Presidential Panel Urges Upgrade Of Science Appointments

The diminishing capacity of the government to recruit top candidates for key government scientific positions has "long-term consequences ... very serious for the nation," a recent report issued by the Panel on Presidentially Appointed Scientists and Engineers states. "There is considerable evidence of increasing difficulty in recruiting ... highly qualified appointees," according to "Science and Technology Leadership in American Government," and this has "a significant and harmful effect on the government's ability to manage ongoing problems and to undertake new initiatives." The panel, created by the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP), a joint committee of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine, issued its 90- page report in March, and its conclusions were far from comforting to scientists. In short, says panel member Robert Seamans, Jr., a senior lecturer in the department of aeronautics and astronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, "we've got to keep our eye on excellence," turning attention away from the thicket of laws and regulations that have made top-flight scientists increasingly reluctant to take government jobs. Seamans, who served in government positions under four administrations, has seen from experience what the problems are. "Because of a certain number of unfortunate examples" of appointees who took unscrupulous advantage of their positions, "we now try to legislate quality, to commandeer people who'll be perfect in all regards," he says. But in doing so, he says, "the more stipulations you put on, the less chance there is of really getting a first-rate person to do the job." The regulations he refers to are the maze of laws that stipulate in Byzantine detail what an appointee can and cannot do, both during the term of appointment and after he or she steps down. For example, according to the report, government employees leaving the Defense Department can find themselves subject to up to 10 postemployment restrictions, making it difficult to determine their futures. Many good candidates are understandably unwilling to have their future prospects rendered so uncertain. "In the effort to make everyone as clean as a hound's tooth, you pass laws that make it impossible to get good people," Seamans laments. It's not just the laws, though; the appointment process, he says, is problematical every step of the way. First, he says, because the jobs are difficult and the regulations stringent, "companies and universities discourage their people" from even considering appointments. Second, Seamans points out, "when someone does throw their hat in the ring, it's such a long, drawn-out process, with such detailed personal and financial information dragged out" by committees and investigators, that many candidates are discouraged. Says Seamans: "You get some junior person from the White House calling a very senior scientist, who has accomplished a great deal, and asking, `How do you feel about pro-choice or pro-life questions?' The scientist says, `I don't have to sell my soul to take this job.' " Then, of course, "if it's an important job it's a bruising job," Seamans says, so the work itself is difficult. And finally, he notes, "when they get out, they're constrained in what they can do." The report also cites noncompetitive salaries, the high costs of living in Washington, D.C., and "lower public esteem for and prestige of public service" as factors inhibiting the recruitment of "highly qualified scientists, engineers, and medical experts from the private sector" for major government science positions. Although such a job description is unlikely to encourage top scientists to pursue or accept presidential appointments, the report maintains that it is crucial to search outside of government for the best candidates. "If you're going to rely on civil servants" to fill top science appointments, "you never get any fresh blood," Seamans says. "Our future depends on aggressive, proper use of scientific capabilities," and that use can be made only by top-rank technical people. The report strongly suggests reducing "the hurdles and disincentives" in the appointment process to make scientists more likely to get top positions by making the laws less complex and removing some of the political questions from the search process. It also urges search committees to improve outreach to the scientific community and to restructure jobs to be more attractive--especially by ensuring that top government scientists "can see their expert judgment effectively coupled with policy-making." But at the essence of scientists' taking leadership position in government, says Seamans, is responsibility. "A dean or provost used to go and work in the government a few years, and then go back to his [or her] job," he says. "It's good to have people taking responsibility by serving on these committees." He uses as an example of a great appointment that of C. Everett Koop as surgeon general. Despite the bitter struggle that attended his choice, Koop served, Seamans says, "truly in the public interest," as he hopes more scientists would do if the process were less damaging. "There are 60 or 70 [presidentially appointed scientific] jobs," he says. "If you could get 30 people of that dimension--think of what a difference it would make to the country." "Science and Technology Leadership in American Government" (Washington, National Academy Press, 1992) is available from the National Academy Press, at (800) 624-6242.

Presidential Panel Urges Upgrade Of Science Appointments

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of