1. When the need to continue exploding nuclear bombs to prove they would work (don’t laugh, no way they can explode twice, I know) the arguments became partisan, on one side, and on the other side were the scientists. But, the partisans won. A bad day in America.
A related issue of controlled fusion to “verify” bombs was complex enough to fool non-thinking partisans -and those that knew better, wisely, kept quiet. Members of Congress has not access to a reputable scientist that was not accused of bias, on the basis of his (no her, in this case) conclusion.
Were wrong reasons used to arrive at the right conclusion? This points at the key to the problem.

2. When the argument for the Nuclear powered or the Supersonic bomber came up, their costs drove leaders to the right solution: Not needed, at that risk and cost.

3. The Lunar Mission had full support of the nation and was our best effort but, I do not recall any OTA Analysis Report. The President and the people thought it good and, if I may add my tiny voice, I did too!
But, the decision to Return to the Moon and the Manned Trip to Mars have not had the benefit of a proper OTA analysis or public consideration. The President simply decided, told NASA and the contractors made sure key votes were secured, not the best way to justify Space Programs.

4. Did we need all the different ICBMs in the Cold War? Probably not but, for the sake of security, we bought them. OTA probably had no voice on the matter, the military-industrial complex decided life in the planet was at risk. But now, when so many choices exist on what to do next about Global Warming, what proportion of the total funds should be dedicated for each different technology?
What are the costs, over 50 years, of each approach?
How expensive is maintenance of Windmill Electric power?
I read that prices dropped from over 37 Cents per Kilowatt to less than 4 Cents, in long term contracts.

5. What are the risks and cost of Geothermal power? Some years ago oil drills used to pump high pressure water into oil fields in Armenia and Colorado were determined to cause earthquakes. I have not seen any studies on that, should they be banned? California has expanded the use of Geothermal energy from the Geysers, about 50 miles from San Francisco, will geologists look into that? How?
One could conclude geothermal is the cleanest and cheapest way to produce energy, except I never read if the steam had any sulfur which would speed up Global Warming or the cost of a Big Earthquake.

6. I, and millions, have seen ads from “Clean, Natural Gas” to replace oil. The ads are everywhere but, “they” never mention that C4H8 has Carbon (C), like oil, and “Natural” Gas is found in oil fields. Of course, you and I do not wonder why they never refer to “NATURAL Oil”? “Snake Oil”?

7. In the field of medicine, surely, introducing computer technology will lead to competing designs and the issue will be which one is better, more reliable and cost effective -before it is build?
This is not a simple matter, OTS could do an impartial analysis. In California, there was an attempt (or two) to put license plate numbers in a data base for easy recall. One effort, used over $25 Million and the result was useless and scrapped. Must we repeat the same for every hospital in every state?

The list seems endless.

It is easy to make coal to liquid to clean burning gases.

Who wants a solution? Dave

There’s a Facebook group discussing this very topic now. It’s open to anyone. Feel free to weigh in. Link to the online petition to support the reopening of an “OTA with citizen input.”

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=39385247687&ref=ts