This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Web of Science (2) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Brown, M. B. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Fairly Balanced

The Politics of Representation on Government Advisory Committees

California State University, Sacramento, mark.brown{at}csus.edu

The United States Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requires advisory committees to be "fairly balanced." By examining legislative, judicial, and administrative interpretations of FACA's balance requirement, this article identifies a prevailing double standard: public officials assess committee members classified as experts in terms of their professional competence, while they assess those classified as representatives in terms of their political interests. Although the prevailing approach seeks to prevent the politicization of expert advice, it actually promotes it. Advisory committee balance is better understood, this article suggests, in terms of social and professional perspectives. This approach avoids both naively apolitical and destructively partisan conceptions of advisory committee balance. It also suggests a promising way to think about the role of technical expertise in public deliberation.

Key Words: Federal Advisory Committee Act • political representation • deliberative democracy • expertise

References

• Bohman, James. 1996. Public deliberation: Pluralism, complexity, and democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Brown, Mark. B. 2006. Citizen panels and the concept of representation. Journal of Political Philosophy 14 (2): 203-25.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Bybee, Jay S. 1994. Advising the president: Separation of powers and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Yale Law Journal 104 (1): 51-128.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). 2006. Ensuring independence and objectivity at the National Academies. Washington, DC: Center for Science in the Public Interest.
• Chubin, Daryl E., and Edward J. Hackett. 1990. Peerless science: Peer review and U.S. science policy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
• Congressional Research Service (CRS). 1978. Federal Advisory Committee Act source book: Legislative history, texts, and other documents. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
• Dryzek, John. 2000. Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Ezrahi, Yaron. 1980. Utopian and pragmatic rationalism: The political context of scientific advice. Minerva 18 (1980): 111-31.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Fung, Archon. 2003. Recipes for public spheres: Eight institutional design choices and their consequences. Journal of Political Philosophy 11 (3): 338-67.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• General Accounting Office (GAO). 2004. Federal advisory committees: Additional guidance could help agencies better ensure independence and balance (April). GAO-04-328. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office.
• General Services Administration (GSA). 2001. Federal Advisory Committee Management, Final Rule. 41 CFR Parts 101-6 and 102-3. Federal Register 66 (139): 37728-50.
• Glitzenstein, Eric R., and Patti A. Goldman. 1989. The Federal Advisory Committee Act at the crossroads. Washington, DC: Public Citizen.
• Government Accountability Office. 2004. Legal principles applicable to selection of federal advisory committee members (October 18).
• Guston, David H. 2006. On consensus and voting in science: From Asilomar to the National Toxicology Program. In The new political sociology of science, ed. Kelly Moore and Scott Frickel, 378-404. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
• Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson. 1996. Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Greenberg, Daniel S. 2001. Science, money, and politics: Political triumph and ethical erosion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Hendriks, Carolyn M. 2006. When the forum meets interest politics: Strategic uses of public deliberation. Politics & Society 34 (4): 571-602.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Jasanoff, Sheila. 1990. The fifth branch: Science advisors as policy makers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Kass, Leon R. 2005. Reflections on public bioethics: A view from the trenches. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 15 (3): 221-250.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Kennedy, Donald. 2003. An epidemic of politics. Science 299 (5607): 625.[Abstract]
• Manin, Bernard. 1987. On legitimacy and political deliberation. Political Theory 15 (3): 338-68.[Free Full Text]
• Mansbridge, Jane J. 1992. A deliberative theory of interest representation. In The politics of interests: Interest groups transformed, ed. Mark P. Petracca, 32-57. Boulder, CO: Westview.
• ---. 1999. Should blacks represent blacks and women represent women? A contingent "yes." Journal of Politics 61 (3): 628-57.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• ---. 2003. Rethinking representation. American Political Science Review 97 (4): 515-528.[Web of Science]
• Mongan, Michael J. 2005. Fixing FACA: The case for exempting presidential advisory committees from judicial review under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Stanford Law Review 58:895-933.[Web of Science]
• Mooney, Chris. 2005. The Republican war on science. New York: Basic Books.
• Moy, Russell. 2005. Political and professional considerations in the appointment of advisory committee members. In NAS 2005, Appendix F, 151-63.
• National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 2003. Policy on committee composition and balance and conflicts of interest for committees used in the development of reports (May 12).
• National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, Committee on Ensuring the Best Presidential and Federal Advisory Committee Science and Technology Appointments. 2005. Science and technology in the national interest: Ensuring the best presidential and federal advisory committee science and technology appointments. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
• Office of Government Ethics (OGE). 1982. Memorandum 82 x 22, Members of Federal Advisory Committees and the Conflict-of-Interest Statutes (July 9).
• ---. 2000. Memorandum 00 x 1, Summary of Ethical Requirements Applicable to Special Government Employees (February 15).
• Petracca, Mark P. 1986. Federal advisory committees, interest groups, and the administrative state. Congress and the Presidency 13:83-114.
• Phillips, Anne. 1995. The politics of presence: The political representation of gender, ethnicity, and race. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Pielke, Roger A., Jr. 2005. Accepting politics in science. Washington Post, January 10, A17.
• ---. 2007. The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. 1967. The concept of representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Rawls, John. 1993. Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Richardson, Henry S. 2002. Democratic autonomy: Public reasoning about the ends of policy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Sanders, Lynn. 1997. Against deliberation. Political Theory 25 (3): 347-76.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Sarewitz, Daniel. 2004. How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science & Policy 7:385-403.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• ---. 2006. Scientizing politics. Issues in Science and Technology Winter:91-93.
• Spielman, Bethany. 2003. Should consensus be "the commission method" in the U.S.? The perspective of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, regulations, and case law. Bioethics 17 (4): 341-56.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Stark, Andrew. 1997. What is a balanced committee? Democratic theory, public law, and the question of fair representation on quasi-legislative bodies. In Nomos XXXIX, ethnicity and group rights, ed. Ian Shapiro and Will Kymlicka, 377-418. New York: New York University Press.
• Steinbrook, Robert. 2004. Science, politics, and federal advisory committees. New England Journal of Medicine 350 (14): 1454-60.[Free Full Text]
• Stine, Deborah D. 2005. Federal advisory committees: Background and current issues. In NAS 2005, Appendix E, 129-49.
• Turner, Stephen P. 2003. Liberal democracy 3.0: Civil society in an age of experts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Union of Concerned Scientists. 2004. Scientific integrity in policymaking: An investigation into the Bush administration's misuse of science (February).
• United States House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform, Minority Staff Special Investigations Division, prepared for Rep. Henry A. Waxman. 2003. Politics and science in the Bush administration (August).
• Urbinati, Nadia. 2006. Representative democracy: Principles and genealogy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Walzer, Michael. 1999. Deliberation, and what else? In Deliberative politics: Essays on democracy and disagreement, ed. Stephen Macedo, 58-69. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Warren, Mark E. 1996. Deliberative democracy and authority. American Political Science Review 90 (1): 46-60.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• ---. 2001. Democracy and association. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Weingart, Peter. 1999. Scientific expertise and political accountability: Paradoxes of science in politics. Science and Public Policy 26 (3): 151-61.[CrossRef]
• Young, Iris Marion. 2000. Inclusion and democracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• ---. 2001. Activist challenges to deliberative democracy. Political Theory 29 (5): 670-90.[Free Full Text]

This version was published on December 1, 2008

Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 61, No. 4, 547-560 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/1065912907313076


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Web of Science (2) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Brown, M. B. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?