An uneasy balance

1
An uneasy balance

• Science advising in the federal government and
  the politicization of science
• Karen F. Greif, Dept of Biology

2
Challenges in science policy-making

• Rapid technological changes that create novel
  issues
• Complex technologies that are difficult for
  non-scientists to understand
• Concerns that consequences of decisions may be
  irreversible (Pandoras box?)
• Public worries about threats to health and safety
• New developments that challenge deeply held
  social, ethical and religious values

3
Scientific input in decision-making

• Policy for science federal funding for
  scientific research
• Determines directions of research
• Science for policy science advising
• Federal advisory committees
• Congressional testimony and advice
• Lobbying

4
Science Advising in the Executive Branch

• Assistant to the President for Science and
  Technology (unfilled in the Bush administration)
• Director of the Office of Science and Technology
  (OSTP) John Marburger
• National Science and Technology Council
• Presidents Council on Science and Technology
  (PCAST)
• Presidents Council on Bioethics
• Cabinet Directors and Administrators

5
Does advising work in the Executive Branch?

• Depends on the interest of the President
• Without the ear of the President, no advisor
  will be effective
• Since advisors are chosen to reflect
  Administration ideology, is advice balanced?
• Delays in filling positions
• Over 500 President-appointed senior level
  appointments overall!
• Rigorous background checks
• Requirements for Senate confirmation
• Low salaries

6
Science and Congress

• Budget decisions (Policy for science)
• Legislation on science-informed issues
• With advice from
• Congressional staffers or outside experts
• Government support agencies
• Government Accountability Office (GAO)
• Office of Technology Assessment (OTA, (closed
  1995))
• Independent organizations
• National Research Council (NRC) of the National
  Academies of Science (NAS, NAE, IOM)
• Brookings Inst., Heritage Fdn., Cato Inst., etc
  (all with political agendas)

7
Federal Agencies

• Role is to create functional policy in response
  to new laws
• For the biological sciences DHHS (includes the
  NIH, FDA, CDC) National Science Foundation
  (NSF) Dept. of Agriculture EPA DOD
  (bioterrorism policy) Dept. of the Interior
  (FWS), etc
• Limited autonomy and strongly influenced by
  Administration agendas. Congress can block
  activities by limiting budgets.

8
Advisory Committees and FACA

• Hundreds of standing committees focus on science
  and technology issues
• Ad-hoc committees may be established on new
  topics
• The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA 1972)
• Limits numbers of committees
• Requires transparency in deliberations
• Mandates that committee membership be balanced
  with representatives of accomplishment and
  expertise

9
What is a good policy?

• An effective policy should be cost-effective and
  fair, place limited demands on government, and
  provide assurance to the public that its goals
  will be met.
• An effective policy may represent a compromise
  between competing viewpoints.

10
Science and Politics

• From the scientists perspective policy making
  should involve careful consideration of
  scientific data and result in policies that are
  in line with the findings and recommendations of
  science. However, scientific data are rarely
  complete and some degree of uncertainty is
  inevitable.
• From the politicians viewpoint science is one
  piece of input in the political process and may
  be trumped by political values and necessities.
  If scientists cannot provide clear answers, then
  their advice is of limited value.

11
The selective use of science

• If the data do not support an Administrations
  position
• order additional studies (delay, delay)
• claim that the data are based on poor research
• discredit the scientists who conducted the work
• claim that the data are biased
• ignore the data

12
Skewing federal advisory committees

• Dont empanel anyone (no committee, no conflicts)
• Claim that any scientist receiving federal
  research support is tainted by an agenda to
  gain additional funding (limits expertise)
• Dont appoint committee members who hold opinions
  that differ from that of an Administration
  (litmus tests)

13
Some historical examples

• Pres. Richard Nixon threw all science advising
  out of the White House because he objected to
  left-leaning scientists who made
  recommendations against his own projects.
  Congress mandated the establishment of the OSTP
  in 1976 in response.
• Pres. Ronald Reagan failed to fill many critical
  science advisory positions to block enforcement
  of regulations unpopular with his Administration
• Many conservatives claim that Pres. Bill Clinton
  stacked his advisory committees with
  pro-regulatory scientists

14
Pres. George W. Bush and a new level of
politicization of science?

• The failure to reappoint two members of the
  Presidents Council on Bioethics who supported
  human cloning and stem cell research
• Claims of political litmus tests for candidates
  for science advisory committees
• Suppression of portions of reports on global
  warming and other sensitive issues
• Manipulation of agency informational websites
  (CDC and reproductive health)
• Blocking the World Health Organization from
  directly approaching scientists to serve on
  advisory committees (Director of DHHS must now
  nominate individuals)

15
What can be done?

• Improve science advising for Congress to reduce
  the dominance of the Executive Branch
  (re-establish the OTA)
• Regularize science advising in the Executive
  Branch by supporting changes in the approval
  process
• Insulate committees from ideology, but permit
  differing interpretations
• Involve the public more in deliberations

16
(No Transcript)
17
Return to Summary of Brown Bag Discussion