According to Science, advisory committees are “the primary mechanism for government agencies to harness the wisdom and expertise of the scientific community in shaping the national agenda for both research and regulation.” The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requires that federal committees be “fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented” and provide advice that “will not be inappropriately influenced by the appointing authority or by any special interest.” Yet instead of seeking quality advice from expert appointments, the Bush Administration has:

	appointed people with scant scientific credentials but strong industry ties;
	appointed nonexperts with right-wing ideological agendas;
	stacked advisory committees with numerous pro-industry or ideological appointees;
	opposed the appointment or reappointment of qualified experts, including some of the most respected scientists in their fields, on the basis of political litmus tests.

Lewis Branscomb, who served as President Nixon's director of the National Bureau of Standards has commented, "I'm not aware that [Nixon] ever hand-picked ideologues to serve on advisory committees, or dismissed from advisory committees very well-qualified people if he didn't like their views.... What's going on now is in many ways more insidious. It happens behind the curtain. I don't think we've had this kind of cynicism with respect to objective scientific advice since I've been watching government, which is quite a long time."[1]
 

[1]Politics in the lab hits US scientific integrity, Christian Science Monitor (Jan. 6, 2004).