US National Academies Tell President Bush How They See It... So What? (November 19, 2005)

    It won't come as news that the Bush Administration's practice of asking some appointees to scientific advisory panels about their political affiliations, voting records, and stance on issues within the panel's purview has been roundly questioned by critics of the practice while members of the administration, including the President's science advisor, have defended it vigorously (see News and Views November 12, 2004).

Now  a panel convened by the Academies' Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP) has issued its report in which it holds:

Persons nominated to provide [scientific or technical] expertise should be selected on the basis of their scientific knowledge and credentials. It is inappropriate to ask them to provide nonrelevant information, such as [their] voting record, party affiliation, or position on particular policies.

On the face of it that appears pretty free of weasel words. And the panel chairman, former Republican congressman turned Washington lobbyist, John Porter, told ScienceNow that it is no more appropriate than asking scientists about "their height or hair color."

End of story? Well not quite, the committee didn't examine specific allegations, nor, it added, was its advice focused on the current Administration which has upset some observers who were hoping for a slam dunk from the panel. And the panel restricted its assessment specifically to scientists chosen for advisory panels. ScienceNow refers to

committee member Richard Meserve, president of the Carnegie Institution of Washington. He said it might be appropriate to ask questions eliciting political views of other members of an advisory panel, such as those selected to represent relevant special interests (patient advocates, environmentalists, companies, ethicists, and the like). It would also be reasonable, he notes, for an agency to query members of panels dealing with sensitive topics, such as testing drugs on children or disposing of low-level nuclear waste, to make sure that all views were represented.

Although Presidential Science Advisor, John Marburger, agrees with the report that asking scientists how they voted "is not appropriate," he doesn't see a need to change the Administration's methods. "The law requires that these committees be balanced, and you can't tell if they are balanced without asking questions."

That would seem to make the Bush Administration's viewpoint quite clear, "We'll continue to behave just as we have... have a nice day."