Report on Federal S&T Appointments

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: <fyi () aip org>
Reply-To: <fyi () aip org>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 10:21:58 -0500
To: <farber () CENTRAL CIS UPENN EDU>
Subject: FYI #11: Report on Federal S&T Appointments

FYI
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News
Number 11: January 26, 2004

Academy Report Makes Recommendations on Federal S&T Appointments

The task of appointing new S&T agency officials at the onset of the
second Bush Administration is not nearly as complicated as it was
four years ago.   While some top level positions need to be filled,
such as those of the NASA Administrator and NIST Director, many of
the key S&T officials remain in place.

Before the November election, a report was released by the National
Academies addressing the process of making presidential appointments
to top science and technology positions and  federal S&T advisory
committees.  Entitled "Science and Technology in the National
Interest: Ensuring the Best Presidential and Federal Advisory
Committee Science and Technology Appointments," the 205-page report
is available at http://books.nap.edu/catalog/11152.html.  John
Porter, a former Member of Congress, chaired the eleven member
committee that produced this report.

Two previous Academy reports have been issued on the S&T appointment
process, although they only examined agency positions (see
http://www.aip.org/fyi/2000/fyi00.127.htm).  The latest report also
reviews appointments to federal S&T advisory committees.  Since
President Bush was reelected and did not have to build an entirely
new administration, this FYI will center on the committee's
recommendations regarding advisory committee appointments.

In releasing the report, Porter, Frank Press and Richard Meserve
discussed what the committee reviewed and did not review.  Porter
referred to charges made by critics that the Bush Administration has
politicized the process of appointing S&T officials and advisory
committee members (http://www.aip.org/fyi/2004/106.html).  Speaking
generally, Porter said it was "vital" that the members of S&T
advisory committee positions be seen as impartial and independent,
and that it was "inappropriate to ask"  prospective committee
members about their party affiliation, election votes, or policy
positions.  Scientists should not be excluded from advisory
committees because of their personal views, he said.   Meserve
commented that there are approximately 1,000 federal advisory
committees, of which one-half involve an S&T component.  Many
researchers are unaware of how the advisory committee system works,
Meserve stated, and feel shut-out of the process.  Porter and
Meserve stressed that the committee made no investigation or
assessment of the current Administration's practices, Porter saying
that it was "not within our realm [to determine] if there have been
misjudgements or violations."

Porter made an important distinction between various types of
advisory committees.  If a president is seeking policy advise, it is
acceptable for a prospective committee  member's policy or political
views to be considered.  If science and technology expertise is
sought - and not policy options - Porter reiterated that it was
"simply not appropriate" to ask political questions in the
recruiting process, and under some circumstances it could be
illegal.  The report went into more detail; the following are three
of the report's seven recommendations on advisory committees:

  "When a federal advisory committee requires scientific or technical
proficiency, persons nominated to provide that expertise should be
selected on the basis of their scientific and technical knowledge
and credentials and their professional and personal integrity. It is
inappropriate to ask them to provide nonrelevant information, such
as voting record, political-party affiliation, or position on
particular policies."

  "Presidential administrations should make the process for nominating
and appointing people to advisory committees more explicit and
visible and should examine current federal advisory committee
appointment categories to see whether they are sufficient to meet
the nation's needs."

  "To build confidence in the advisory committee system and increase
the willingness of scientists and engineers to serve, department and
agency heads should establish an appointment process supported by
explicit policies and procedures and hold staff accountable for its
implementation."

The committee found "little progress had been made on the
recommendations of the 2000 report," but was more hopeful about the
utility of the latest endeavor.  "This report will sell itself"
because of the times we are in, Press predicted.  Meserve added that
"we are trying to sensitize" the Administration, with Porter saying
that the OSTP Director John Marburger had been briefed on the
report, and was very interested in reviewing and implementing its
recommendations.

###############
Richard M. Jones
Media and Government Relations Division
The American Institute of Physics
fyi () aip org    http://www.aip.org/gov
(301) 209-3094
##END##########

If you no longer wish to receive this content alert for each issue,
please send a blank e-mail to fyi-signoff-request () listserv aip org.

------ End of Forwarded Message


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/