On the surface this seems like a good thing, but with this current administration I don't trust it at all. Who are these advisors actually going to be? How much money are they going to funnel these people using the budget from the Department of Energy, without limits?
This executive order re-establishes the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) with a renewed emphasis on areas such as artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and biotechnology. While it outlines a commitment to technological leadership and innovation, there are valid concerns that could arise based on the administration's track record or potential conflicts of interest. Here's an analysis:
1. Surface-Level Goals
The stated purpose of the order is to bolster U.S. technological and scientific dominance, which is framed as a matter of national security and economic competitiveness.
It calls for collaboration across government, academia, and private industry, aiming to centralize expertise in advising the President on science and technology policy.
The focus on "national security imperative" and "unchallenged global technological dominance" may indicate prioritizing competitive advantage over broader public good, such as environmental sustainability or equitable access to technology.
2. Composition of the Council
Up to 24 members, including representatives from the private sector and academia, will advise the President. Key figures such as the Special Advisor for AI & Crypto and non-federal sector experts are central.
The lack of transparency about who will be selected and their affiliations (e.g., corporate interests, lobbying ties) raises potential conflicts of interest. Are these advisors genuinely independent, or will they serve corporate or ideological agendas?
3. Budgetary Implications
The Department of Energy (DOE) is tasked with funding and supporting PCAST.
This could funnel significant DOE resources toward administrative or advisory functions, potentially diverting funds from existing scientific or energy programs. Without clear limits, budget allocation could become a tool for rewarding specific industries or interests under the guise of innovation.
4. Criticism of "Ideological Dogmas"
The order takes an overtly critical stance on what it describes as "ideological dogmas" that elevate group identity and enforce conformity. While it advocates for "individual achievement" and "truth," this language is often used as a dog whistle against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
This framing risks sidelining critical DEI efforts in science and technology, falsely presenting them as threats to innovation. It may justify rolling back programs designed to address systemic inequities in STEM fields.
5. Private Sector Influence
The inclusion of "entrepreneurs" and "private-sector creativity" aligns with a neoliberal approach to science and technology policy, emphasizing market-driven solutions.
Overreliance on the private sector can lead to prioritizing profit-driven goals over public interest. For instance, technologies with significant societal impact (e.g., AI or biotech) may be developed with limited regulatory oversight, potentially exacerbating inequality or creating ethical issues.
6. Security Clearances and Classified Work
The provision for granting security clearances to PCAST members indicates that the council may handle sensitive national security issues related to science and technology.
Granting access to classified information to private-sector representatives could increase risks of insider influence or misuse of sensitive data.
7. Revocation of Previous Orders
By revoking Executive Orders 14007 and 14109, this new order effectively resets the PCAST framework. The changes in focus and language suggest a shift in priorities compared to previous administrations.
This could dismantle ongoing initiatives under the previous framework without proper evaluation of their success or failure.
Questions That Arise:
Transparency: Who are the advisors? What selection criteria will be used, and will there be public disclosure of potential conflicts of interest?
Budget: How much funding will the DOE allocate, and what mechanisms will ensure accountability and prevent waste or mismanagement?
Prioritization: Will the council prioritize public interest and ethical considerations over corporate profits and geopolitical competition?
DEI Backlash: Will the order negatively impact programs aimed at fostering inclusivity and diversity in STEM?
While the establishment of PCAST may seem like a positive step for advancing U.S. science and technology, skepticism is warranted given the language and potential for conflicts of interest. The emphasis on competition, coupled with criticisms of "dogmas," could signal a shift away from public accountability and inclusivity. Careful monitoring of its members, funding, and recommendations will be essential to ensure that the council serves the broader public good and not just the interests of a select few.