It is "inappropriate" to ask scientists being considered for federal government advisory committees their political affiliations, voting records, or positions on particular policies, according to a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report released yesterday (November 17). Scientists, engineers, and health professionals nominated to serve on government advisory committees "should be selected for their scientific and technical knowledge and credentials and their professional and personal integrity," said John E. Porter, chairman of the NAS panel.

The report was met with praise by at least one group that has criticized the Bush administration for its scientific appointments process. "We are very pleased that they made the recommendation for members of advisory committees not to be asked inappropriate questions about their political affiliation and voting record," said Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Now it's incumbent on the administration and Congress to respond and take action to put that into effect," he told The Scientist.

"Policy perspectives are appropriate for those placed on committees for their policy insights, but it is not a relevant criterion for selecting members whose purpose is to provide scientific and technical expertise," Porter said.  Questions about politics and policy are as "inappropriate" and "immaterial" as asking about hair color or height, he said.

NAS also recommended that the science adviser to the president be appointed shortly after an election and be given the rank of "assistant to the president for science and technology," a position that has been filled only sporadically. He or she should also be nominated to be director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

The report recommends ways to remove barriers to appointing scientists, engineers, and health professionals to serve on federal advisory committees as well as to appointing the most-qualified candidates for science and technology presidential positions.

The federal government last year impaneled nearly 1000 advisory committees, about half of which involved some area of science and technology. About 62,000 individuals served on these committees, whose purviews widely ranged from peer reviewing National Institutes of Health grant applications to debating long-range policies affecting public health, bioterrorism, and the environment.

The report is the third in a series on the presidential appointment process. But it differed significantly from earlier versions by tackling head-on criticisms that the Bush administration has been politicizing science and science policy, resulting in what the report termed "a skewing of the impartial perspective critical to independent advice."

In a public hearing in July, members of the NAS Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy questioned senior Bush administration officials over the propriety of asking scientists about their political affiliations and policy positions. White House science adviser John Marburger defended the administration's handling of science and policy issues. "Issues do get deliberately smeared by advocates of all kinds," he said at the time. "There are lots of people who would like to strengthen their positions by science."

The NAS report acknowledged that scientists are likely to have formed opinions about issues in which they have expertise. Excluding scientists from advisory committees simply because they have these opinions could leave the government without qualified candidates for these panels, the NAS said.

The appropriate way to handle scientists with strong opinions, said Richard A. Meserve, NAS panelist and president of the Carnegie Institution, "is to have an early session of the full committee [at which members] disclose their opinions and sources of bias and perspective on the committee's work so that the entire committee can be familiar with their views on the matter." Doing so would also help officials determine whether they need to appoint more committee members to balance strong opinions, as required by federal law.