty and variation; however, all point to carbon dioxide levels in the past that have been signifcantly higher than they are at present. While the GEOCARB Carbon dioxide levels in the most part of the Phanerzoic Eon shows a fit and resultíng climate sensitivity similar to todays values, the early Phanerozoic includes a global ice age during the Ordovician age combined with high atmospheric carbon contents based on the same project. There have been different speculations about the reasons but no acknowledged mechanism so far.
--------

Note also that the earliest atmosphere was:

------
The outgassings of the Earth was stripped away by solar winds early in the history of the planet till a steady state was established, the first atmosphere. Based on today's volcanic evidence, this atmosphere would have contained 80% water vapor, 10% carbon dioxide, 5 to 7% hydrogen-sulfide, and smaller amounts of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, hydrogen, methane and inert gases.

A major rainfall lead to the buildup of a vast ocean, enriching the other agents, first carbon dioxide and later nitrogen and inert gases. A major part of carbon dioxide exhalations were soon dissolved in water and built up carbonate sediments.
---------
So over time an atmosphere that began somewhere near 10% CO2 has dropped to present day levels of less than 0.04%. The notion that today's CO2 levels are the highest ever is pure garbage.

This post has been split into 5 segments and is directed at all the finalists. If you want to find the other 4, check the other comment streams. They are all written by me, MsJS, and will all have approximately the same date/time stamp. This is segment #4.

I’ll cover four areas regarding how you might win.

My first piece of advice is for you to take time to consider what makes you unique and leverage those assets. If you try and don’t win, at least be true to yourself during the process. And be sure you come across as the unique you and not a clone of someone else. If you find you sound a lot like an already established pundit, regroup and figure out how to project that unique you. For WaPo to get and retain new readers, it needs authentic freshness.

The second area is the flip side of the first, and that is for you to know how you come across to others. You are now a manufacturer and your words and ideas are your product. If you want WaPo to feature your product, you have to know how it is perceived and received by the marketplace, especially by people who aren’t like you. WaPo is serious about generating new readers. You have to demonstrate you are, too.

I’ll cover more in the next segment. This ends segment #4.

OTA is relevant now in today's climate of enacting global warming leglislation when the science itself is in dispute. I would like to see an objective review of the science of global warming from this columnist, particularly explaining things like why CO2 causes warming when 150 million years ago there was 5x more than present day and there was a glacial period. A brief search of Dr. Richter and warming turned up little except for remarks in passing that indicate perhaps he assumes man made global warming is real. I think it is important as a technical writer to establish objective skepticism, and challenge him to do so with global warming.

Posted by: Wiggan | November 2, 2009 11:13 AM
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stop getting your facts from Glenn Beck and try scientific examination. A 400,000 year old ice cylinder drilled in the Antarctic was analyzed showing co2 levels of today were never reached in the sample. The drops in co2 corresponded with various ice ages. That is science, document your claim from 150,000 years ago.

I was expecting a healthy sampling of everyday America based on how the Post described the contest. Boy was I wrong. A former Assistant Secretary of Commerce, a fellow at the CFR, the CEO of Teach For America, and a Nobel Prize winner. This is clearly not an "everyman's" contest, as advertised. And I'm sure it's mere coincidence that those with the heavy CVs just happened to make it through as finalists.

OTA is relevant now in today's climate of enacting global warming leglislation when the science itself is in dispute. I would like to see an objective review of the science of global warming from this columnist, particularly explaining things like why CO2 causes warming when 150 million years ago there was 5x more than present day and there was a glacial period. A brief search of Dr. Richter and warming turned up little except for remarks in passing that indicate perhaps he assumes man made global warming is real. I think it is important as a technical writer to establish objective skepticism, and challenge him to do so with global warming.

In terms of substance and content Professor Richter's submission is in a class of its own. His proposal is timely, feasible, and relatively inexpensive. Of course there is no guarantee that a revitalized OTA would realize its potential, but on the other hand a relatively modest invest might pay generous dividends. In my opinion Professor Richter's submission is the only one of the ten that offers a hint of wisdom, and I hope that it will survive the first round of balloting.

Unfortunately, as several other persons have noted, Professor Richter has problems with the English language. To be sure, an inability to write has never been much of an impediment to publication in the Post. Only recently, in fact, the Post published an editorial by Governor Jindal of Louisiana that is widely believed to have been written by his cat, a lovely creature by the name of "Buttons", I am told. The problem here is that the opaqueness of Professor Richter's prose obfuscates his message, and one might reasonably question his ability to function effectively as a spokesman for his point of view.

I suggest, however, that substance should trump style, and for this reason I will vote for him.

One of the best, although science in the common press is NOT a crowded field. More of this is needed for precisely that reason. This piece is a good kickoff point for what I hope are mure articles in the future. Our rather superstitious country needs an accessable voice outside the scientific press. Good going.

I'm with all the positive responders: I would certainly like to read more by this writer!
I also want to second the suggestion that one should be able to just click on a "recommend" sign after a comment that expresses exactly one's own opinion. vestajobidon.

As a scientist and long-time Washington Post reader, I find Dr. Richter's perspective to be timely, well-stated, and informative. I would very much like to read more from Dr. Richter because he writes to inform and clarify, not to pull at emotional heartstrings. There is plenty of entertainment-editorial out there, this article provides insight. Well-chosen, and thank you Dr. Richter.

Let's hear it for someone with intelligence, maturity, and perspective! Not a great writer, but any reader of the Washington Post should be capable of appreciating content over style.

For those fearful of "government" panels, take a look at the model of the Institute of Medicine which has blown the whistle on our overly-vaunted American healtcare non-system during the past decade. A similarly structured OAT would do the same to spare us chasing down lobbyist-stimulated billion-dollar investments in dead-end technologies.

Keep this guy!

OK, so they didn't pick my entry, at least they got another scientist/technical type as a substitute.
I'm an engineer, and he is exactly right - the congress is always spouting off about technological "solutions", but rarely have anything more than a casual knowledge of the engineering or science behind the ideas, or the downside of any choosing a particular path. A "CBO" for technology is a great idea.
Still, I think they need an engineer in the mix. I volunteer!

After witnessing various organs of government deal with the fatuous "science" of global warming, it's difficult to imagine that a new agency will be able to contend with the zealotry and rank politicalization associated with congress and the sciences.

I liked this column least, but it is probably the one that most deserves to win.
If you can get this guy for $200 a week, that will be the deal of the century.
His ideas are obviously worth far more.
I think he should withdraw from the contest
and demand more money. And he should get it.

Okay, this is hands-down the guy whose thoughts I'd most like to read on a weekly basis. There's a serious need for a columnist like this -- high profile scientist who can provide thoughtful commentary on the [increasingly relevant!!!] overlap/interaction between politics and science/technology in current events. I say give the measly $200 per column award to one of the other entrants, and put this guy on the payroll.

Congresss knows zero about technology so is spending us into oblivion on matters they know zero about such as ethanol and global warming. No technology experts weighing whether billions going to Moon Mars or space capsule are worth our spending billions. So author can be the WaPo technology writer.

Truthfully, does a Nobel prize winner really need a column to have a forum to express his views? In addition to being boring, the good doctor's argument failed to recognize one of the key shortcomings of OTA -- myopic vision. For example, our progress from DarpaNet to the World Wide Web shares the same life span as OTA. And, the 20 year interim illustrates just how ineffective OTA was in accelerating the deployement of technology acquired through DarpaNet to host e-gov. Also, as late as 1995, whentOTA was put to bed, the U.S. government was still operating / promoting proprietary Value-added Networks to conduct e-gov transactions. Look at the explosion in services and virtual private networks (intranets) between 1995 and September 2001 -- after the disbanding of OTA. This trajectory further accelerated after 9/11 and the biological mail attacks that followed. In this case, hind sight proves that OTA was actually not too visionary. Perhaps what’s really, necessary, Doctor, is to separate Partnership from Partisanship to better promote Technology advancement. And, sorry Doc, but I'm seeking something different in my pundit.

congrats on being top 10. This guy can stick around. Content was not super compelling but it was something I hadn't heard before (or at least for a while). I don't agree with him, but I appreciate the information and opinion and presentation.

This is the only entry that left me with the feeling that I had actually learned something. You definitely have my vote.

Yes, the OTA was somewhat nonpartisan; but it definately had an ideological point of view. It also tended to be nonresponsive to requests that didn't interest them. Finally, many of the OTA staff went out of their way to insult conservatives (or any one else who questioned them).

Insightful, informative article. Another journalistic thumbs up, as well as a thumbs up for writing about something pertinent, and that makes people think. In all, two thumbs up.

Nobel or not, the professor simply cannot write.

Prof. Richter is likely the most intelligent of the contestants. Unfortunately his prose lacks readability; reading those few paragraphs, assuredly well though out, induced somnolence. Post readers who pull the newspaper up at stop lights must be considered; narcolepsy on the road is an underestimated danger.

This article is articulate, provides insightful commentary on both universal and specialized interests, uses past precedent and logic to justify a proposed solution, and fills an expertise void at the WP. In short, based on this article and his past accomplishments Burton Richter has my vote!

As for the content of the article: it is a good/politically feasible time to press for the new OTA as democrats view science as a strength in their platform compared to the right. This is a great idea.

I remember hearing regularly of interesting and useful stuff coming out of the OTA, and hadn't realized it was no longer. Its removal is a shameful legacy of Gingrich's - all the more tragic given that he is actually one of the few science-literate individuals among the right wing idealogues.

We badly need something like the OTA, in a town where 99% of the power brokers have a background in law and understand very little science or engineering.

Dr. Richter...nobel-winning physicist, eh? I can see why I didn't make it. However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why OTA was eliminated. They don't want the truth...they can't handle the truth! (credit to Jack Nicholson) Seriously, the know-nothings of the religious right don't want to hear the facts about stem cell research. They're against it. The coal industry doesn't want comparative emission reports with natural gas as an alternative. They can't afford it! Corn producing states don't want the long run uselessness of the grains as an alternative energy source. They want high commodity prices. Vegetarians don't want to admit that beef is indeed a good source of protein. And on and on. All this being said, Maybe you can be a tool of change. Good article, good luck.

This is a very good article and informative.

Thanks and Good Luck!

A non-partisan organization appointed by Congress. Wishful thinking. Maybe the OTA was able to accomplish the impossible in 1972. I doubt it.
Only $20mil? Wasn't a cup of coffee 10 cents in the 70s? Today, everything the government proposes has a minimum billion dollar pricetag (that our heirs can hardly afford.)
What ever happened to Ralph Nader's consumer supported opinions? Unfortunately, heros like Ralph are akin to the likes of Rodney Dangerfield now....

This makes a serious and important point that I haven't seen other pundits (not in this contest) even touch. If there are more insights of a comparable scale coming up from this commentator I look forward to them. This could actually lead to or encourage an important policy change, restoring OTA. The role played by CBO in imposing fiscal discipline on healthcare reform has been enormously useful. OTA could be the same.

I had forgotten about the OTA, I am sure Mr. Gingrich meant only to cut "fraud, waste, and abuse" from government on the theory that the cacophony of competing political voices would reveal scientific consensus through common themes. Yes, I'm sure that's what he meant. It's stupid, but I'm sure it's what he had in mind.

As others have said, facts are stubborn, persistent things. For 14 years, Congressmen have been free to pick and choose which purported facts they chose to believe. In the end, reality casts the deciding vote. I would really rather have Congress in a position to react to that eventual outcome instead of trying to live in fantasy until they, and we, are forced to do otherwise.

my acknowledgments too. By the by, this is the first column i've seen since the WP started doing comments in which there haven't been invective filled comments -- a few from the left; most from the right.

What would it take to re-instate OTA? Who do you think should run it? How can in remain reality-based in spite of the Gingrich-es out here?

I wish you good skill, and a liberal dose of luck.

While the idea of resurrecting the OTA sounds appealing on the surface, let's be realistic. Folks at the leading edge of their scientific or technological field aren't likely to sign up for a government oversight/assessment gig when they could be making more money and doing more exciting things in the private sector. What we would likely end up with is something like our financial oversight organizations, which are numerous, costly and, if recent history is any indicator, generally ineffective.

You would get more postings on these pieces if you put them in the format that allows readers to recommend the comments. Sure it's vanity, but it works. People like to feel that if I posted, someone else may have read it.

That said, this is my favorite of the bunch.

And you know, I'm available! I can't fathom why a senator's or Congressperson's office hasn't drafted me to help out. I served in the fleet as an intelligence officer, wrote technical documentation for cutting-edge computer systems, keep up with biological, physical, chemical, and nuclear sciences. But year after year, one after another of our fearless leaders stands up to say they don't understand the very technology they oppose or support or fund or don't. They use the CBO for figuring out how much money they need or don't have. Why not a Scientific Investigative Council (SIC) to study existing and potential applications of technology to the country's issues? I can clear some time in my schedule.

Good points, all. Good luck.

Thank God someone with a brain and common sense. Can we get you to run for Congress, the Senate, or perhaps even run a new OTA? Gingrich's reign of stupidity will be felt for years to come.

Excellent article! If WP Editors are smart enough they should take you out of this contest and appoint you a Science/Technology Columnist right away.

All that science stuff won't fly at the Washington Post, I'm afraid. This is George Will's paper.

Good luck, though; I do agree with you.

Excellent idea!!! I would just point out that, in addition to practical problems such as food, drugs, pollution and energy, science can also bring light to deep phylosophical questions such as:
- When does human life actually begin?
- Is homosexuality a biological or a social trait?
- Is it true that "all men are created equal"?

Unfortunately it's Congress's prerogative to ignore any set of facts and the bidding of any "special" counsel that isn't of the legal nature. It just depends who is running things and listening to whom. The door is open now though. Which set of experts will they listen to: Imhofe or Kerry? Some decisions really are that simple. No panel required.