Sherman agrees with Apter that administrators of one sort or another are heavily represented on the advisory committees, but he claims that at a preliminary review level the reviewers are "in the forefront of research." He also admits that summaries of grant applications are not universally filed in the public Science Information Exchange; but he claims that public meeting notices are published in the Federal Register (although he concedes such publication is a "ponderous" procedure). Apter's most interesting arguments deal with the philosophy of scientific research and whether it should be open. She claims NIH's contention it keeps some meetings closed to protect scientist-applicants from having their ideas stolen is not valid. (NIH invokes the trade screts provision of 552 (b) to keep meetings closed.) Honest scientists, she claims, do not try to monopolize ideas for egotistical or financial gain; the more openness and intellectual interbreeding, the better. Sherman disagrees: "Because research scientists and academic clinicians owe their advancement and standing in the scientific community to their original contributions, their creative ideas are of critical importance, and research scientists carefully protect their ideas." He adds that competition is as valuable in scientific research as it is in economic activity, and thus "research designs and protocols are regarded and treated as proprietary information. · . . If we are to encourage vigorous competition in health research, the NIH review system. . . must be sustained" That argument is often made. But privately-and sometimes publicly-officials say the real problem is one of the freedom of scientists to communicate with one another, a freedom they think would be severely strictured if reporters or members of the public were present. This is not due to any inherent need for secrecy, but rather to the way journalists and the public might receive the communications of the scientists. "New Cancer Cure," a headline might scream after an NIH study-section meeting, and the justification for the headline might be slim, indeed. Some thoughtful journalists recently have been confessing in articles in journalism reviews that after a time they automatically begin to think in terms of the big story that will please the editor and the headline writers. Newspaper reporters sometimes write two stories or more daily-often on unrelated subjects. Even larger newspapers, which to a degree can assign writers to more limited subject matter, still often have reporters hopping from one subject to another. All this militates in favor of lick-and-promise treatment of scientific stories that are immensely complex and require daily attention over several weeks before they can truly be grasped. Julia Apter's story about NIH is a case in point; a newspaper reporter told this writer he had given the story limited coverage because it would require several days of checking and then "probably wouldn't make the front page anyway." Much as he favors openness, Chvotkin admitted he has doubts about the value to reporters of actually covering the NIH meetings even if they were open; he considers open meetings to be an advantage mainly to individuals, such as members of public-interest law firms, who need specific information for a specific public purpose. But it seems likely that with good will on both sides, really meaningful communication could take place between scientists and the public in an entirely open scientific atmosphere, although the communication might take some time to develop. One immense advantage members of the press or the public have over scientists, says Apter, is that they would be willing to ask dumb questions. "Scientists are often afraid to ask questions of other scientists," she says. They're afraid they might look ignorant." EXHIBIT 17b [From Science News, Oct. 7, 1972] ATTENDING AN OPEN MEETING OF A FORMERLY CLOSED SCIENCE COMMITTEE: A REPORTER'S VIEW (By Everly Driscoll) "We'll feel our way along this morass somehow," sighed William A. Fowler. chairman of the physical sciences committee, an advisory group to NASA, at the start of its first open meeting. Seven of the 12 committee members were present, plus the usual NASA personnel, a scientist who wished to present the details of an experiment he wants to fly on Apollo 17, and one member of the press. The meeting had been announced only three days before in the Federal Register. NASA plans in the future to give a one-week to two-week notice, says one official. On this rather humid Texas day, the committee was meeting for the first time at the Lunar Science Institute in Houston. The institute used to be the mansion of James Marion West ("Silver Dollar Jim"). It overlooks Clear Lake, adjacent to the Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC), and is the site for many of the lunar and planetary "think" sessions where scientists meet to discuss, most often in private, their latest experimental results and theories. The Italian Renaissancestyled mansion is almost clubby in decor. Fowler began by rearranging the approved agenda to accommodate an executive session he now felt he needed because a member of the press was present. (Executive sessions are not open to the public.) It was already obvious that even without the unscheduled executive session, the committee would have a hard time completing all items on the agenda in two days. If a closed session were worked in, something would have to go. "We won't get around to the 'thrust for space research in the 1980's' [item 7 on the agenda]. We have too many problems left in the 1970's," the chairman noted. "We have to have an executive session," Fowler said to the senior NASA official present. "Does Homer Newell [associate administrator for NASA who has to approve advisory committee agendas] have to approve an executive session?" The answer was yes. While the NASA official looked through the text of the Presidential order for the rules governing closed meetings, the chairman listed four items he wanted to discuss the atomic clock experiment proposals, problems of the physics and astronomy program, the composition and function of the committee, and the current NASA budget problems. "I don't understand why some of these items should be discussed in executive session," one committeeman said. Answer: "I rule these sound to me like executive session and that's that. They can fire me." (Laughter because he had already announced his plan to retire from the committee.) According to interpretation of the Presidential order by the NASA official present, the consideration of the proposed clock experiment for Apollo 17 and the role and membership of the committee could be discussed in a closed session. He left the meeting to make one of several calls to Newell in Washington. "It appears to me we must become guard-house lawyers very quickly," quipped one scientist. "It sounds to me that if there is no public interest in the items, we will discuss them in public; if the public is interested, we will do it in private," observed another. "Things are confusing." And that was the end of the official response of the physical sciences committee to the new ruling about open advisory meetings. The NASA official returned saying Washington would call back with the approval or disapproval of a closed session. Based on this experience, I surmised that NASA would take steps to see that such "quickly" closed sessions weren't requested in the future. I had been told before my trip to Houston that no executive session was on the agenda. During this awkward beginning, it was difficult not to sympathize with the apparent struggle of the committee. Although the committee members were aware of the Presidential order, they were not really prepared for the consequences. "This sort of changes the role of the adviser to the advisee," one scientist told me during a brief break. "We are used to arguing, debating and evaluating the NASA physical science policies without fear of misinterpretation by the public. Our opinions are given to NASA and they are either accepted or rejected. Now we will have to measure our words more carefully." Another scientist walked up and tried rather apologeticaly to explain to me their dilemma. "It's not you," he explained. “You are just the first. What if you were the vice president of an industry that NASA contracts with regularly? What if you were an alumnus of one of our universities and you contributed heavily to our school, and you wanted to be sure our advice to NASA is what you wanted? And some members of the press are notorious for their penchant for controversial topics. . . ." The executive session was approved for later that day and I was asked not to attend. (It would last only two hours.) The meeting then resumed. Only one other related question came up one that appears to bother some well-meaning scientists. A NASA official was presenting the results of an experiment done with Mariner 9. He was interrupted and asked whether the scientists who had done the work knew the results were being presented to the public before presentation in a scientific journal. The answer was yes. The two-day meeting then proceeded smoothly. There was no apparent mincing of words. The committee was briefed on the current status of Mariner 9, NASA's hopes for a Jupiter-Saturn mission, the Viking Mars landing site committee's work, Viking instruments and how they were progressing, proposed Venus probes and possible cooperative efforts with ESRO (European Space Research Organization). The Large Space Telescope (LST), the High-Energy Astronomical Observatory (HEAO), and future solar observatories, small astronomy satellites and interplanetary monitoring platforms (IMPS) were discussed. John Naugle, associate administrator for space sciences at NASA headquarters, outlined the current cuts in NASA funding (imposed by the Office of Management and Budget in August) and the deletions and rearrangements of various programs as a result. Committee members toured the new facilities for housing moon rocks an MSC, which they evaluated afterward as "barely adequate." (One response: "So that is where the moon rocks are kept!") A lengthy discussion followed about budget and personnel cuts that had affected the curatorial facilities. Recommendations were written and approved. The committee was briefed on a summer study of the combined assets of the Apollo program and proposals for the use of the Apollo returns after the last Apollo mission in December. Scientific uses of the shuttle were briefly discussed. The meeting was informal, open, rewarding and informative to me as a space sciences writer. Except for those awkward early moments the first day, the chairman and the vice-chairman both assumed a low-key approach that encouraged uninhibited debate. "I was really surprised at how uninhibited the remarks were," remarked one NASA observer after the meetings. "Your presence didn't seem to curb them at all." Evidently the scientists had decided business as usual. They had not staged the meetings, softened their criticisms or camouflaged their doubts. That they would go underground had been my principal fear. APPENDIX III PRINTING OF FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE U.S. SENATE, Washington, D.C., November 1, 1973. Mr. Roy L. ASH, Director, Office of Management and Budget Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. ASH: The Subcommittee on Budgeting, Management and Expenditures has oversight responsibility for the operation and effectiveness of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (P.L. 92-463). Pursuant to section 6 (c) of that Act, and the provisions of Executive Order No. 11686, dated 6 October 1972, OMB prepared the first annual report on advisory committees for the President. That report was transmitted to the Congress on 2 April of this year. In part, the purpose of this reporting requirement is to allow for widespread distribution of the collected information. However, only four complete sets of the first report were available one each for the Senate, House of Representatives, Library of Congress and OMB. I recognize, of course, that OMB did not have much time to prepare the first annual report. The material you provided in compliance with the act was published as a four part Senate Government Operations Committee print. The Subcommittee and your agency have already distributed almost five hundred complete sets of this report to Members of Congress, Congressional Committees, executive departments and libraries. In addition, an index of names and affiliations is being prepared and will also be published. Shortly after the new year, the Office of Management and Budget will again begin collecting the information required for the annual report. I urge that you take the necessary steps now to insure that adequate resources are made available to the Committee Management Secretariat within OMB to facilitate the compilation, processing, analyzing, printing and distribution of the President's second annual report. The groundwork done by our Subcommittee should be useful to your staff in its preparation of the forthcoming report. The Subcommittee staff will be willing to work with your staff to insure that copies of the printed reports are available within the statutorily mandated timeframe. Very truly yours, LEE METCALF. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, Hon. LEE METCALF, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR METCALF: Thank you for your letter of November 1, 1973, concerning the annual report of advisory committees required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (P.L. 92-463). We appreciate the Subcommittee's having printed the complete report of advisory committees last year, despite the considerable bulk of the data involved. Where this year's report is concerned, our present intention is to provide to the Senate, the House and the Library of Congress complete sets of the Information specified by Section 6(c) of the Act. At the same time, we will provide a printed summary listing executive branch advisory committees by agency, making this document available for public sale through the Government Printing Office, as we did last year. In addition, we are examining alternative ways of making advisory committee data more readily available to the public, and printing the entire report is one of these alternatives. In this connection, the work done in this field by your Subcommittee undoubtedly will be instructive to us. I appreciate the offer of your staff's assistance in the preparation of the annual report, and I expect we will be able to make use of their knowledge in this field. I understand our staffs have worked well in cooperation with one another in the implementation of the Act, and I hope this cooperation will continue. Sincerely, ROY L. ASH, Director. |