The 'Unveiling' of Science Committees

Abstract

Some odd things have been happening at the sometimes secret meetings of advisory committees to Federal agencies. Prof. Julia Apter of Rush Medical College of Chicago went to a Sept. 7 meeting of a pathology study section of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md.-uninvited and unannounced. An official in charge of the meeting sputtered, then adjourned the meeting rather than let her Two weeks later, SCIENCE NEWS space sciences reporter Everly Driscoll informed NASA officials of her intention to attend a meeting of the physical sciences advisory committee to NASA. She was admitted to the Houston, Tex., meeting. But committee members then made telephone calls to Washington to secure permission for a closed meeting and later went into executive session. Driscoll was informed she was not to attend the closed session. A year ago, another SCIENCE NEWS reporter, invoking the Freedom of Information Act of 1967, tried to enter a Pentagon meeting of the industrial advisory council to the Department of Defense. He was turned away with the excuse that we let one reporter in, we'd have to let 50 others in. The reporter left, suggesting to an official that DOD needed an auditorium. The Freedom of Information Act, which has loopholes, did not suffice in this last instance. Apparently Executive Order 11671, issued by President Nixon June 5, ostensibly opening Federal advisory committees to public scrutiny, did not suffice for Apter at NIH and only partially for Driscoll at NASA. On Sept. 21, the House gave final Congressional approval to the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The act's backers claim it would open advisory committee meetings to more press and public scrutiny than does the Presidential order. It was not clear early this week whether President Nixon intended to sign or veto the act. Some signs hinted at a veto; others, at reluctant approval. Bipartisan backers of the act, although disagreeing on many particulars, concurred that the executive order was inadequate; loopholes rendered it little more effective than the old Freedom of Information Act. For instance, the order contained no provision for verbatim 'transcripts to be made of meetings closed under exemptions from the order. The bill provides for such transcripts. Thus if someone should successfully challenge in court the legitimacy of the exemption for a particular meeting, he could be furnished the transcript. Nor did the order provide for the availability of transcripts of open meetings at duplication costs (an important omission since cheap microfiche copies of transcripts would make them available to almost everyone). The bill remedies this. Although there is disagreement