Yesterday the U.S. General Accounting Office released a report titled “Federal Advisory Committees: Additional Guidance Could Help Agencies Better Ensure Independence and Balance”. According to the report, in 2003 there were 948 federal advisory committees with 62,497 members, though committees classified as “scientific and technical” had 7,910 members on about 400 committees. The report makes clear that such committees play an important role in policy formulation and thus their composition matters. My comment: Hence, they are of course be ripe targets for politicization.

The report discusses, and struggles, with this issue of “balance” and observes that different agencies see balance in different terms, e.g., in terms of expertise, ethnicity, geography, gender, and employment sector. Apparently no agency sought to ensure political balance (though there is some evidence of late that a few have sought to ensure political imbalance). Of course, including political balance as a criterion for appointment would stand in stark contrast to the “objective” or “unbiased” role that scientists on such committees are supposed to play.

Here are a few excerpts from the report:

P. 40: “officials most commonly related “points of view” to demographic factors, such as race, gender, or geographic locations—that is, defining a balance of points of view in terms of demographic diversity. While important, these criteria alone do not provide a robust understanding of the points of view and potential biases the members may bring to the committee vis-à-vis the specific matters the committees will address. That is, these approaches may achieve demographic diversity, but they cannot ensure an appropriate balance of viewpoints relative to the matters being considered by the committees.”

My comment: It would be a big step to include, for example, political affiliation as a consideration in seeking “balance” on such committees. It would be a tacit admission of the reality that the process of scientific advice is (surprise!) laden with values and politics.

P. 42: “…many agencies do not consistently collect information that could be helpful in determining the viewpoints of potential members and ensuring that committees are, and are perceived as being, balanced. However, the National Academies and EPA have developed clear processes that, if effectively implemented, can provide them with greater assurance that relevant conflicts of interest and biases are identified and addressed, and that committees are appropriately balanced in terms of points of view because they have identified and evaluated the necessary information before committees are finalized.”

My comment: Having served on NRC committees I am doubtful that the NRC’s process for identifying conflicts of interests does much to ensure balance on a particular committee. Crucially, the NRC does not see as a bias the fact that many members of its committees are often beneficiaries of the advice that they provide, e.g., such as when more research is recommended for agencies and programs for which committee members receive or expect to receive support.

P. 47: “In light of recent controversies surrounding the perceived politicization of federal advisory committees, we identified several other measures to improve transparency in the federal advisory committee system…

• The committee formation process: how members are identified and screened, and how committees are assessed for balance.
• Whether members are appointed as special government employees and are speaking as independent experts, or whether members are appointed as representatives and speaking as stakeholders.
• Whether committees arrive at decisions through a voting process or by consensus.”

My comment: Greater transparency would go a long way toward increasing the legitimacy of federal advisory committees.

Here is a link to the whole report.