What are the factors that make certain advisory committee reports successful while others are not?
IN our sepTeMber column we discussed the somewhat grim truth that good science and the presence of a rational argument do not guarantee that policymakers will do the “right thing” when crafting policy. The intersection of science and politics is fraught with compromise and trade-offs, and elected representatives will always seek to balance competing interests. While this might appear to diminish the importance of getting sound science and technical advice to policymakers, the reality is that science can have a significant impact on policy— particularly in the context of federal advisory committees. But not all panels and advisory boards are created equal.
In 1999, the President’s Information Technology Advisory Council (PITAC) issued a report, Information Technology Research: Investing in Our Future, reviewing the U.S. federal government’s investment in IT research and calling for substantial new investments in basic IT research. Six years later, a re-formed, newly populated PITAC issued a report on cyber security, calling the research portfolio unbalanced toward short-term investments and recommending modest new resources be dedicated toward long-term cyber security research. The 1999 report helped set in motion one of the largest increases in funding for IT basic research, while the 2005 cyber security report was largely ignored by policy leaders. In both cases
these advisory committees had highly qualified members, produced well-grounded reports, and had specific recommendations. So what makes one advisory committee report successful, while another collects dust?
With thousands of advisory committees of all different shapes and sizes operating each year it is difficult to draw specific conclusions. We have had the fortunate experience to work with many
members of our community who have been asked to serve on advisory committees, or asked to staff or convene them while working as officials in federal agencies. Drawing from these experiences, we have identified some general characteristics—transparency, access to key staff, understanding the political context and balance—that successful panels appear to share, and that policymakers and advisory committee mem-
References:
Archives