How To Fix a “Dangerously Broken” System of Science Advice

In December 2004, FAS released the second in its new Occasional Papers series: Flying Blind: The Rise, Fall and Possible Resurrection of Science Policy Advice in the United States. It reported the results of a study by Henry Kelly, Ivan Oelrich, Steven Aftergood, and Benn H. Tannenbaum. They reviewed how the institutions for science advice to Congress and the White House have worked in recent decades and concluded that the system was “dangerously broken.” In a spirit of biparti­sanship, and to help both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue solve the problem, Flying Blind outlined specific steps. (To order and for more information on other FAS Occasional Papers and reports, see page 5). Excerpts from the analysis and recommendations follow.

The need for effective science and technology advice continues to increase while the infrastructure for providing such help is in a state of crisis... While technical analysis is almost never sufficient to make wise choices, absent competent, timely, targeted scientific and technical analysis, these decisions will depend on unchallenged assertions by special interests and ideologues. Programs are likely to be poorly designed and subject to costly mistakes. Even worse, lacking competent advice, the nation may fail to act on problems until they are costly and difficult to solve, or fail to seize important opportunities to achieve public objectives in security, health care, edu­cation, the environment, or other critical areas.

This report develops options for improving the fundamental structures of science and technology advice based on examination of two cases where science and technology advice did not serve the nation well, interviews with many of the key figures in science and tech­nology advice for Congress and the admin­istration, and a review of recent literature.

Is Anyone Listening?

The strongest and most consistent statement emerging from these sources is that if the Congress or the president doesn’t want objective scientific advice, no institutional solution can fix the problem. There is no way to force the president to meet with science advisers or to force Congress to base legislation on careful scientific analysis. This report is designed to help a new administration or a new Congress interested in strengthening science and technology support to craft effective institutions...

The proposals all assume that one goal of the reforms will be to create institutions that can endure and be effective through radical changes in national political priorities. Many of the options are designed to contribute to public debate and public understanding of technical issues, making it more difficult for political leaders to ignore the issues.

The White House

Strengthen the private advice provided to the President... by amending the OSTP statute... to establish a permanent National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). The NSTC would be managed by a science adviser who works directly for the president inside the Executive Office of the President. In this formulation, the director would not be Senate confirmed (and thus clearly covered by executive privilege) and would have a small staff similar to other White House offices such as the NEC [National Economic Council] and the DPC [Domestic Policy Council]... A smaller staff has the simple logistical advantage of more easily fitting into the Executive Office Building, nearer to the pres­ident and the rest of his closest advisers... [The science advisor’s office should be] a formal part of the National Security Council and other White House offices.

“We’re proposing common-sense solu­tions that sensible people from both parties can agree would be a step toward good government,” said Henry Kelly when Flying Blind was released. “We expect our leaders to be debating values and priorities, but they shouldn’t have to debate the facts.”

	“We’re proposing common-sense solutions that sensible people from both parties can agree would be a step toward good government,” said Henry Kelly when Flying Blind was released. “We expect our leaders to be debating values and priorities, but they shouldn’t have to debate the facts.”

[At the same time or alternatively, OSTP or a new entity could be authorized as a more independent public agency within the execu­tive branch. This agency would] secure independent advice through independent advisory boards, conduct timely assessments of science and technology policy issues using both internal staff and sponsoring studies... At least one advisory board should have terms of six years to ensure continuity between administrations. To distinguish this office from the current model, we name it the Science and Technology Policy Agency (STPA). To strengthen the STPA...[f]illing the four associate director positions would be required rather than allowed [as under the present OSTP legislation].

The Congress

Cross-Cutting R&D Budget Reviews

By the Executive The existing structure makes it extremely difficult for the president or the budget directors to correct any perceived imbalance in the research portfolio or to take a broad view across disciplines. For instance, recent progress in the biological sciences has been dramatically aided by diagnostic tools invented in the physical sciences. With the current budget process, this kind of cross ­discipline support is hard to even see, let alone foster. An effective collaboration would need to involve close collaboration between the OMB and the Science and Technology adviser directed by the president.

The NSTC should work with OMB to under­take a coherent review of the national science and technology budget. OSTP should prepare an independent review of S&T budgets on an annual basis that can be used as the basis for budget planning.

By the Congress The Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate should conduct a regular, government-wide review of federal research and development expenditures inviting administration and public witnesses to comment... [A] standing task force... [could] ask for administration witnesses to justify the size, balance, and direction of the effort. This would not force committees to coordinate, but at least a coherent case could be presented.

How Scientific Societies, Individuals Can Help

Increase Participation by Scientific Societies Perhaps the single most common complaint heard during the interviews we conducted on Capitol Hill was lack of outreach from the various professional societies... With so much funding from the federal govern­ment, scientific societies are accustomed to lobbying for support. But they could also work harder to get science into the policy debate. For example, the American Physical Society released a report on President