We discussed presidential appointments to science advisory committees a little while ago. Yesterday, the Washington Post reported on a meeting of a committee of the National Research Council, chaired by former congressman John Edward Porter (R-Il), on “the murky world of whether — or how much — politics and point of view should be considered in the appointment of scientists to federal advisory committees.” The Post characterized the meeting as follows:

“In a day-long session yesterday, the NAS committee heard from representatives of numerous special interest or activist science groups and two congressmen. Most bewailed what they considered the unwarranted intrusion of politics into discussions of scientific evidence. But there was very little discussion about how a person’s point of view and experience can color the interpretation or use of scientific facts.”

The comments of two congressman at the committee suggest a partisan split on whether or not political considerations should be formally considered in the empanelment of advisory committees:

“Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.), who has a doctorate in physics, said that in appointing members to advisory committees “a single, guiding principle should be applied — select the most qualified person for the job.” In the case of presidential appointments, however, he said “it is important that the scientist be in tune with the philosophy of the appointing president.”

Asked by Porter whether he thought it was acceptable to ask about party affiliation or recent presidential voting when considering a candidate for a science advisory committee, Ehlers answered: “I think it’s an appropriate question. I don’t think scientists should consider themselves a privileged class — that politics is for everyone else and not for them.” He also said that a question about the morality of abortion “is a question that is very pertinent to some committees’ work.”

Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), who appeared with Ehlers, said interviewers of candidates for advisory panels “ought not to ask what party you’re in, what your views on abortion are, whether you voted for the president. . . . I think this committee should spell that out.””

Several Democratic members of the House Science Committee responded with a press release late yesterday taking issue with the remarks of Congressman Ehlers as reported in the Washington Post. Here is an excerpt:

“Representatives Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), ranking Member on the Basic Research Subcommittee, and Brian Baird (D-WA) today released statements endorsing the work of the National Academy of Sciences relating to appointments to Scientific Advisory Panels…

Mr. Baird commented, “When the government seeks scientific advice, we have to follow appointment policies that attract the best scientists available. The key questions in putting such a panel together revolve around the research expertise of potential members and relevant conflicts of interest, not their political preferences or which candidates they may have given money to in the past. Once you begin letting politics get in the way of choosing scientists to offer expert advice, you corrupt the very process designed to get you good advice.”

Ms. Johnson said, “I was very disappointed to learn of Mr. Ehlers’ statements regarding advisory panels. He is widely viewed among Republicans in the House as a leader on science issues. If he is saying it is okay to politicize scientific advisory panel appointments, then it is little wonder that such behavior was actually pursued by Administration officials. I strongly disagree with his views. I don’t think that such questions are appropriate and I don’t think the public is well served by a process built on political calculations. My position is that we should get the best scientific advice available, and then let policy makers and politicians deal with that advice in the context of policy, ethical and political considerations.””

I don’t think a policy of “don’t ask-don’t tell” makes any sense whatsoever, and would not remove political considerations from advisory panel empanelment, but simply drive it into backrooms and out of sight. Of course, asking about political affiliations is not a good option either, as it risks turning scientific advisory panels into yet another arena for purely partisan political debate. This is why I “http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/index.html#000129″>recommended a focus not on the empanelment process, but the process of providing advice to policy makers. Political biases cannot be avoided, but they can be managed — we do it all of the time in pretty much every other setting other than science.