WASHINGTON, DC—Members of a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel yesterday (July 21) challenged senior Bush administration officials over the propriety of asking the political affiliations and policy positions of scientists being considered for federal government advisory committees.

"Is it inappropriate to ask their party affiliation?" John E. Porter, NAS committee chairman, questioned government witnesses yesterday. "There is no specific prohibition against asking it," replied Robert Flaak, senior policy adviser in the General Service Administration, which oversees laws regarding federal advisory committees. "I see no reason why that would be important. [But] there are cases, in a policy-related committee advising the president, where perhaps it could be of interest."

Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Science Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards, told the NAS panel that political viewpoint questions are indeed appropriate because scientific advisory committees represent "the nexus between politics and science."

"Scientists should not consider themselves to be a privileged class that is somehow above politics," said Ehlers, who is also a research physicist. "Scientists must be in touch, even in tune, with the political realities around them. Only by understanding the political process can scientists fully integrate science into decision-making."

But Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), ranking member of the House Government Reform Committee who has issued his own allegations of Bush administration interference with government science, disagreed. "When it comes to scientific advisory committees, I don't think that the politics of the president or the administration should play any role in the selection. It ought to be solely on the basis of the competence of the scientists."

The NAS Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy is seeking ways to encourage greater participation by scientists in government. Yesterday's meeting assumed heavy political overtones, coming amid continuing complaints by research and public interest groups that the Bush administration is politicizing science and science policy. The committee plans to release its recommendations shortly after the November elections.

The Union of Concerned Scientists earlier this month issued a report claiming "new evidence that the Bush administration continues to suppress and distort scientific knowledge and undermine scientific advisory panels." The report cited several instances in which candidates for National Institutes of Health (NIH) councils said they had been asked during interviews if they had voted for President Bush and whether they supported his policies.

While not responding directly to these allegations, White House science adviser John Marburger yesterday defended the administration's handling of science and policy issues. "Issues do get deliberately smeared by advocates of all kinds—left, right, liberal, and conservative issues groups," he said. "There are lots of people who would like to strengthen their positions by science."

The federal government last year impaneled 976 advisory committees, of which 216 were related to science and technology, Flaak said. About 62,000 individuals served on these committees, whose purviews widely ranged from peer reviewing NIH grant applications to debating long-range policies affecting public health, the economy, and environment.

An audit by the congressional General Accounting Office released in April found that federal agencies had routinely "misapplied" and "overused" the appointment of committee members as "representatives"—individuals who are expected to represent particular viewpoints and who are not required to disclose confidential financial information for conflict-of-interest purposes. The other category of "special government employees" would require scientists to file financial disclosure forms and to present their viewpoints as objectively as possible.

Marilyn L. Glynn, acting director of the Office of Government Ethics, acknowledged that federal officials had "intentionally" characterized scientists as representatives and not special government employees "to avoid the rigmarole and bureaucratic issues of filing forms."

"Probably it needs to be cracked down on by my office and GSA [General Services Administration]," Glynn said.