Federal Advisory Committees at Risk: Another blow to evidence-based policymaking?

By Steve Pierson posted 09-23-2019 09:17

  
Executive Order action follows on heels of elimination of several science advisory committeesEmpty chairs at microphones                                                                                                                                       Getty Images

In June, President Trump issued an executive order to all departments and agencies to eliminate at least one third of their advisory committees by September 30. Because of the many federal advisory committees that advise on science or science-informed policy, the broader scientific community has been advocating against their elimination. The moves are also seen as undermining evidence-based policymaking and otherwise weakening expert input in forming federal policy.

Immediately following the executive order, then-AAAS CEO Rush Holt , chief executive officer, American Association for the Advancement of Science issued a statement, questioning whether "the benefits to Americans in areas including public health and the environment outweigh the costs" and stating that "[a]dvisory committees help the government become better informed." Holt also stated that "making smart decisions should not be seen as optional or dispensable." Currently, a sign-on letter is being circulated asking the president to rescind the order.

The order is especially concerning to the scientific community because it followed the elimination, sunsetting, or other demotion of several advisory bodies related to science in the last few years. The Pentagon's cutting of ties with the JASON panel received the most attention because of the prestige and profile of the science advisory group. However several other science panels were directly or effectively terminated, including the National Commission on Forensic Science, the Advisory Council on Transportation Statistics, the NAVY science advisory group, and the Science Advisory Board for the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) at the federal Department of Justice (DOJ). There have also been science advisory panels that have not been engaged. The National Board for Education Statistics, which has not met since 2016 and is down to some only 6 members from a chartered level of 15, is in this category. The appointment of members to the EPA science advisory committees has also been a controversial topic.

According to a U.S. General Services Administration website, there are approximately 1,000 advisory committees across 50 federal agencies, including such agencies as FDA, NIH, NSF, BLS, and the U.S. Census Bureau. The Census advisory committees include its science advisory committee, the National Advisory Committee, and the Federal Economic Statistic Committee. The National Academies, in its Principals and Practices of a Federal Statistical Agency, recommends advisory committees as a good practice not only for the expert input but also to obtain data and program user input.

There is broad concern for the loss of scientific advisory committees. For example, besides the AAAS and the sign-on letter being circulated through September 27, the federal statistical community has been advocating advisory committees for federal statistical agencies not be cut and the Energy Science Coalition strongly urged the Secretary of Energy "to retain the six Federal Advisory Committees that currently provide invaluable advice on research priorities and infrastructure investments to the Department of Energy Office of Science."

There have been some positive movement with science advisory committees and evidence-based policymaking. The USDA National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board met in July in person for the time since May, 2017. Further, while not necessarily a science advisory committee, the Secretary of Energy appointed members to his department's advisory board,which met earlier this year. More well known to the federal statistical community, the recently enacted Foundations of Evidenced-Based Poilcymaking Act and the ongoing development of the Federal Data Strategy are exciting developments for the federal statistical agencies and evidence-based policymaking. The following select op-eds by leaders in the community over the last several months demonstrate this point: 

The federal news trade press has also been the tracking progress of evidence based policymaking. For example, GovExec's Charles Clark published this piece in July, OMB Moving Ahead to Steer Agencies on Evidence-Based Policymaking

Congress has also taken note of the loss of some of the advisory Committees. In July, Senator Brian Schatz (HI-D) introduced the bill, S.2286 - Improving Justice Programs through Science Act of 2019, to re-establish DOJ OJP science advisory board. The bill has four cosponsors, all Democrats. 

The president's executive order allows an agency or department to request a waiver to having to cut one third of its agencies, if the director of the Office of Management and Budget "concludes it is necessary for the delivery of essential services, for effective program delivery, or because it is otherwise warranted by the public interest." However, the order also caps the number of federal advisory committees not affiliated with regulatory agencies at 350. Finally, the order exempts any agency with fewer than three current eligible committees and allows agencies to count committees terminated since January 20, 2017.

This post is also published at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/federal-advisory-committees-risk-another-blow-steve-pierson/?published=t. See other ASA Science Policy blog entries. For ASA science policy updates, follow @ASA_SciPol on Twitter. 
0 comments
20 views

Permalink