Additional reports of the manipulation of Federal Advisory Committees include:

• The first ever intervention by a DHHS Secretary in the nominations for permanent membership on a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) study section. Historically, NIH has zealously guarded the autonomy of study sections, which are charged with peer review and rating of federal grant proposals submitted by academics. Though study sections are federal advisory committees under the law, they do not provide guidance directly relevant to science policy decision-making, and their independence from political influence is essential to maintaining the highest possible standards for scientific research. No reasons were given for the Secretary's decision to reject the nominations, but observers suspect that the Administration was concerned about the candidates' support for ergonomic standards, which most Republicans oppose. (In 2001, one of the nominees had advised the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in the development of an ill-fated ergonomics standard.) (Loomis 2002, see also Ferber 2002).
• An astrophysicist was excluded from a Department of Defense panel because a man with a similar name was on a list of contributors to Senator John McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign (Howard 2002).
• The New England Journal of Medicine reported that almost 75% of the experts recommended by the associate director for international research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and director of the Fogarty International Center (a center at the National Institutes of Health that works to reduce disparities in global health) for appointment to the advisory committee of the Fogarty Center were turned down by DHHS Secretary Thompson, and several of the people given appointments were ones the Director of the Center felt were inappropriate. That Director left the agency (Steinbrook 2004).
• Elizabeth Blackburn, a renowned cell biologist who had dissented from the Administration's position on stem cell research, was dropped from the President’s Council on Bioethics. Following her removal from the Council, Dr. Blackburn indicated in an essay in the New England Journal of Medicine that coverage of key available scientific knowledge, including evidence on the potential benefits of embryonic stem cell research, was not included in the Council's report. Three scientists with views more consistent with the religious right's views on stem cell research were appointed to replace Dr. Blackburn and another committee member. Dr. Leon Kass, the chair of the bioethics committee, claimed to have no idea of the views on these issues of any of the three new appointments and insisted that the committee still fulfilled its requirement of balanced membership (i.e., representation of differing opinions).  Others disagreed, noting that the panel has fewer scientific researchers than members who have publicly expressed views consistent with the Administration's positions. (Read more: Caplan et al 2004 [open letter to President Bush regarding Council on Ethics], Kass March 3, 2004 [Washington Post]).
• A Nobel laureate was dropped from an international health advisory panel because he had signed too many full-page letters in The New York Times critical of President Bush (see UCS report). The reason for the committee member's removal was not acknowledged by the Administration; a spokesman for DHHS stated that the DHHS Secretary was responsible for committee appointments, rather than the director of the Center being advised by the panel (Chang [New York Times] July 9, 2004). 
• In a report on scientific integrity in policy making, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) documents instances in which Administration officials have asked scientists nominated to advisory committees about their political views. As of March, 2005, over 6000 scientists had signed a UCS statement entitled "Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policymaking," which expresses concern over the misuse of science by the Bush administration. "When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals," the statement reads, "the Administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions. This has been done by placing people who are professionally unqualified or who have clear conflicts of interest in official posts and on scientific advisory committees; by disbanding advisory committees... ."

Read more:

History and role of federal advisory committees.

Initial reports of manipulation of federal advisory committees.

Administration response.

Recommendations for reform.

Additional Resources