Complementing the Neal Lane piece Roger mentioned, there is a transition report available from the current PCAST (President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology) with advice to its successor (H/T – ScienceInsider).  There are a few points worth noting in the report (its recommendations run pages 4-8), which are echoed and expanded on in the current PCAST Co-Chair Floyd Kvamme’s comments to Science reporter Jeffrey Mervis.

This PCAST focused on technology.  This is not a good or a bad thing, taken by itself.  Many organizations that are ostensibly focused on both science and technology usually focus on one or the other.  It would be useful to make sure that someone (perhaps the science adviser) is in a position to think more comprehensively about both (echoing Goldston’s recent challenge), but for specific groups to have specific foci is no particular problem.  It’s when one is forgotten entirely that the analysis can suffer.  While Kvamme’s comments to Mervis suggest a narrow consideration of technology, I don’t think PCAST work suffered from that problem.

What happens after the report matters. While Kvamme is right to wonder if it was the obligation of PCAST to communicate more with the Hill about its reports (as opposed to OSTP or the science adviser), the more successful science and technology reports tend to have a focused, long-term outreach strategy that lasts long after the report is written (see Rising Above the Gathering Storm).  This applies to the Hill, the rest of the Executive Branch, and other relevant stakeholders.

The report is short, and lists all of the reports issued by this PCAST (with links).  It will be a good resources for analysts and scholars in this area.