INDEPENDENT SCIENCE ADVICE FOR THE LEGISLATURE

Henry Kelly has an op-ed piece in the Washington Post today titled “No Substitute for Sound Science”. He calls to the U.S. Congress to create a body to provide it independent scientific advice. He notes the inadequacy of current systems to provide the legislature with information in support of initiatives such as the limitation on stem cell research.

There was an Office of Technology Assessment that carried out independent studies at the request of the legislature, but it was abolished in 1995. Its reports are still available on the OTA Legacy site.

Currently the Congress obtains scientific input through its committee and hearing processes. The result is that it gets scientific reports from parties with financial or ideological interests in legislation, from professional societies, and from executive agencies. Since there are very few scientists in Congress, and relatively few scientifically trained staff members, many of us worry about Congressional capacity to sort out the varieties of advice received.

Of course the executive branch of government in the U.S. has the capacity to obtain internal and external scientific advice. It publishes huge numbers of scientific reports each year. Most Departments and Agencies have their own scientific advisory bodies. However, there is increasing distrust of the way in which scientific information is presented by the Administration, and of the disinterestedness of the appointees by the Administration to these bodies.

The United States has a system by which the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine provide balanced scientific and technological advice at the request of the government. The executive branch of government can draw upon this source directly, while the legislative branch can require the executive branch to charter specific advisory studies. Still, this mechanism will not answer all needs for scientific advice – it is relatively slow, tends to seek consensus rather than expose alternative views, and is best suited for rather large issues.

Again, in the U.S. system the Library of Congress supports the legislative branch, and its Congressional Research Service can be asked for information on scientific issues. These reports are prepared by LoC staff and, in my opinion, are not as forward looking as might be desired to meet the needs of the legislature, and do not provide as substantive a scientific or technological consensus as do the National Academies/

If the United States is having this kind of problem providing scientific advice to its legislature, I can only imagine the problems of poor, developing nations. Yet the issues faced by these countries really require scientific advice for legislative bodies. Think about the decision of East African governments last year as to whether to accept or reject donations of foods that might contain the products of genetically modified plants, or the decision of Southern African nations to begin providing anti-retroviral therapy for AIDS patients!

The Inter Academy Panel on International Issues is a start to institutionalizing the needed advisory systems, as are the Third World Academy of Sciences and the African Academy of Sciences.

I don’t have a solution, other than to encourage donors and developing nations to help build scientific advisory capabilities in and for developing nations.