Advocacy organizations and others have recommended reforms in the advisory committee process in the past. Response to the perceived abuses of the appointment process under the Bush Administration include:

• Congresswoman Johnson and Congressman Baird requested a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study, which was completed in April 2004. The report, "Federal Advisory Committees: Additional Guidance Could Help Agencies Better Ensure Independence and Balance," outlined steps that the General Services Administration (GSA) and the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) could take to reduce the politicization of federal advisory committee appointments. Recommended practices include:
  - Public nominations for candidates
  - Use of processes to screen for conflicts of interest
  - Use of a structured interview to prescreen prospective committee members
  - Increased transparency
• In a follow up to the GAO study, OGE published a memo encouraging increased compliance with rules that require experts on advisory panels to declare potential conflicts of interest. (For more information, see Marris 2004.)
• Two scientific societies passed resolutions condemning the stacking of advisory committees:
  - American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) resolution: Resolution Regarding Membership On Federal Advisory Committees
  - American Public Health Association (APHA) resolution: Ensuring the Scientific Credibility of Government Public Health Advisory Committees
• The National Academy of Sciences Committee on Science, Education and Public Policy (COSEPUP) conducted a study of approaches to ensuring top quality scientific advice in government decision-making. Activities included an open meeting, convened in the summer of 2004 “to discuss how to ensure that federal advisory committees are balanced and free from major conflicts of interest and how to create conditions that will attract and retain the best scientists in executive positions in government.” (Hileman [Chemical and Engineering News] August 16, 2004)
  - COSEPUP published a report in November 2004 entitled “Science and Technology in the National Interest: Ensuring the Best Presidential and Federal Advisory Committee Science and Technology Appointments. The report states that it is inappropriate to ask potential scientific and technical federal advisory panel members about “nonrelevant information, such as voting record, political-party affiliation, or position on particular policies.” It also states that the appointment process for federal advisory committees should be more open and should follow a process supported by “explicit policies and procedures.” (See the Union of Concerned Scientists statement on the report for additional information.)
• Representative Henry Waxman has chronicled what he calls the Bush administration’s “interference with science.” An August 2003 report, “Politics and Science in the Bush Administration,” includes information on the “manipulation” of scientific advisory committees. 

Read more:

History and role of federal advisory committees.

Scientists' experience and perspectives on stacking of federal advisory committees.

Administration response.

Additional Resources