http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3424 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3424&cpage=1#comment-948 Richard Belzer Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:08:03 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3424#comment-948 In my 16 years' experience in Washington I have found newspaper accounts about subjects with which I am knowledgeable to be invariably incomplete or wrong--sometimes, fantastically so. Reporters require sources, and sources have interests and motives. Some reporters have interests, too. Therefore I try to refrain from drawing inferences from news accounts and reserve my trust to the stock tables and box scores. | | With that caveat in mind, members of advisory committees routinely engage in advocacy irrespective of who appointed them. Their job is to advance a policy agenda. If a president (of either party) did not need to generate political support he would not establish the committee. Presidents do not appoint advisory committees to get "advice". In Washington, advice gushes with abandon from every pore. The last thing a president needs is more of it. | | I offer the testable hypothesis that advisory committees always engage in advocacy and ask if readers can disprove it with contrary examples. The most persuasive evidence would be an advisory committee that recommended policies contrary to the interests of its members. | | Circling back to my first point, the fact that this presumptive conflict of interest violation involves a "conservative" and not a "liberal" is telling. Numerous "liberal" interest groups allege that the Bush administration has stacked advisory committees with scientists and stakeholders sympathetic to its policies. They were profoundly silent from 1993-2000, a period in which they filled all the advisory committee slots. In my 16 years’ experience in Washington I have found newspaper accounts about subjects with which I am knowledgeable to be invariably incomplete or wrong–sometimes, fantastically so. Reporters require sources, and sources have interests and motives. Some reporters have interests, too. Therefore I try to refrain from drawing inferences from news accounts and reserve my trust to the stock tables and box scores.
| |
With that caveat in mind, members of advisory committees routinely engage in advocacy irrespective of who appointed them. Their job is to advance a policy agenda. If a president (of either party) did not need to generate political support he would not establish the committee. Presidents do not appoint advisory committees to get “advice”. In Washington, advice gushes with abandon from every pore. The last thing a president needs is more of it.
| |
I offer the testable hypothesis that advisory committees always engage in advocacy and ask if readers can disprove it with contrary examples. The most persuasive evidence would be an advisory committee that recommended policies contrary to the interests of its members.
| |
Circling back to my first point, the fact that this presumptive conflict of interest violation involves a “conservative” and not a “liberal” is telling. Numerous “liberal” interest groups allege that the Bush administration has stacked advisory committees with scientists and stakeholders sympathetic to its policies. They were profoundly silent from 1993-2000, a period in which they filled all the advisory committee slots.

]]> http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3424&cpage=1#comment-947 Adam Wed, 09 Mar 2005 16:34:51 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3424#comment-947 Roger - I had the same initial reaction to Kass's behavior...I am actually quite stunned that he would do something like this - your blog rightly stresses the improper ethical conduct of Kass, but another important consequence of his actions is that the Council's integrity and public trust are further undermined. If we want advisory bodies to supply us with independent information and balanced reflection, then we need their members to strive hard toward maintaining independence while they are in office. The Council is appearing more and more like a conservative think tank nestled in the executive branch. This may not matter that much because fewer and fewer people will believe anything they say (or even listen in the first place) and because the Council does not have any legislative authority. Why it does matter, in my opinion, is that the Council could have been a much needed vehicle for deep and balanced inquiry outside of think-tanks and commanding the prestige to attract the best minds to contribute to the conversation. I believe they really are producing important work, but the danger is that this work will be marginalized/delegitimized due to this kind of behavior. Kass's actions have hurt the common interest by discrediting an otherwise very capable and important forum for deep reflection on biotechnology. Roger – I had the same initial reaction to Kass’s behavior…I am actually quite stunned that he would do something like this – your blog rightly stresses the improper ethical conduct of Kass, but another important consequence of his actions is that the Council’s integrity and public trust are further undermined. If we want advisory bodies to supply us with independent information and balanced reflection, then we need their members to strive hard toward maintaining independence while they are in office. The Council is appearing more and more like a conservative think tank nestled in the executive branch. This may not matter that much because fewer and fewer people will believe anything they say (or even listen in the first place) and because the Council does not have any legislative authority. Why it does matter, in my opinion, is that the Council could have been a much needed vehicle for deep and balanced inquiry outside of think-tanks and commanding the prestige to attract the best minds to contribute to the conversation. I believe they really are producing important work, but the danger is that this work will be marginalized/delegitimized due to this kind of behavior. Kass’s actions have hurt the common interest by discrediting an otherwise very capable and important forum for deep reflection on biotechnology.

]]>