CP - Policy Pilot - Michigan 7 2023 BFHGR

Pilot Program CP --- BFHGR
Notes
It might be worth experimenting a bit with the CP text to figure out the best way to avoid perm problems. We will add a couple of cards to the cp in the updates before the tournament. Thank you to Mahi and Ishan for their work on the cp.
To Do
-- Pilot/Legislation Distinct (Chien articles)
Top Shelf
1NC --- Shell
Text: The United States federal government should adopt a rigorous pilot program on ____________________________. At the conclusion of the pilot program the United States federal government should determine whether to ______________________based on the results and data gathered from the pilot program.
The cp solves the aff and avoids politics --- the CPs pilot program avoids partisanship and spill-over to regularize policy pilots at the federal level and engender government accountability that spills-up
Chien ‘19
(Colleen V. Chien, Justin D'Atri Visiting Professor of Business Law, Columbia Law School; Professor, Santa Clara University School of Law; 2013-2015 White House Senior Advisor, Innovation and Intellectual Property, “Rigorous Policy Pilots: Experimentation in the Administration of the Law, July, 2019, “104 Iowa L. Rev. 2313,” pg lexis//um-ef)
In the government, fear of making a Type 1 or "false positive" error - taking a mistaken step - leads to an overabundance of Type 2 or "false negative" errors - failing to take a productive step. At root, however, is the problem of "what [the] government doesn't know," regarding what changes to law or policy to consider taking, what the impact of such changes might be, and which among several potential changes is most likely to achieve a policy goal, 11all topics about which there may be many opinions, but little relevant evidence. Uncertainty about whether a law or policy change will achieve its intended purpose, fear of making a mistake in the face of this uncertainty, and institutional inertia all contribute to status quo bias - whether in favor of preserving regulations that don't work or failing to adopt new policies that do. 12
One way to address both the knowledge gap and risk aversion in policy development is by introducing a temporary change to law or policy for the purpose of learning from it, through a "policy pilot." Implemented with rigor, through the application of, "well-designed and well-implemented methods tailored to the questions being asked" 13- rigorous policy pilots are a generative yet under-used tool for addressing informational deficits that stand in the way of developing effective law and policy.
The range of open questions in law and policy that can be addressed by pilots are wide-ranging. They include, for example, the question of how giving a universal basic income ("UBI") to individuals impacts their well-being and employment. In 2017, the Finnish government began tracking the outcomes of 7,000 unemployed citizens, about a third to which it gave $ 600 a month, [*2317] to address this question; 14several U.S. jurisdictions are planning their own tests. 15Also unknown is how the administration of patent law and issuance of quality patents best advance the Constitutional goal of "promoting the progress of science and useful arts." 16Over the last decade, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") has run numerous pilots to address this question. 17As the D.C. Circuit has said, "there are some situations in which, "a month of experience will be worth a year of hearings.'" 18While experiments or pilots can address a variety of questions pertaining, e.g., to a policy's feasibility or stakeholder reactions, when the question concerns whether the policy has caused an observed outcome, a controlled trial that provides the treatment to one part of population, withholds it from another, and then compares the difference in outcomes provides the best insight. Such rigorous experiments can be designed, in turn, with or without randomization, and to vary the rules or laws that apply or to approximate such changes. A pilot that limits to whom a rule or policy applies constrains the risk but not the learning. As Justice Brandeis famously dissented, "a single courageous state may ... serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." 19
Within today's highly partisan political landscape, the need for quality evidence about the performance of law and policy presents a rare opportunity for agreement, on the methods if not the values or agendas advanced by evidence. Calls for "smarter use of data and evidence ... to orient decisions and accountability around service and results" 20and "an aggressive management agenda ... that delivers smarter, more innovative, and more accountable government for citizens ... . by applying ... evidence about what [*2318] works" 21have appeared in President Trump's and President Obama's management agendas, respectively. The passage of the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policy Making Act of 2018 ("2018 Evidence Act"), besides showing that Democrats and Republicans actually can agree on something, will consolidate and coordinate statistical expertise for assessment among rank and file bureaucrats across the federal government. 22
But while "adequate and well controlled studies" have long been required in certain contexts, 23experiments with laws and rules have a history of being constitutionally and legally suspect. As the Supreme Court stated in Truax v. Corrigan, "the Constitution was intended - its very purpose was - to prevent experimentation with the fundamental rights of the individual." 24
Rigorous pilots that provide a benefit to some, but not other, members of a population would appear to offend basic notions of equal protection. 25Imposing a regulatory burden on a subset of regulated entities likewise sounds in unfairness and risks running afoul of the Constitution's due process guarantees. Applying a rule randomly to one set of entities but not another would appear to some to present just the kind of "arbitrary, capricious" agency action judicial review was designed to set aside. 26
How rigorous testing can support evolution of the law is also not widely understood. By operating within existing legal frameworks, experiments can obscure more salient questions, including whether or not the framework is the right one in the first place. Rigorous experimentation is less flexible and adaptable than "democratic experimentalism" with which it shares some features. 27While Congress may feel empowered to take bolder steps when laws are framed as reversible and temporary, requirements of rigor can constrain agencies, feeding anti-regulatory impulses. Experimental evidence can be weaponized and politicized in the same way non-experimental evidence can. 28
[*2319] And yet, when compared to doing nothing or engaging in unreflective action, the benefits of rigorous experimentation become clearer: Rigorous pilots can prime legislative and policy-making efforts by underscoring the importance of evidence and prompting a discussion about the metrics that matter. Rigorous pilots can be used to test legal theories, and point out legal infirmities, provided that is the motivation. Further, among information sources, rigorous pilots are distinct in their ability to generate experiential feedback on the operation of law and policy.
But while rigorous policy pilots can thus be powerful tools, so far, they have been underused tools for informing the development of law and policy. In part this is due to a perception that certain types of rigorous pilots are possibly illegal. Citing a litany of difficulties, a recent recommendation of the Administrative Conference of the United States 29concluded that, "legal, policy, and ethical challenges ... may mean that regulatory agencies should use randomized study methods only under limited circumstances." 30But rigorous pilots have also been underused because of practical obstacles to designing and carrying them out, and a lack of awareness of the value they can add.
This Essay attempts to chip away at perceived legal, institutional, and informational barriers to the use of rigorous policy pilots. While informed by the growing academic interest in experiments, 31it primarily draws upon perhaps the single most credible source for addressing the legality, importance, and mechanics of structured pilots by the federal government: the federal government itself. Based upon caselaw, legislative, and agency accounts of government experimentation, it finds that from being illegal, hard, and rare, rigorous government pilots are presumptively legal, feasible, increasingly common, and in many cases, worthwhile, and proposes a framework for proposing rigorous policy pilots based on these experiences. A companion online appendix, using the patent system as a case study, applies [*2320] this framework to suggest rigorous policy pilots that the USPTO could implement to support patent law-and policy-making
That’s key to keep innovation from becoming disastrous
Georgina Guthrie, 21. Journalist. “Everything you need to know about pilot projects.” https://nulab.com/learn/project-management/everything-need-know-pilot-projects/.
Pilot projects are incredibly helpful when it comes to lowering the risk of implementing new tools and tech. Let’s take a closer look at what a pilot project is, plus how and why you should run one.
What is a pilot project?
Pilot projects are small-scale tests involving a new tool, innovation, or concept. This could be a brand-new and cutting-edge feature, or it could just be a new way of doing things for your organization.
The point of a pilot project is to test the innovation you’re introducing in a less critical context before rolling it on a larger scale. This means you can rethink it or give it the thumbs-down without wasting too much time, money, or resources. It also means that if the pilot is given the go-ahead, the wider team or organization can better prepare for big changes. The point of a pilot project is to prove viability rather than to deliver a specific goal.
What are the benefits of running a pilot project?
Pilot projects are a low-risk way to test something out. Here are some of the advantages:
Work out whether a concept, product, or innovation is sound.
Confirm viability and scalability.
Enable small-scale testing before rolling out across the wider team or organization.
Amend or reject a concept, product, or innovation early on without involving the entire organization.
Create a budget that will enable the project team to confirm that the idea is sound.
Test the benefits and set a more reliable budget. This makes it easier to get buy-in from managers and stakeholders.
What’s the difference between a pilot project and a trial?
Pilot projects test whether or not a process or product will work well in a given environment. It’s considered a feasibility study, where appropriateness is figured out before the new product or process is implemented into the existing operations.
A trial, on the other hand, is a small implementation before you roll out the pilot project on a large scale. It comes with all the same benefits as a pilot project, but with more detail — often including the team’s ability to test out more functionalities and see the effects on a larger scale.
The goal of a trial implementation is to test the project and to gather insights from the results and the lessons you’ve learned. This improves the quality of the full-scale rollout.
Absent coordination or checks----innovation cause extinction
Jeffrey Ladish, 20. Executive Director at Palisade Research. 2020. “Absent coordination, future technology will cause human extinction.” https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/awyDhCjptukxKdwih/absent-coordination-future-technology-will-cause-human.
A limitation of current regulations is that they focus on technologies known to pose a risk to human life. Entirely new innovations or obscure technologies receive far less attention. If a particle accelerator might inadvertently set off a chain reaction that destroys all life, only their internal safety process and self-preservation instincts prevent them from taking risks on behalf of everyone. There is no international process for ensuring a new technology won’t end up being a black marble.
Avoiding black marbles is both a coordination problem and an uncertainty problem. In the long term, it’s not enough to get 90% of creators to refrain from exploring dangerous territory. Absent strong coordination mechanisms, future technological development suffers from the unilateralist’s curse. Even if no individual creator has ill-intent, those who believe their technologies prevent little risk will forge ahead, biasing the overall population of creators towards unsafe exploration.
While international coordination is necessary to prevent black marble scenarios, it is not sufficient. In some cases, it will not be easy to tell in advance which technologies will prove dangerous. Even if every country in the world agreed to share intelligence about black-marble technological threats and enforce international laws about their use, there is no guarantee a black marble would not be pulled out by accident.
There are no off-the-shelf solutions to international governance problems. We’re in new territory, and new social technology is required. It’s not clear how to design institutions which can incentivize rigorous risk analysis, the right kinds of caution, and quick responses to potentially dangerous developments. Nor is it clear how world powers can be brought to the negotiating table with the mandate to create the necessary frameworks. What is clear is that something new is necessary.
In 1946, physicists from the Manhattan Project brought together a group of prominent scientists and wrote a collection of essays about the implications of nuclear technology for the future. The volume was called One World or None, In the forward, Niels Bohr wrote the following, and though much has changed in the intervening decades, the message is as relevant in 2020 as it was in 1946. For context, Bohr is writing about the need for international governance to prevent nuclear war.
Such measures will, of course, demand the abolition of barriers hitherto considered necessary to safeguard national interests but now standing in the way of common security against unprecedented dangers. Certainly the handling of the precarious situation will demand the goodwill of all nations, but it must be recognized that we are dealing with what is potentially a deadly challenge to civilization itself. A better background for meeting such a situation could hardly be imagined than the earnest desire to seek a firm foundation for world security, so unanimously expressed by all those nations which only through united efforts have been able to defend elementary human rights. The extent of the contribution that agreement on this vital matter would make to the removal of obstacles to mutual confidence, and to the promotion of a harmonious relationship between nations can hardly be exaggerated.
Bohr believed that the threat posed by nuclear weapons was a game changer, and that strong international cooperation was the only solution. Without international control of the bomb, Bohr and other scientists believed that a global nuclear war was inevitable. Fortunately, this hasn’t come to pass, and while this is partially due to luck, it’s also due to the degree of coordination that has occurred between world powers. Efforts like the Non-Proliferation Treaty have been more successful than many believed possible. It’s been 75 years since Hiroshima, and only nine countries posses nuclear weapons.
The success we’ve had curtailing catastrophic threats has bought us time, but we shouldn’t mistake limited forms of cooperation like the UN Security Council for a global framework capable of addressing existential threats. Many scientists of the 1940s recognized that unprecedented forms of international coordination were necessary to address existentially-threatening technologies. 75 years later, we’ve all but lost this ambition, but the threats haven’t gone away. On the contrary, we continue to develop new technologies, and if the process continues we will find a black marble. Absent coordination, future technology will cause human extinction.
On the other hand, with better international systems of cooperation, we can anticipate and avert existential threats. Despite the fears of Cold War and many close calls, the world came through without a single nuclear weapon used against another nation. Designing international frameworks up to the tasks of coordination and global risk analysis will be difficult. It will be even more difficult to get existing leaders and stakeholders on board. It’s tempting to throw up our hands and call this kind of effort impossible, but I believe this would be a mistake. Despite the difficulty, real international coordination is still the best chance humanity has to avoid extinction.
2NC --- Net Benefit
And, building government accountability solves a laundry list of existential risks
Eckersley ‘4
(Robyn, Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Melbourne, “The Green State: Rethinking Democracy and Sovereignty”, MIT Press, 2004, Google Books, pp. 3-8 //pa-ef)
While acknowledging the basis for this antipathy toward the nation- state, and the limitations of state-centric analyses of global ecological degradation, I seek to draw attention to the positive role that states have played, and might increasingly play, in global and domestic politics. Writing more than twenty years ago, Hedley Bull (a proto-constructivist and leading writer in the English school) outlined the state's positive role in world affairs, and his arguments continue to provide a powerful challenge to those who somehow seek to "get beyond the state," as if such a move would provide a more lasting solution to the threat of armed conflict or nuclear war, social and economic injustice, or environmental degradation.10 As Bull argued, given that the state is here to stay whether we like it or not, then the call to get "beyond the state is a counsel of despair, at all events if it means that we have to begin by abolishing or subverting the state, rather than that there is a need to build upon it.""¶ In any event, rejecting the "statist frame" of world politics ought not prohibit an inquiry into the emancipatory potential of the state as a crucial "node" in any future network of global ecological governance. This is especially so, given that one can expect states to persist as major sites of social and political power for at least the foreseeable future and that any green transformations of the present political order will, short of revolution, necessarily be state-dependent. Thus, like it or not, those concerned about ecological destruction must contend with existing institutions and, where possible, seek to "rebuild the ship while still at sea." And if states are so implicated in ecological destruction, then an inquiry into the potential for their transformation even their modest reform into something that is at least more conducive to ecological sustainability would seem to be compelling.¶ Of course, it would be unhelpful to become singularly fixated on the redesign of the state at the expense of other institutions of governance. States are not the only institutions that limit, condition, shape, and direct political power, and it is necessary to keep in view the broader spectrum of formal and informal institutions of governance (e.g., local, national, regional, and international) that are implicated in global environmental change. Nonetheless, while the state constitutes only one modality of political power, it is an especially significant one because of its historical claims to exclusive rule over territory and peoples—as expressed in the principle of state sovereignty. As Gianfranco Po

Preview shortened. Download the file for the full document.