We respectfully submit that such a policy, as described below, would both improve the quality of NAS’ numerous reports and engender greater public trust in those reports.

Committee Balance

The controversy concerning apparent conflicts of interest of members of the recent Committee on Genetically Modified Pest Protected Plants (CGMPPP) exemplifies the need for balance. Had greater balance been attained, the NAS and its report would have been spared much of the substantial criticism that they received in media reports. The criticism of the imbalance on the Committee has left a cloud of doubt over the reliability of the Committee’s report. That criticism was leveled by diverse parties. (See, e.g., Henry I. Miller, “Unwisdom from the Academy,” The Scientist, vil. 14, #9, p. 35 (May 1, 2000).) At least 8 of the 12 members of the Committee had some tie to industry and several members critiqued the very regulatory scheme that their former employer (EPA) had adopted. All of this and more suggest that the NAS should have been far more sensitive to the balance question from the outset.

That was not the first time that an NAS report was embroiled in controversy. We recall that a report (“Toward Healthy Diets”) by the Food and Nutrition Board brought strong criticism upon the NAS when journalists discovered that most of the members of the Committee were consultants to either the meat, dairy, or egg industries. That report found there was no need for healthy Americans to reduce their cholesterol (and fat) intake. (See Jane E. Brody, “Panel Reports Healthy Americans Need Not Cut Intake of Cholesterol,” NYT, May 28, 1980; Jane E. Brody, “Experts Assail Report Declaring Curb on Cholesterol Isn’t Needed,” NYT, June 1, 1980; Marian Burros, “More Than The Panel Could Swallow,” NYT, June 12, 1980; People, June 16, 1980). It was unfortunate that that embarrassing episode did not spur the Academy to implement sensible policies once and for all.

It is sometimes believed, mistakenly, that balance may be obtained by having an equal representation of individuals from industry, consumer groups, and academia. The problem with such divisions is that they fail to take into account the ever-increasing relationships between industry and the academy. (See, e.g., Eyal Press & Jennifer Washburn, “The Kept University,” Atlantic Monthly, March 2000, pp. 39-54; and David Shenk, “Money + Science = Ethics Problems on Campus,” The Nation, March 22, 1999, pp. 11-18) Given that fact, professors cannot categorically be presumed to be “neutral” third parties situated between industry and consumer groups.

Disclosure Policies

We applaud the NAS for some of its actions to further the goal of meaningful disclosure. We agree with the proposition — set forth in the Getting to Know the Committee Process pamphlet — that the “credibility of a report can be weakened if the committee that produced it is perceived to be biased.” Indeed, “[p]otential sources of bias and conflict of interest are significant issues . . . .” (emphasis added) Precisely such concerns impel us to urge the NAS to do more to disclose real and potential conflicts of interest, especially given the ever-increasing public concern about the conflicts issue. (Consider, e.g., NPR, Morning Edition report on conflicts in science, May 17, 2000).

The NAS’s “Potential Sources of Bias and Conflict of Interest” form is an excellent mechanism by which to provide the public and press with meaningful information concerning potential conflicts and committee composition. Questions I through III — concerning organizational affiliations, financial interests, and research support — are especially important. Indeed, such questions are so important that we believe that the information submitted in response to them should be shared with the public and press routinely.

The profiles of the CGMPPP, as set out on the NAS website, are notably more informative than what is disclosed to the public and press about other NAS committees. We were pleased to see that the CGMPPP biographical profiles contained disclosure statements such as: “Dr. ___ receives research funds from _____” or Professor ____ served “as a consultant to the pesticide industry.” While use of that format was incomplete — e.g., no such notation was provided for Professor Morris Levin (a consultant to the Bionomics Institute) — those disclosures represented an important step in the right direction. The NAS’s disclosures in the CGMPPP case also reveal just how easily such information can be made available to the public and press.

Unfortunately, no such disclosure was employed to identify the backgrounds of most of the members of the new Biotechnology, Food and Fiber Production, and the Environment Committee (BFFPE Committee).

Ms. Jennifer Kuzma, the Committee Staff Officer, informed CSPI (April 14, 2000) that disclosure was greater than usual for the CGMPPP owing to the “controversial” nature of the Committee’s work. If, indeed, that is the governing criterion for full and meaningful disclosure, it is hard to comprehend what makes one committee’s work more “controversial” (and thereby subject to greater public scrutiny) than that of another. Consistent with what the NAS has said in the Getting to Know the Committee Process pamphlet, all “[p]otential sources of bias and conflict of interest [are] significant issues.” That is true regardless of any subjective decision concerning the purported “controversial” character of a given committee’s work. The public’s right to know ought not hinge on how a committee is characterized. Furthermore, the work of every NAS committee is potentially significant and therefore at least potentially controversial.

Moreover, we note the peculiarity of the fact that government-sponsored NAS committees must abide by more stringent conflict and disclosure requirements than other NAS committees. The absence of a uniform policy — requiring balance and full disclosure — results in a situation where the public’s right to know may depend less on the importance of the work of a committee than on the existence of government funding. Additionally, if the NAS can readily abide by government disclosure requirements, why is it any more difficult to adhere to those same requirements in all other instances?

Failure to disclose, or selective disclosure, can only further embroil the NAS in controversy. Such a practice all-too-readily gives the impression — however mistaken — that the NAS is biased and only discloses information when constrained to do so.

Conclusion

For all of the above reasons, we respectfully recommend that the NAS use its best efforts to insure greater committee balance and to provide more disclosure information on a routine basis. Such policies should be adopted generally, and specifically in connection with the BFFPE Committee. Appended are our specific recommendations concerning disclosure and conflicts of interest.

Insofar as the composition of the BFFPE Committee and the disclosures about it are inconsistent with such policies (and we believe they are), we call upon the NAS to comply with those policies, reopen the time for public comment, and consider reconstituting the Committee.

We would welcome the opportunity to meet with you to discuss these matters.

Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to your response.