New Science Adviser Sees Strong Ties To Bush, Public Support As Keys To Job

WASHINGTON—The president’s new science adviser believes that the federal government doesn’t do an adequate job of dealing with the scientific and technical issues facing the country. The science adviser can play an important role in improving that situation, says Yale nuclear physicist Allan Bromley, if he is able to develop a close relationship with key figures in the Bush administration, oyersee a staff large enough to tackle those issues, and build public support for science. Bromley has maintained a low profile since April 20, when President Bush announced his intention (see The Scientist, May 15, 1989, page 3) to nominate Bromley as director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, succeeding William Graham. Bromley’s first public appearance is expected to be before the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, as part of the confirmation process for that position. Bush has said that the job will carry with it the additional duties of assistant to the president for science and technology, a title that gives Bromley a chance to influence all science policy-making in the White House. The 63-year-old academic is no novice in dealing with the issues that are likely to cross his desk. A member of the White House Science Council since its formation in 1981, Bromley has been an active player on the national and international science policy scene for more than a decade and is a past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Although reluctant to speak publicly before he is confirmed, he has addressed many of these issues in the past, most directly in a 1987 speech at the University of Virginia that was part of a series of forums sponsored by the White Burkett Miller Center on Public Policy and published under the title, ‘The Presidency and Science Advising.” Bromley talks freely in that lecture (see story, page 3) about what is right—and wrong—with the current state of science advising. He lavishes praise on George (“Jay”) Keyworth, Reagan’s first science adviser, for Keyworth’s success in building close ties to top administration officials but criticizes him for being a White House cheerleader on such issues as SDI. He brands the State Department “as a disaster area” for its failure to recognize the importance of science and technology in carrying out the nation’s foreign policy objectives. And he complains about how much needs to be done to promote scientific understanding within the federal government, citing the “gross understaffmg” of the tiny Office of Science and Technology Policy and the “absence of specific requests” for advice from the nearly invisible White House Science Council. Much of his 1987 speech was devoted to exploring how a science adviser should do his or her job. ‘The goal of the science adviser is not that of representing science and technology,” he says, “but of being able to inject science and technology into major policy discussions and decisions where it has relevance and where the other players might not even recognize its relevance. Critical to this role is having access to these discussions.” He adds that the adviser “must walk a fine line” between being seen as a spokesman for the scientific community and merely carrying Out the wishes of the inner circle of presidential advisers. On the sensitive issue of the military’s role in federal research spending, Bromley argues for increased cooperation between the defense and civilian sectors. He believes that support for science and technology in the post-World War II era stemmed largely from a “vague feeling [by the public] that they were important for defense and for national security,” an attitude that he says “was destroyed” by the Vietnam War and never resurrected. But he is sharply critical of most attempts to classify scientific information. Such measures not only foster mistrust and confusion among the public, he says, but they also “hurt us more than any potential adversary.” Bromley also speaks openly about a topic that is rarely discussed in public—the proper balance among scientific disciplines in advising the president. He deplores the over-representation through the years of physicists on such bodies as the President’s Science Advisory Council, pointing out that “the life sciences must be brought in more strongly than they are now.” But he professes to holding conflicting views on the value of social and behavioral scientists, saying that on the, one hand, their thinking is often incompatible with those in the natural sciences, but that, on the other hand, their knowledge is crucial to solving most of the pressing technical problems of the day. Inadvertently, Bromley also addresses the current worry among some lobbyists that the announcement of the appointment three months after the inauguration reflects a low priority for science. Although administration officials say such fears are groundless, Bromley’s 1987 views about a previous officeholder’s problems at the outset add some credence to the view that earlier is better. “The science adviser is usually listened to as an expert when it comes to appointing scientists and engineers to senior positions in the federal government,” Bromley notes. “Keyworth was handicapped in this area from the very beginning,” he says, ..... because most of the people in the agencies were already in place when he arrived.” Although Bromley’s comments Were made two years before he will be taking on his new duties, the re actions of outside analysts suggest that his words have not lost their value. Keyworth, who brought Bromley onto the White House Science Council and calls him “one of its most effective members,” agrees that Bromley’s first job is to make himself a valuable addition to the White House staff. “He needs to recognize that he is the senior technical adviser within the goyemment,” says Keyworth, now at the Hudson Institute in indianapolis. “That means building up ties with the key players in this arena, including [Chief of Staff John] Sununu, [National Security Adviser Brent] Scowcroft, [defense secretary Richard] Cheney, [energy secretary Adrn. James] Watkins, [National Science Foundation director] Erich Bloch, and every’ other administrator for whom science is important.” Keyworth says that staffing the office and setting up a network of advisers are secondary matters. “He’s done his job if the decisions of the Bush administration reflect the fact that science and technology issues were addressed,” says Keyworth about measuring the effectiveness of a science adviser. “Things like his budget and the nature of his staff are non-issues.” Christopher Hill, senior analyst at the Congressional Research Service, adds key members of Congress to the list of politicians that Bromley must cultivate. And Hill feels strongly that Bromley needs to compensate for his relative ignorance in some areas by attracting the right mix of staff. “He needs seasoned deputies, some of whom should be Washington insiders, in such areas as industrial technology, national defense, biotechnology, and social science.” Although some observers have expressed surprise that the Bush administration would select someone who lacked close ties to industry, industrial scientists seem delighted by his background. “He’s smart, he’s experienced, he’s knowledgeable about the science policy issues, and he’s not shy about speaking up,” says William Brinkman, vice president for physics research at AT&T Bell Labs. “He’s an excellent choice,” adds Roland Schmitt, former senior scientist at General Electric and new chairman of CORETECH, a two-year-old consortium of corporations and universities that advocates changes in the tax laws affecting industrial research and increased spending on training and basic research. “He’ll be able to draw on the resources of the entire scientific community.” Whatever he has to say, Bromley will say it to a small group of insiders. A science adviser quickly loses his authority, Bromley believes, if he can’t get along with the rest of the team. “The president desperately needs good science advice,” he said in the Miller Lecture. “But no mechanism can be suocessful in getting advice to the president if the president doesn’t want it, or if the chemistry [between the two] doesn’t match.”

New Science Adviser Sees Strong Ties To Bush, Public Support As Keys To Job

Become a Member of

Meet the Author

Jeffrey Mervis

Published In

May 1989

Related Research Resources

How Do Embryos Know How Fast to Develop

Research Resources

Podcasts

Webinars

Videos

Infographics

eBooks

Become a PCR Pro

Genetic Insights Break Infectious Pathogen Barriers

Navigating Cold Storage Solutions

The Immunology of the Brain

Products

Product News

Sapio Sciences Makes AI-Native Drug Discovery Seamless with NVIDIA BioNeMo

New DeNovix Helium Nano Volume Spectrophotometer

Olink® Reveal: Accessible NGS-based proteomics for every lab

Zymo Research Launches the Quick-16S™ Full-Length Library Prep Kit