Vviewpoints
DOI: 10.1145/1409360.1409370
iT policy
advising policymakers is More
Than Just providing advice
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-
