Washington

Asking scientists questions about their political affiliations before allowing them to serve on government panels is “inappropriate”, according to a report from the US National Academies.

The report, issued on 17 November, follows accusations by scientists and watchdog groups earlier this year that the Bush administration had politicized the process of appointing scientific advisory boards. “It is inappropriate to ask [scientists] to provide nonrelevant information, such as voting record, political-party affiliation, or position on particular policies,” the report states.

“Cleary this report validates the concern expressed by senior scientists starting last winter about some of these issues,” says Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) in Washington DC. In February, the UCS accused the Bush administration of skewing scientific advice and screening committee members based on political beliefs (see Nature 427, 663; 200410.1038/427663b).

Those allegations were viewed by Republicans as a political act, coming as they did in an election year. But Meyer says he believes the new study lends validity to the UCS claims. “Hopefully, having a committee of this sort come out after the election will carry some weight,” he says.

Others are less sanguine about the academies' findings. “I think the report is a little naive,” says Vernon Ehlers (Republican, Michigan), a nuclear physicist now serving in the House of Representatives. Ehlers says that although some panels address strictly scientific issues, many scientific advisory groups must wrestle with political issues. In those cases, Ehlers argues, “the president has a right to expect people to be in tune with his policies”.

John Marburger, the president's science adviser, agrees that there is “some ambiguity” in the report over how to deal with advisory committees handling highly political topics. But he says the report gives a good overall view of the advisory committee process.

Marburger adds that the use of political questions to screen candidates has been “fairly rare”. Still, he says, “if anyone feels they're being asked inappropriate questions in connection with membership on a science advisory committee, I sure would like to know about it”.