M8D1: Government Control of Technology discussion comments

Responded to the post, be respectful in your discussion. Healthy debates are welcomed. Be sure to maintain academic rigor and professionalism at all times.

To get a feel for our elected officials qualifications for steering government oversight of innovation I decided to consult the US House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology directly.   This committee is chaired by a one Eddie Bernice Johnson who has been in elected office since 1972, going on 50 years.  Mrs. Bernices only private sector work experience listed in her biography is in nursing (Bernice, n.d.). Biomedical technology has advanced quite substantially since the 70s thus I fail to see anything in her educational or professional background that would uniquely qualify Mrs. Bernice to chair the science committee.   But not to pick on Mrs. Bernice alone whom I am sure is a lovely person if perhaps a bit out of her element, I also read up on the ranking member of the committee Mr. Frank Lucas and learned that he graduated in 82 with a degree in Agricultural Economics and has been in congress since 94, going on 30 years.   Though modern agriculture is far more technologically ingrained then I think most are aware, I find it dubious that an economics focused curriculum in the 80s and 30 years in Washington offers one much first-hand experience with cutting edge technology.   
              Granted, there are many more members of the science committee with varying backgrounds in technology, yet it is evident in the Bernice and Lucas appointments that scientific credentials are in no way the only deciding factor in committee membership.  Setting aside the general disdain for aging career politicians who lack any real-world know-how after years of cloistered existence in D.C., I find it disheartening that this particular committee is led by the same type of ossified leadership one could find on any other congressional committee where hands on experience might be of lesser criticality.  The committee on science should ideally be led by junior members of congress with a keen understand of how emerging technologies like AI, 5G, quantum computing and block chain will determine the success of nations as we move forward in the twenty first century rather than being a rewarding appointment for decades of partisan loyalty. 
               Unfortunately, the body of younger congress members with technical backgrounds appears rather slim.  One particular individual stands out though, Mr. Thomas Massie who graduated from MIT with a Masters of Engineering and invented a form of touch-based computer control (Massie, n.d.).  The eminently qualified Mr. Massie serves only on the judiciary and transportation committees but of course not the committee on science where his insight might be most beneficial.    Given the appointments of the two most powerful science committee members who lack real-world qualifications, and the absence of one of the most qualified congress members from the committee one could inductively reason that understanding of technology is simply not a large consideration for congressional oversight.  Technological innovation is of vital national security and economic interest and thus a bi-partisan issue however if voters continue to send the same officials to Washington decade after decade, we cant realistically expect a strong pragmatic understanding of the implications of technological innovation from our nations leaders.  Poorly informed leadership could lead to stifled technological innovation through misguided policy and financial stimulants, putting US economic and security interests at a global disadvantage.
Best,

References:
Bernice, E. (n.d.) Meet Eddie Bernice (Links to an external site.). EBJohnson.House.Gov.
Lucas, F. (n.d.) About Congressman Frank Lucas (Links to an external site.). Lucas.House.Gov.
Massie, T. (n.d.) About Congressmen Thomas Massie. (Links to an external site.) Massie.House.Gov.