WHEN China threw out the last of Mao Tse-tung鈥檚 minions in the late 1970s and ushered in a new set of leaders, the Chinese coined a new phrase. Whatever privation was noted 鈥� no spare parts for trains, unsafe conditions in coal mines, empty shelves in shops 鈥� they would simply say: 鈥淵es, the Gang of Four 鈥� but they鈥檙e gone now.鈥�
Here in Washington, we have acquired a gang of our own to blame: the entire federal government. Every day, its faceless bureaucracies are blamed for the decline of the American way.
Among the government鈥檚 ugliest creations, according to the new Republicans in town, is an edifice of regulations aimed at protecting people from toxic substances in the environment. For years, conservatives have argued that the cost of rules governing things like benzene in the air or pesticide residues on food outweighs the benefits. It鈥檚 time, they say, to start calculating real risk and tallying the real cost of saving a life 鈥� and jettison those regulations that cost the taxpayer more than he or she, literally, is worth.
Advertisement
But risk analysis is an arcane mix of science and statistics. Reports from Capitol Hill suggest that many members and their staff, who spend more time reading public opinion polls than calculating chi-square values, are neither interested in nor capable of understanding the mathematical nuances at work. At one Congressional hearing on legislation to throw out burdensome safety regulations, a congressman held up a toothpick. 鈥淭oothpicks kill one American a year,鈥� he declared. 鈥淚f the government had its way, I couldn鈥檛 bring this toothpick into this room 鈥� we鈥檇 have to clear the place out first.鈥�
The few Congressional staff who have studied things like cancer risk predict that they will be steamrollered by opponents like these. 鈥淣obody understands anything about 鈥榚ndpoints in carcinogenesis鈥� or 鈥榥onlinear models鈥� for disease,鈥� said one frustrated staffer.
Traditionally, the White House has used its clout to block scientifically naive Congressional proposals long enough for a compromise. No more, says our staff informant. 鈥淭hey鈥檙e dazed at the White House. Nobody knows what side to take any more.鈥�
LET鈥橲 say you are the new chairman of the House Committee on Science, with authority to set priorities for the direction of the country鈥檚 science policy. What do you do first? Should you focus your attention on basic research? Or perhaps it鈥檚 time to sort out the country鈥檚 muddled space programme? Or possibly set a clear direction for the National Science Foundation?
Well, if you鈥檙e Robert S. Walker, your first priority is gas: specifically hydrogen. One of the first pieces of legislation to emerge from Walker鈥檚 committee will be the Hydrogen Future Act of 1995. The act will direct the Department of Energy to place greater emphasis on hydrogen research and development. And so that it won鈥檛 cost the taxpayers anything, the act tells the Energy Department to freeze other research spending. (How new spending on top of a 鈥渇reeze鈥� can be done without increased spending is a trick best performed by politicians).
Why hydrogen? Well, 鈥淗ydrogen is a perfect transition fuel for the future,鈥� gushes a press release from Walker鈥檚 office. It can be used in planes, buses, cars and home heating. 鈥淭he need for clean, safe sources of power in remote areas, especially in developing nations, makes hydrogen the perfect fuel choice.鈥� It has been pointed out that one of the leading producers of hydrogen for fuel is a company located in Walker鈥檚 home state of Pennsylvania. It has even been suggested that Walker is trying to curry favour with a potentially powerful ally.
ONE of the most entertaining things about Newt Gingrich, the new speaker of the House of Representatives, is his tendency to engage in flights of fancy regarding technology. A few weeks ago, for instance, he decided perhaps the best way to solve the problems afflicting schools in poverty-stricken cities would be to pass out free laptop computers. Amid derisive laughter, Gingrich withdrew the suggestion.
Somewhat more intriguing was Gingrich鈥檚 enthusiasm for a computer link that makes congressional documents 鈥� transcripts of hearings, new laws, and the like 鈥� available for free over the Internet. With typical hyperbole, Gingrich announced that the new system would finally allow people 鈥渁cross the planet鈥� to learn about democracy. It would 鈥渃hange the balance of power in America鈥� in favour of ordinary citizens, rather than Washington lobbyists.
What Gingrich apparently didn鈥檛 realise, but certainly will once he hears from some of his corporate funders, is that such views put him in league with crusading lawyer Ralph Nader, a man who鈥檚 made a living saying very nasty things about the free enterprise system. Nader has been campaigning for free computer access to government documents, too. But Nader wants more than a few Congressional hearings: he wants really valuable information, like corporate records on file at the Securities and Exchange Commission, census data, and all the opinions issued by federal courts.
These are public documents, but the government doesn鈥檛 make them easy to obtain. As a result, a huge industry now exists to take this government data, repackage it, and sell it at a tidy profit. Nader thinks this system is undemocratic, and in an era of information superhighways, it鈥檚 obsolete as well. He wants the government to make it all accessible via the Internet. The companies are lobbying hard to prevent such a move. And once they have a word with Gingrich, he鈥檚 likely to change his tune.