Advice without dissent at the DOD.

Abstract

The Bush administration has moved unwisely to assure scientific advice without dissent in the Department of Defense (DOD), a situation that may be more serious than the instance at the Department of Health and Human Services cited by D. Michaels et al. in their Editorial “Advice without dissent” (25 Oct., p. [703][1]). Last fall, I was part of a group, most of whom had been consultants to the Army Science Board (ASB), who were nominated to become full members of that Board, which is composed of scientists, engineers, and retired flag-rank military whose mission is to advise the Army on technical matters. The Army passed our names to the White House Liaison Office in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) after the Army's approval. Once there, however, about a dozen of us were disapproved. I learned from an ASB colleague that there is a Web site ( ) that is being used to see the names of donors to political campaigns. I was also told by a member of the ASB staff that I was supposed to have contributed to Senator John McCain's campaign—the reason for my being disapproved. I went to the Web site (still active) and saw that a William S. Howard, a retiree from Fairfax, VA, had contributed twice for a total of $1000 to McCain's campaign. Because “S” is not my middle initial, I do not live in Fairfax, VA, and the zip code listed on the Web site is not the same as mine, and because I had made no such contributions, I asked the ASB to try to reverse the OSD decision. They demurred, saying that they did not want to upset the OSD White House Liaison Office. The Editorial by Michaels et al. is right on the mark. I wonder if the problem is broader than this. The country is not being well served by any administration's policy of seeking advice only from a group of scientists and engineers who have passed the administration's political litmus test. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.298.5594.703