are broadly shared leading to a narrow context. For example, the blue-ribbon commission investigating the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster received widespread support because members of both major political parties shared the same values about finding what led to the disaster and addressing the issues with the manned space flight program. At the other end, committee members themselves or the intended audience of policymakers may have widely divergent values about the key policy issue under consideration by the committee. This can lead to a lack of access to key policymakers, who may seek to marginalize a committee, or a report that is political non-starter and ends up gathering dust.

At times the U.S. Homeland Security’s Privacy Advisory Committee, which often deals with scientific and technical questions underpinning privacy issues, has produced reports on controversial subjects where it is clear the committee and the administration have two different sets of values, hampering the impact of the committee and often leading to technical recommendations not being adequately addressed. Last year, the committee issued a report questioning the proposed implementation of a highly controversial federal driver’s license identification standard for all 50 states called the “Real ID” Act.^c Many from the privacy and technical communities shared the committee’s concerns and recommendations (including ACM’s U.S. Public Policy Committee), but the divergence of values between the committee and the administration ultimately marginalized the committee on the issue and the report seemed to have little impact on the administration’s final policy choices.

Navigating the political landscape is arguably one of the most difficult things an advisory committee can do. In fact, we’ve heard the view that advisory committees simply shouldn’t worry about politics and the “science” should win out. But this view doesn’t take into account the reality of the policy-making process. As we noted in our September column, although it is a worthwhile goal to present the best

c See http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/ privacy/privacy_advcom_05-2007_realid.pdf.

navigating the
political landscape
is arguably one of
the most difficult
things an advisory
committee can do.

science, simply providing the best science will not necessarily lead to a more “scientifically based” policy choice. Policy-making is built upon a political system that, for the most part, seeks to resolve value differences, not scientific differences, between groups. The same dynamic applies to scientific and technical advisory committees, as the findings they make will have to feed back into the political system that called for the advisory committee. Committees should have a good understanding of whether their recommendations are realistic, just as policymakers should truly listen to the committee to see where science and technology can help expand the set of options available and change the political dynamics.

Balance. Despite requirements for both regional and ideological balance in FACA, the selection of advisory committee members remains highly controversial. Outside groups have claimed the current administration has stacked advisory committees to provide third-party validation of predetermined policy decisions instead of giving truly impartial advice. The issue took on such significance that the National Academies issued a report commenting on advisory committee membership stating, “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

 

d Science and Technology in the National Interest: Ensuring the Best Presidential and Federal Advisory Committee Science and Technology Appointments. The National Academies Press, 2005.

to independent advice. It is essential that the government’s capacity to consider and incorporate science and technology information as part of the basis for public-policy decisions not be compromised by unnecessary obstacles.”^d

In recent years, this issue has dominated the discussion surrounding scientific and technical advisory committees. While we agree ensuring balanced scientific representation is important, we would argue there is another key factor to consider. Having communicators and leaders that can navigate the political waters and push the committee’s findings and recommendations is equally important. Simply ensuring balance and appropriate technical focus without looking at the broader issues involved with most advisory committees propagates the myth that providing the “right” scientific information will naturally lead to better policy. In our view, the most effective committees have all had some members who were effective communicators and who were willing to carry the committee’s recommendations to other audiences.

The intersection of science and policy is, by necessity, complex and imperfect. While policymakers often strive to understand the science underpinning issues before them, the desire to balance the needs of a seemingly endless collection of stakeholders can often render the evidence of that understanding very difficult to find. Increasingly, however, issues of science and technology are fundamental to almost every major policy issue before Congress and the administration— national security, voting rights, health care, and the economy—to name just a few. It has never been more important that federal policymakers get timely and pertinent science and technology advice, and it has never been more important that members of the science and technology community participate actively in this process. We hope our observations will help make the time and effort of those participants more effective.

 

Cameron Wilson ( wilson_c@hq.acm.org) is the director of the acm u.s. Public Policy office in Washington, d.c.

Peter Harsha ( harsha@cra.org) is the director of government affairs at the computing research association (cra) in Washington, d.c.