Scientific Advice: Ensuring the Independence of Scientific Advisory Committees
Accurate and independent scientific and technological advice in the decision-making process will lead to better outcomes for the health and safety of all Americans.
Ensuring the Independence of Scientific Advisory Committees
The Issue: In recent years, there has been a growing alarm about political interference of the federal advisory committee system. Members who do not meet certain ideological criteria have been dropped from committees and replaced with scientists who pass an ideological litmus test. In other cases, scientists with obvious financial ties to industries or products that are the subject of the committee's deliberations have been allowed to sit on and dominate certain panels.
Why it Matters: The scientific experts who advise the government should reflect the best minds in America possessing comprehensive, unbiased, and up-to-date knowledge to inform Congress and federal agencies. When scientific advisors are chosen on any other basis, government fails to receive the unbiased, politically neutral information it needs to best serve the public health and safety.
The Solution: Congress and federal agencies should set policies and procedures to ensure that advisory committees are set up to produce impartial and independent scientific advice. Committees that have a purely scientific or technical advisory mission, have clear rules to prevent persons with conflicts of interest from serving. The committee's appointment process and activities should be fully transparent.
|
"It is no more appropriate to ask...voting record, political party affiliation, or position on particular policies than to ask...hair color or height." -Former Congressman John Porter |
Furthermore, it should be forbidden to ask scientists and other experts being vetted for membership on scientific advisory committees about their political or policy positions or voting history, factors the National Academy of Sciences has deemed to be as relevant to a scientist's ability to serve as hair or eye color.
Providing Better Scientific Advice to Congress
The Issue: Congress has to make tough decisions to create and fund programs which rely heavily on science and technology. In response to the growing demand for nonpartisan and objective analysis of complex scientific issues, such as nuclear weapons or pesticide use, Congress created the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) in 1972. The OTA provided regular, legislatively relevant reports and recommendations on these important science and technology issues. But in 1995, all funding for the OTA was cut, leaving it effectively abolished.
Why It Matters: A Congress more fully informed about science and technology can make better decisions about our health, safety, and environment, as well as play a stronger role in ensuring that federal policy is informed by best available science.
OTA fulfilled a unique role for Congress. First, OTA provided a more comprehensive and in-depth scientific analysis than other Congressional information agencies such as Congressional Research Service. Second, it ensured nonpartisanship because it was overseen by a board of Congressmen with representation from an equal number of Republicans and Democrats.
When funding for OTA was cut, then Congressmen Amo Houghton (R-NY) had this to say: "O.T.A. acts as an impartial 'honest broker…' We are cutting off one of the most important arms of Congress when we cut off unbiased knowledge about science and technology."
The Solution: Congress should restore significant funding to the Office of Technology Assessment or create another body which can impartially evaluate new science and technology.
