The Bush administration's practice of screening some potential government science advisers about their political views is improper, the nation's top science organization says.

In a strongly worded report and public comments last week, members of a National Academies of Science and Engineering panel said quizzing candidates for federal science advisory committees about their voting record or party affiliation or whether they agree with the president's policies is "not relevant" and in some cases may be illegal.

Asking such questions is "no more appropriate . . . than to ask them other personal information that is immaterial, such as hair color or height," the nonpartisan panel's chairman, former U.S. Rep. John Porter, an Illinois Republican, said at a news briefing.

"We believe it is important at this critical time that science and technology advice to the federal government be - and be seen as - impartial and independent," Porter said.

During the past year, scientists, professional organizations and government watchdog groups have vigorously complained about the political vetting of advisory committee nominees. They contend it is part of a pattern by the administration to suppress, distort or manipulate scientific analyses that conflict with President Bush's policies, especially in controversial areas such as climate change and reproductive medicine.

More than 5,000 scientists, including 48 Nobel Prize winners, have signed a letter accusing the Bush administration of undermining the scientific advisory process.

The White House has insisted that there is no attempt to stifle scientific dissent.

"We welcome the [National Academies] report as a useful guide to improving the federal appointment process," Robert Hopkins, a spokesman for Bush science adviser John Marburger, said Friday.

The government regularly asks outside scientists and engineers to serve on committees that advise the White House or federal agencies on technical matters. Appointments may be made by the president, members of his staff or agency administrators.

There are several hundred such committees. The subjects they deal with can be as routine as deciding which research projects deserve to get money or as high-profile as assessing the impact of global warming or why the space shuttle was destroyed.

The committees don't determine policy themselves; rather, they identify issues, gather information and provide recommendations to policy-makers.

In cases where an advisory committee reports directly to the president, Marburger believes "it is appropriate to know people's opinions and perspectives on certain issues" to ensure that committee is diverse and balanced, Hopkins said.

Marburger "has also said there are instances where those types of questions aren't appropriate," Hopkins said. "Whenever it has occurred, if it has occurred, appropriate actions have been taken." He would not elaborate.

Federal law requires that advisory committees' membership reflect a balanced viewpoint and independent judgment. However, a nominee's voting record or political party membership does not necessarily predict his or her stance on a particular issue, the National Academies panel said.

In addition, using an applicant's political affiliation to determine whether the person is worthy to serve on an advisory committee may violate federal law in some cases, the Government Accountability Office has determined.

Science advisory committee nominees ought to be judged only on their professional expertise and personal integrity, the National Academies panel said.

But some interviews have taken a decidedly political bent.

Oceanographer Sharon Smith, an arctic ecology expert and chairwoman of the University of Miami's Division of Marine Biology and Fisheries, was nominated this year to serve on the Arctic Research Commission.

Members of the presidentially appointed panel advise the White House and Congress on arctic research issues. As the New York Times first reported, Smith got a call from the White House personnel office to review her credentials.

"The first and only question was, 'Do you support the president?' " Smith said in an interview with The Plain Dealer. "I was dumbfounded. My first response was that I was not supportive of his foreign and economic policies but that I didn't see what that had to with my being nominated, or with arctic science. After that, there were no other discussions. I realized the conversation was over.

"I've been on advisory committees before, and I've never had this kind of question," said Smith. "Forty years of work in ocean science, and you're excluded because you can't say 'I totally support the president of the United States,' which is a completely irrelevant question? I was so outraged."

Recent news reports and investigations by the minority staff of the House Committee on Government Reform and the Union of Concerned Scientists have documented other cases in which advisory committee candidates were asked political questions.

Stanford University biochemist Richard Myers and Baylor College of Medicine microbiologist George Weinstock were nominated in 2002 for seats on the National Institutes of Health's National Advisory Council for Human Genome Research.

Both men told the Union of Concerned Scientists that representatives of the secretary of health and human services questioned them about their political views, whether they supported stem cell research and what they thought about Bush.

Weinstock and Myers said they thought the questions were inappropriate and amounted to a political litmus test. Weinstock told the Union of Concerned Scientists that his answers must have been "innocuous enough to be palatable," and he was selected for the advisory committee.

Myers initially was turned down but later was accepted after he appealed to the committee's chairman.

© Copyright 2004 The Plain Dealer.

###