AIP FYI #64: Ensuring the Integrity of the Scientific Advisory System

Based on allegations that officials in the Bush Administration have,
for political and ideological reasons, manipulated scientific
advisory committees, reports, and information, several Democratic
Members of Congress asked the General Accounting Office (GAO) to
review the federal government’s policies for staffing scientific
advisory committees. At a May 19 briefing, Reps. Eddie Bernice
Johnson (D-TX), Ranking Minority Member of the House Science
Subcommittee on Basic Research, and Science Committee member Brian
Baird (D-WA) released the GAO’s report, which makes a series of
recommendations to better ensure the independence and balance of
scientific advisory committees and the transparency of the committee
appointment process. Johnson and Baird have also sent a letter to
President Bush, sharing the GAO’s findings and asking the President
to “fully embrace those findings.” Their May 19 letter can be found
at www.house.gov/science_democrats/member/johnson_baird_letter.pdf.
It is of note that, in April, White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy Director John Marburger issued a rebuttal of many
of the allegations referred to above.

“The American public deserves to see its government receive the best
advice available,” Johnson declared at the briefing. “Every area of
life is touched upon by the work of these advisory panels – the
environment, our food supply, public health and safety, education,
research programs in a wide array of fields – so this is more than
just an academic debate,” she said. The U.S.’s national security,
economic future and health, Baird said, depend on “integrity” within
the scientific advisory system, and “political respect” for that
system. Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) added that “there must not be
confusion” between the gathering and analysis of scientific
information and the political work of balancing different interests.

During President Bush’s tenure, a number of scientists have charged
that Administration officials took actions to alter the membership
of scientific advisory bodies, censor or suppress scientific
information, and selectively consider data, to an extent not seen in
previous administrations, to concur with ideological, political, or
religious views. These allegations have led to several reports by
critics of the Administration that attempt to document such abuses.
One such report was issued by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Ranking
Minority Member of the House Government Reform Committee (see
www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/report.htm). Another
was prepared by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), and
accompanied by a February 18 statement signed by over 60 leading
scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates and 19 National Medal of
Science winners. The UCS report alleges a “pattern of suppression
and distortion of scientific findings,” an “effort to manipulate the
government’s scientific advisory system,” and censorship of
government scientists. The accompanying statement acknowledges that
“other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such
practices,” but it alleges that those practices were not as
systematic “nor on so wide a front” as those of the current
Administration. The UCS report and related statement can be viewed
at www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/index.cfm.

On April 2, Marburger issued a rebuttal of the UCS’s charges. His
response, which is available at www.ostp.gov/html/ucs.html, states
in part that many of the “suppressed” items of information were
removed from public access for revision and were, or will be,
subsequently re-posted with updated scientific information, and that
changes in committee membership and the elimination of certain
advisory panels were part of the regular advisory committee process
and not intentional manipulation.

(It is worth noting that, according to GAO, the law allows for
individuals to be selected for a scientific advisory committee to
represent certain interest groups or stakeholders, in addition to
members selected for their expertise in relevant areas, and requires
that such bodies be “fairly balanced” across points of view.)

The GAO report does not address any of the allegations nor their
validity, but instead reviews the federal processes and procedures
for appointing advisory committee members, and makes suggestions to
improve those processes for consistency, transparency, and to better
ensure independent and balanced committee membership. Robin
Nazzaro, GAO Director for Natural Resources and Environment, stated
at Wednesday’s briefing that, “independent of the facts and issues,
the perception alone [that committees are not independent and
balanced] is problematic,” and may “jeopardize the value of the
committees’ work and call into question the integrity of the
advisory system itself.”

GAO recommends that the Office of Government Ethics give federal
agencies additional guidance to clarify the difference between those
members designated as “special government employees,” who are
invited to serve on advisory committees for their expertise and are
subject to conflict of interest regulations, and those designated as
“representatives,” who are invited to serve as the voice of an
interest group or community of stakeholders, and are expected to
have “a particular and known bias.” The report further recommends
that the General Services Administration provide guidance on what
types of information should be collected in a systematic, consistent
way on potential advisory panel members in order to ensure that, as
required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, committees are – and
are perceived to be – “fairly balanced in terms of points of view
presented and the functions to be performed by the advisory
committee.” (However, the report does not address how wide a
range of views should be represented in order for a panel to be
considered balanced.) Additionally, the report identifies several
“promising practices” for enhancing independence, balance, and
transparency: seeking committee nominations from the public; using a
clearly defined process to review information on nominees’
viewpoints and possible conflicts of interest; and developing a
structured prescreening interview to ensure appropriate questioning
of nominees.

The GAO report, “Federal Advisory Committees: Additional Guidance
Could Help Agencies Better Ensure Independence and Balance,” can be
found at www.gao.gov/new.items/d04328.pdf.

Audrey T. Leath

Media and Government Relations Division

The American Institute of Physics

fyi@aip.org www.aip.org/gov

(301) 209-3094