Talk:Office of Technology Assessment

Science Cheerleader
The edit removing the link to this was hastily labeled SPAM, but the decision was still correct. The link was unnecessary and added nothing to the page as it was not about the OTA. Afterall, there is no (and should not be a) link to the War on Science book's website. A link to Cavalier's OTA page could be considered appropriate, but is not compelling enough for me to add myself. --Belg4mit (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Would benefit from new references and citations
While many of the statements are true, such as Republican legislators characterized the OTA as wasteful and hostile to GOP interests, we really do need to provide some references and citations to various claims in the extant article. Science, reality, truth, reason, logic, math et al. really are detrimental to the Republican Party, a stupid, ignorant, uninformed voter is how the Party perpetuates itself and the Office of Technology Assessment really was "hostile" to the Party, yet the text stated bluntly without a reference or citation which can be followed doesn't support the desire for NPOV.

I'm not proposing any references or citations, I'm noting that we need some. SoftwareThing (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The main interest here is that OTA was critical of the technical feasibility of Reagan's Star Wars program. And that was an unusual report type (not a TA) with a single author (future Sec. Def. Ash Carter). Nonetheless, OTA had a lot Republican defenders in the Senate. It's more likely that it was a politically expedient place to cut in the context of the Contract with America. Demoktesis (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)