Mr. President, What About...?

Boston-Scientists who advise the president face a dilemma. Their advice must remain confidential if it is to be useful. Yet their authority ultimately is derived from public acceptance of their technical expertise. Last month, at the annual meeting here of the Amencan Association for the Advancement of Science, a distinguished panel of past and present science advisers discussed how best to advise the president. Although the day-long symposium was spawned by the frustration and disappointment many scientists feel toward the perceived weakness of the current mechanism, the panelists could not agree on any of the major issues or structures proposed. Among the topics they wrestled with were: "Structure—The current White House Science Council needs to be replaced with an updated version of the Presidential Science Advisory Council created by President Eisenhower and dissolved by President Nixon, suggested Harvard’s Lewis Branscomb, former chairman of the National Science Board. Branscomb and other experts have argued that the present council is limited in scope and lacks the confidence of many scientists. Not so, replied White House science adviser William Graham. The two bodies fill essentially the same roles, he said, and arguments about their differences “remind me of debates about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.” As for access, Graham said his staff has sat in on every important debate that involved science and technology issues. "Urgency—The United States may shortly become a debtor nation in science unless it addresses the pressing problems of technological decline, a pending man-power shortage and an inability to apply its knowledge to meet competitive needs, said William Carey, former AAAS executive officer. That will not happen, he argued, until science policy throws off its junior partner status and moves on a level with social, economic and national security policies. Wrong, replied H. Guyford Steverr, former director of the National Science Foundation and adviser to four presidents. “We have a stronger science and technology base and more powerful scientific infrastructure than most people realize,” he said. “Every so often we review the social contract between science and the federal government, and we’re going through one of those times right now.” Stever scolded his colleagues for their reluctance to serve in Washington because of their distaste for the political pressures that accom- pany such senior advisory jobs. Top scientists must be willing to direct relevant agencies and hold top positions, he said, if they expect to shape policy. "Authority—Scientific advisers would do well to adopt a revised Hippocratic Oath that reads, “First get the facts straight,” suggested David Hamburg, president of the Carnegie Corporation. “Embedded in the concept of providing sound advice is the need for a mechanism that ensures a steady flow of information” to key decisionmakers, he said. It must come from people who have earned a reputation for integrity and who have built up a competent staff that can outline and anticipate issues, he added, “not simply scratch where it itches.” The desire for a reconstituted PSAC is an anachronism, countered Harvard’s Ashton Carter. That so-called “golden age” of presidential advice, when strongly independent advisers held a monopoly on scientific wisdom in a time when technology was seen as benevolent, has long since passed, he said. “Technical advice is now standard fare for policy decisions,” he said. “The problem is not getting a hearing, but rather distinguishing one voice from another amidst all the noise.” Lots of Choices Despite their failure to reach a consensus, the speakers provided potential science advisers with a wealth of ideas about the process. Carey suggested that the nation’s worsening economic problems might trigger emergency solutions, including an organization along the lines of DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) that would mobilize resources throughout science. But he cautioned the audience that substance was more important than structure. “We need to decide what we want it to do,” he said, “not simply what we want it to look like.” Graham, in response to a question about how the Office of Science and Technology Policy could do a better job, talked candidly about the need to improve scientific understanding within international affairs. [Indian President] Rajiv Gandhi commented during a state visit last year that he expects science and technology to be the foundation of future relations between his country and the United States,” he said. Although OSTP plays a major role in shaping the scientific component of international exchanges, Graham said, the scientific capacities of State Department officials need to be improved. Several speakers proposed an invigorated PSAC and Cabinet status for the OSTP director. Branscomb put forward a suggestion from Harvard’s Harvey Brooks that the National Science Board provide advice on allocating federal science resources. That delegation of authority, he said, would leave OSTP free to concentrate on public policy questions that embrace technological issues. In the midst of the general call for scientists to play a larger role in shaping policy, Joshua Lederberg, president of The Rockefeller University, reminded participants of a political reality. "There is no way a president can be forced to listen to advice with which he disagrees,” he said. “We need to convince him that our input is valuable, and that it may also be wise politically. Mervis is on the staff of THE SCIENTIST. The opinions of 85 scientific advisers, including most of the AAAS panelists, appear is a new book, Science and Technology Advice to the President, Congress and the Judiciary, edfted by William T. Golden. Pergamon Press, Elmsford, N.Y., 1988. 523 pp. $49.95 hardcover, $24.95 softcover.

Mr. President, What About...?

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of