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.