In recent years, there has been a substantial change in the number and breadth of issues coming before the US President that require science and technology (S&T) knowledge and judgement. S&T appointees can be crucial in assisting the next President in addressing the inevitable issues raised by the end of the Cold War and the evolution of the “new economy,” from new technical issues of missile defense to the changing role of regulation in telecommunications and biotechnology.

The federal government plays an increasingly important role in nurturing scientific and technological advancements and bringing their full benefits to society. At the same time, insights generated by research empower government decision-making in most major domains, from economic productivity and national security to public health, the environment, and agriculture by providing the data and analysis needed to make better decisions. The President needs the wise guidance of scientific and technical experts to achieve the nation's policy goals in these areas.

The United States stands virtually alone among the industrialized nations in filling a wide variety of federal S&T positions with appointees selected by the President. In most advanced countries, these positions are held by career government employees, and the election of new political leadership brings the replacement of only the heads of cabinet departments. The American system of government requires the selection of thousands of new appointees every few years. ¹ At the highest levels, these appointees are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate (and are known as PAS appointees).

The Presidential appointment system brings both benefits and drawbacks. Among its benefits are the enhanced ability of a president to carry out his policy agenda and the introduction to Washington of fresh ideas and new energy. Among its drawbacks are the difficulty of persuading talented leaders outside Washington to set aside their careers for a term in government and the challenge of making effective use of the time of these appointees during their terms in office.

In 1992, a previous panel of the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP) wrote a report titled Science and Technology Leadership in American Government: Ensuring the Best Presidential Appointments. This report plus several other excellent reports (some focusing on science and technology, others concerning all presidential appointees) had findings virtually identical with those described below.

In its 1988 report Science & Technology and the President, the Carnegie Commission on Science and Technology recommended that, because of the significance and pervasiveness of S&T in presidential decision-making and the increased complexity of technological issues, “the S&T advisory function to the President not be fragmented and that there be a single senior staff assistant reporting to the President on S&T matters with the title of Assistant to the President for Science and Technology [APST].” That recommendation was followed, and later directors of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) also held the APST rank.

The Carnegie Commission also identified key presidential S&T appointments, as did COSEPUP in its 1992 analysis. But the key report in this regard was The Prune Book: The 60 Toughest Science and Technology Jobs in Washington, which provided descriptions of the positions and lists of the persons who held them.

General reports not focused on S&T were also issued. The most important was from the Twentieth Century Fund in 1996, Obstacle Course: The Report of the Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on the Presidential Appointment Process.

The most recent data on this issue have been generated for a joint project of the Brookings Institution and the Heritage Foundation, which interviewed appointees in the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations. The report, The Merit and Reputation of an Administration: Presidential Appointees on the Appointments Process, provides valuable insights into the recruitment of current and previous presidential appointees.

The authors of this report are scientists and engineers who have served in senior positions in the federal government in Washington, DC, and who have found their experience to be stimulating and satisfying. They encourage their colleagues in all sectors to make contributions in government service. To that end, this report seeks to make government service more accessible and fair for leading scientists and engineers and for appointees in other fields.

This panel's report is intentionally brief and does not attempt to repeat the documentation of the 1992 report or of the other reports noted above. The appendix is provided to supplement the printed version with additional examples and supportive evidence for the key findings. The appendix is organized around each finding and subfinding in the main report. The support for each comes from both the reports mentioned and new analyses conducted by the panel.

Mary Good

Panel Chair