Optimum size for a science advisory panel

There is an interesting set of recommendations for the incoming Presidential Council of Science Advisors by the outgoing panel. In evaluating these recommendations, it would be well to recognize the special characteristics of the presidential science advisors.

• They had the clout to meet with most of the Bush administration cabinet secretaries.
• They had the Office of Science and Technology Policy (which in turn could call upon the rest of the government one supposes) to provide staff support.
• They had a budget that would allow them to convene Technical Advisory Groups of 40 or more experts to help on each of their studies.
• They had the clout of the White House to get participation from members, technical advisors, and attention from the recipients of their advice.

The Council did the very reasonable thing of meeting with their principals to discover what advice was wanted before setting their agenda. They also reasonably let advice on military technology remain the domain of DoD advisory panels, although they did assume the role of a national advisory committee on information technology and nanotechnology (which I assume added a lot of detailed work to what should have been an already full schedule.

The report states that the Council grew too large, and that the number of members might be limited to the low 20s. They also suggested that there was a lot of work needed from each member, and that there is a need to replace the members unable or unwilling to do all that is appropriate. (Apparently most members served for eight years, which seems too long to me.)

The report was favorable about the role of OSTP, of the TAGs, and of the linkages with the agencies.

The Bush administration's Council was heavy on people involved in technology and light on scientists. Of course the optimal composition of a science advisory panel depends on the advice required of it. Technological innovation is important to the American economy, and the Bush administration was more likely to act on technological advice than on scientific advice. The Obama administration will have to consider its own needs and interests.

I fear that the Bush administration refused to hear advice on the importance of climate change and the potential in stem cell research that it needed. An administration need not follow advice but it should not be deaf to opposing views, and certainly an advisory panel should not feel the requirement to be unanimous in its advice.