Science and Technology in the National Interest: Ensuring the Best Presidential and Federal Advisory Committee Science and Technology Appointments (2005)

In the call for comments, the committee’s goal was to gather comments on the current presidential and federal advisory committee appointment process and suggestions for improvement in this process from the public. The committee posed the following questions:

1. What do you believe are the major obstacles in recruiting the best scientific and technical leadership for science and technology presidential appointments?

2. How do you believe the presidential appointment process for science and technology positions can be improved?

3. What principles should guide the selection of scientists, engineers, and health professionals to serve on federal advisory committees associated with science-based policy or to review research proposals?

To advertise the call for comments, the committee placed an advertisement in Science and sent out requests to

• Members of Congress who had expressed an interest in these issues.

• The Committee Management Offices of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and federal agencies with a request that they forward this request to their members.

• Science and engineering disciplinary societies.

• Patient-advocacy groups.

• Nongovernment organizations.

• National Academies committee members for the last 4 years (on the assumption that many of them have served on federal advisory committees).

The committee received responses from 14 organizations-including professional societies, advocacy organizations, university organizations, nongovernment organizations, and patient-advocacy groups—and from over 200 individuals.

The responses are provided on the committee’s Web site (www.nationalacademies.org/cosepup). Not included on the Web site are those who requested that their comments to the committee be confidential.

Among the comments, the committee found many useful suggestions as to how the existing presidential and federal advisory committee process could be improved. The comments contributed to the committee’s findings and recommendations.