SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST

ENSURING THE BEST PRESIDENTIAL AND FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY APPOINTMENTS

Committee on Ensuring the Best Presidential and Federal Advisory Committee Science and Technology Appointments

Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING, AND INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
Science and Technology in the National Interest: Ensuring the Best Presidential and Federal Advisory Committee Science and Technology Appointments SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST ENSURING THE BEST PRESIDENTIAL AND FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY APPOINTMENTS Committee on Ensuring the Best Presidential and Federal Advisory Committee Science and Technology Appointments Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING, AND INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu

OCR for page R1
Science and Technology in the National Interest: Ensuring the Best Presidential and Federal Advisory Committee Science and Technology Appointments NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20418 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the Councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. Support for this project was provided by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, and the National Academies. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number 0-309-09297-3 (Book) International Standard Book Number 0-309-54517-X (PDF) Copies of this report are available from the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, 500 Fifth Street NW, Washington, DC 20001; 202-334-2807; Internet, http://www.nationalacademies.org/cosepup Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street NW, Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu Copyright 2005 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.

OCR for page R1
Science and Technology in the National Interest: Ensuring the Best Presidential and Federal Advisory Committee Science and Technology Appointments THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1
Science and Technology in the National Interest: Ensuring the Best Presidential and Federal Advisory Committee Science and Technology Appointments This page intentionally left blank.

OCR for page R1
Science and Technology in the National Interest: Ensuring the Best Presidential and Federal Advisory Committee Science and Technology Appointments COMMITTEE ON ENSURING THE BEST PRESIDENTIAL AND FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY APPOINTMENTS JOHN EDWARD PORTER (Chair), Partner, Hogan & Hartson, Washington, DC MAXINE L. SAVITZ (Vice Chair), Principal, The Washington Advisory Group, LLC, Los Angeles, California EDWARD E. DAVID, President, EED, Inc., Bedminister, New Jersey JOHN P. MCTAGUE, Professor of Materials, University of California, Santa Barbara, California RICHARD A. MESERVE, President, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC ERNEST J. MONIZ, Professor of Physics, Director of Energy Studies, Laboratory for Energy and the Environment, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts JOHN H. MOXLEY III, Managing Director, North American Health Care Division, Korn/Ferry International, Los Angeles, California FRANK PRESS, President Emeritus, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC ROBERT J. SERAFIN, Director Emeritus, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado LOUIS W. SULLIVAN, President Emeritus, Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN, Independent Consultant, Oldwick, New Jersey Principal Project Staff DEBORAH STINE, Study Director KATHI E. HANNA, Consultant Writer RUSSELL MOY, Federal Advisory Committee Consultant HENRY HOGUE, Presidential Appointments Consultant JOHN TRATTNER, Presidential Appointments Consultant ERIN McCARVILLE, Project Assistant NORMAN GROSSBLATT, Senior Editor REBECCA JANES, Science and Technology Policy Graduate Fellow RACHEL MacCOSS, Science and Technology Policy Graduate Fellow GRETCHEN SCHWARZ, Science and Technology Policy Graduate Fellow YVETTE SEGER, Science and Technology Policy Graduate Fellow RIEKO YAJIMA, Science and Technology Policy Graduate Fellow

OCR for page R1
Science and Technology in the National Interest: Ensuring the Best Presidential and Federal Advisory Committee Science and Technology Appointments COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND PUBLIC POLICY MAXINE F. SINGER (Chair), President Emerita, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC BRUCE ALBERTS (Ex officio), President, The National Academies, Washington, DC R. JAMES COOK, R. James Cook Endowed Chair in Wheat Research, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington HAILE DEBAS, Dean, School of Medicine, and Vice Chancellor, Medical Affairs, University of California, San Francisco, California HARVEY FINEBERG (Ex officio), President, Institute of Medicine, Washington, DC MARYE ANNE FOX (Ex officio), Office of the Chancellor, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina ELSA GARMIRE, Sydney E. Junkins Professor of Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire MRC GREENWOOD (Ex officio), Provost and Senior Vice President Academic Affairs, University of California, Oakland, California NANCY HOPKINS, Amgen Professor of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts WILLIAM JOYCE (Ex officio), Chairman and CEO, Nalco, Naperville, Illinois MARY-CLAIRE KING, American Cancer Society Professor of Medicine and Genetics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington W. CARL LINEBERGER, Professor of Chemistry, Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado ANNE PETERSEN, Senior Vice President, Programs, W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Battle Creek, Michigan CECIL PICKETT, President, Schering-Plough Research Institute, Kenilworth, New Jersey GERALD RUBIN, Vice President, Biomedical Research, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Chevy Chase, Maryland HUGO SONNENSCHEIN, Charles L. Hutchinson Distinguished Service Professor, Department of Economics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois JOHN D. STOBO, President, University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston, Texas IRVING L. WEISSMAN, Karel and Avice Beekhuis Professor of Cancer Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, California SHEILA WIDNALL, Abbey Rockefeller Mauze Professor of Aeronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts WM. A. WULF (Ex officio), President, National Academy of Engineering, Washington, DC MARY LOU ZOBACK, Senior Research Scientist, Earthquake Hazards Team, US Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California Staff RICHARD BISSELL, Executive Director DEBORAH STINE, Associate Director LAUREL HAAK, Program Officer MARION RAMSEY, Administrative Associate

OCR for page R1
Science and Technology in the National Interest: Ensuring the Best Presidential and Federal Advisory Committee Science and Technology Appointments PREFACE The nation increasingly relies on the strength and vitality of the science and technology (S&T) enterprise to solve some of today’s most intractable problems. Few aspects of modern public policy are untouched by S&T, as we become more dependent on advances in science and engineering to meet such challenges as national defense, chronic disease, economic growth, creating a healthy and affordable food supply, and protecting the environment. Perhaps at no other time in our history has it been so critical to attract scientists and engineers into the highest levels of public service and as members of the almost 1,000 advisory committees convened to provide independent sources of guidance to inform our public policies. Despite the tremendous opportunities provided by public service, there are administrative and procedural obstacles to recruiting the best and brightest into top S&T posts. With regard to appointing scientists and engineers to federal advisory committees, charges have surfaced recently that the process of making these appointments has become politicized and results in a skewing of the impartial perspective critical to independent advice. It is essential that the government’s capacity to consider and incorporate S&T information as part of the basis for public-policy decisions not be compromised by unnecessary obstacles. This is the third in a series of reports issued by the National Academies on the presidential appointment process, each delivered during a presidential election year with the goal of

OCR for page R1
Science and Technology in the National Interest: Ensuring the Best Presidential and Federal Advisory Committee Science and Technology Appointments providing recommendations to the successful candidate about ways to improve the appointments process. The first report was issued in 1992.1 In the 2000 updating,2 an ad hoc committee of former S&T presidential appointees reviewed and analyzed the data available on S&T presidential appointments and made recommendations for making the process more efficient and increasing the breadth and depth of the pool of candidates willing to accept such appointments. Little progress has been made on the recommendations of the 2000 report, and many of the concerns and recommendations presented then are still relevant today. Although a number of bills in Congress included the reforms suggested, none has been passed (for more details, see Appendix B). Sufficient changes have occurred since the 2000 report was released to warrant this new edition. An ad hoc committee of the National Academies Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP) was charged with preparing this third report examining the most senior S&T appointments to federal government positions and updating the accompanying list of the 50 most urgent S&T presidential appointments. In contrast with the previous reports, this one covers not only presidential appointments to top S&T leadership positions but also the appointment of scientists, engineers, and health professionals to federal advisory committees3 on science-based policy or on the review of research proposals. 1   Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. 1992. Science and Technology Leadership in American Government. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 2   Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. 2000. Science and Technology in the National Interest: The Presidential Appointment Process. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 3   Note that this report considers only federal advisory committees managed by the federal government under FACA. It does not include those managed by the National Academies or the National Academy of Public Administration, although all three types of committees are under FACA.

OCR for page R1
Science and Technology in the National Interest: Ensuring the Best Presidential and Federal Advisory Committee Science and Technology Appointments The charge to the ad hoc committee was to address the following questions: What measures have been taken in the areas highlighted by the findings and recommendations for S&T presidential appointments in the 1992 and 2000 reports? Initiate early appointments of S&T leadership; Increase the breadth and depth of pool of candidates; Establish a timely approval process. How should the “50 Most Urgent S&T Presidential Appointments” list issued in 2000 be updated? Are there new issues for Presidential appointees not addressed in the 2000 report that should be addressed today? What are the roles of federal advisory committees and the range of appointments available? How does the involvement of scientists, engineers, and health professionals strengthen science-based policy and federal research programs? What principles govern the selection and appointment of members to advisory committees associated with science-based policy or the review of research proposals? How are principles codified and how do they vary among agencies? What principles should guide the roles of scientists, engineers, and health professionals on federal advisory committees associated with science-based policy or the review of research proposals? What is the depth and breadth of the pool of potential committee members? How could the application and selection processes for different kinds of committees be strengthened to encourage the best-qualified nominees to contribute to the national research enterprise? In responding to its charge, the committee undertook several activities. First, it conducted a literature review on the topic of presidential and federal advisory committee appointments (see

OCR for page R1
Science and Technology in the National Interest: Ensuring the Best Presidential and Federal Advisory Committee Science and Technology Appointments Appendix I). Next, it analyzed the effects of the National Academies report issued in 2000 (see Appendix B), including its “Top 50” S&T appointments, in light of the nation’s current needs—particularly with relation to national and homeland security. The committee also reviewed the qualitative and quantitative data available from the Brookings Institution Presidential Appointee Initiative,4 the General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Advisory Committee Management Secretariat (CMS) Database,5and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports on federal advisory committees6 and conducted interviews with leading scholars and federal agency officials familiar with each initiative. The committee gathered information via testimony at its July 2004 meeting, in particular from the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), GSA, the Office of Government Ethics (OGE), GAO, and the Brookings Institution Presidential Appointee Initiative. A public comment session was held during the July 2004 meeting, and the committee also heard testimony from Representatives Henry Waxman and Vernon Ehlers and received a written statement from Senator Joseph Lieberman. Finally, the committee called for comments (Appendix H) from the scientific, engineering, and health communities in an advertisement in Science and sent e-mail messages requesting comments to professional societies and volunteer health organizations, which then placed public notices in their newsletters. Requests for comments were also sent to federal agency committee 4   http://www.appointee.brookings.org/ 5   http://www.fido.gov/facadatabase/ 6   In particular, Government Accountability Office. 2004. Federal Advisory Committees: Additional Guidance Could Help Agencies Better Ensure Independence and Balance.

OCR for page R1
Science and Technology in the National Interest: Ensuring the Best Presidential and Federal Advisory Committee Science and Technology Appointments officials and to scientists, engineers, and health professionals who had been members of National Academies committees over the preceding 5 years, on the basis of the assumption that many had been, were, or would be members of federal advisory committees. Over 200 responses to those requests for comments were received. This report presents the committee’s findings and recommendations on the two major topics addressed in its charge: presidential S&T appointments and appointments of scientists and engineers to federal advisory committees. It is important to recognize that our mandate, and thus the focus of our work, was S&T appointments. We know that appointments to senior positions and to federal advisory committees in other areas of federal responsibility are as important as those in S&T. The committee identified five aspects in which reforms are needed to enhance the nation’s ability to recruit and attract the best S&T leadership to its highest level of public service: the speed with which appointments are made; continuity; the process by which candidates are nominated, cleared, and confirmed; pregovernment and postgovernment restrictions; and broadening the pool of potential candidates. These recommendations reiterate much of what was recommended in the National Academies 2000 report. Key changes include the earlier identification and appointment of the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (APST)—separate from the appointment of the White House OSTP director. In addition, the list of the top appointments has undergone considerable revision by separating the positions into two categories—those in which S&T expertise is essential and those in which S&T expertise is useful. The committee is also emphasizing the need for presidential administrations to seek advice from the S&T community when recruiting candidates for S&T appointments. The committee explored three ways in which reform or illumination could improve the federal advisory committee process: adhering to an appropriate set of criteria for selecting committee members, making more explicit and public the appoint-

OCR for page R1
Science and Technology in the National Interest: Ensuring the Best Presidential and Federal Advisory Committee Science and Technology Appointments ment process itself, and ensuring that the federal administrative units responsible for committee appointments are sufficiently staffed, trained, and expert in the process. All those are now recommendations. The need to ensure that sound S&T form the basis of many of the nation’s critical decisions now and in the future has never been greater. The committee believes that the recommendations made in this report will help any administration to meet that need. John Edward Porter, Chair Committee on Ensuring the Best Presidential and Federal Advisory Committee Science and Technology Appointments

OCR for page R1
Science and Technology in the National Interest: Ensuring the Best Presidential and Federal Advisory Committee Science and Technology Appointments ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report is the product of many people. First, we thank those who spoke at our committee meeting in July 2004. The invited speakers were (in alphabetical order) VERNON EHLERS, Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards, Committee on Science, US House of Representatives CHRISTINE FISHKIN, Assistant Director, Natural Resources and Environment, General Accounting Office ROBERT FLAAK, Senior Policy Adviser, Office of Government-Wide Policy, Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration MARILYN GLYNN, Acting Director, Office of Government Ethics JOHN H. MARBURGER, Science Adviser to the President and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy CAROL PLOWFIELD, Former Deputy Director, Presidential Appointee Initiative, Brookings Institution HENRY WAXMAN, Ranking Member, Government Reform Committee, US House of Representatives The committee also thanks those who responded to its call for comments or provided comments in the public comment session held at its July meeting. The comments of those people and organizations are provided on the committee’s Web site, www.nationalacademies.org/presidentialappointments.

OCR for page R1
Science and Technology in the National Interest: Ensuring the Best Presidential and Federal Advisory Committee Science and Technology Appointments This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Frederick Bernthal, Universities Research Association; Lewis Branscomb, Harvard University; Delores Etter, United States Naval Academy; Mary Good, University of Arkansas at Little Rock; Paul Light, Brookings Institution; Alan Morrison, Stanford University; Gilbert Omen, University of Michigan; J. Thomas Ratchford, George Mason University; and Alvin Trivelpiece, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Retired). Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by R. Stephen Berry, University of Chicago. Appointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution. In addition, we would like to thank the COSEPUP guidance group that oversaw this project, which consisted of MAXINE F. SINGER (Chair), President Emerita, Carnegie Institution of Washington

OCR for page R1
Science and Technology in the National Interest: Ensuring the Best Presidential and Federal Advisory Committee Science and Technology Appointments ANNE PETERSEN, Senior Vice President, Programs, W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Battle Creek, Michigan IRVING WEISSMAN, Karel and Avice Beekhuis Professor of Cancer Biology, Stanford University Finally, we thank the staff for this project, including Deborah Stine, associate director of the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP) and study director, who managed the project; Kathi E. Hanna, the writer for this report; Henry Hogue and John Trattner, presidential-appointments consultants; Russell Moy, federal advisory committee consultant; Erin McCarville, who provided project support; National Academies Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Program Graduate Fellows Rebecca Janes, Rachel MacCoss, Gretchen Schwarz, Yvette Seger, and Rieko Yajima, who all provided research and analytic support; and Richard Bissell, executive director of COSEPUP and of the Policy and Global Affairs Division.

OCR for page R1
Science and Technology in the National Interest: Ensuring the Best Presidential and Federal Advisory Committee Science and Technology Appointments This page intentionally left blank.

OCR for page R1
Science and Technology in the National Interest: Ensuring the Best Presidential and Federal Advisory Committee Science and Technology Appointments CONTENTS     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY   1     INTRODUCTION   11     PRESIDENTIAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY APPOINTMENTS   17      Accelerate the Appointment Process for Science and Technology Leadership,   21      The President’s Science Adviser,   21      Other S&T Leaders,   24      Broaden the Pool of Potential Candidates,   37     SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY APPOINTMENTS TO FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEES   39      Select Committee Members on the Basis of Relevant Criteria,   42      Clarify the Advisory Committee Appointment Process and Make Its Outcome Public,   45      Improve the Advisory Committee Appointment Process in the Bureaucracy,   49     CONCLUSION   51     APPENDIXES         A  Committee and Staff Biographic Information   55     B  The 2000 Recommendations: A Status Report   67     C  Presidential Appointments Requiring the Advice and Consent of the Senate: Background and Current Issues   79     D  How Much is Enough? Setting Pay for Presidential Appointees   101

OCR for page R1
Science and Technology in the National Interest: Ensuring the Best Presidential and Federal Advisory Committee Science and Technology Appointments     E  Federal Advisory Committees: Background and Current Issues   129     F  Political and Professional Considerations in the Appointment of Federal Advisory Committee Members   151     G  A Decision-Maker’s Guide to Science Advising   165     H  Description of Procedures for Gathering Call for Comments   181     I  Bibliography   183     J  Preemployment Requirements and Postemployment Restrictions   201 Boxes, Figures, and Table Boxes 1   Top Science and Technology Leadership Positions,   18 2   Recommendations of the Brookings Institution Presidential Appointee Initiative Advisory Board,   29 3   Recommendation of the 9/11 Commission on the Issue of Presidential Appointments,   30 Figures 1   Overview of the Presidential Appointments Process,   25 2   Number of Months to Fill Top 500 Jobs in the Administration,   27 3   Comparison of Average Salaries for Major University Presidents and Presidential Appointees, 2000,   33 Table 1   Types of Scientific and Technical Federal Advisory Committees, by Origin and Purpose,   41