Is Holdren Cabinet-Bound?
New OSTP Director Should Be Close to the President
SOURCE: Belfer Center at Harvard University, AP
The science community wants John Holdren’s expected confirmation to the Office of Science and Technology Policy to be followed by his elevation into Obama’s cabinet.
Print
Harvard University physicist John Holdren testifies today before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee and is expected to be confirmed as President Obama’s Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, making him the 15th science adviser at the White House and co-chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Many in the science policy world hope his confirmation will coincide with elevating the position to the cabinet-level title of Assistant to the President.
Although the President’s cabinet formally consists of 15 department heads, President Obama has the authority to elevate other executives to that level for the duration of his administration. The last time the director of OSTP was a cabinet-level official was in the Clinton White House. [Clarification: Under Clinton, the science adviser was not an official cabinet post, but did have access to cabinet meetings and information. -Asst. Ed.]. A myriad of organizations have called for this elevation.
Last year, for example, the American Association for the Advancement of Science published an open letter to then-Senator Obama calling for a reinvigorated, cabinet-level science adviser, with 178 scientific societies, associations, universities, companies, and R&D centers signing the letter. The Woodrow Wilson Center’s Foresight and Governance Project also published specific recommendations on how OSTP and the director’s role should be strengthened through the elevation of the OSTP director to a cabinet position.
These recommendations stem, in part, from the role the science adviser has played over the past eight years. OSTP under the Bush administration was widely seen as a weakened entity, allowing the implementation of policies that directly contradicted the views of the vast majority of the scientific community, which watched with dismay as important research and policy in areas such as climate change, embryonic stem cells, and renewable energy were stymied by the conservative policymakers. John Marburger, Bush’s director of OSTP, was complicit in these matters, backing up the White House positions with claims that he could only present advice to the President when all questions about the science have been resolved—yet he ignored overwhelming evidence by world-class scientists on these matters.
As a cabinet-level official, Holdren would have the ability to sit in on and comment at the weekly cabinet meetings, giving voice to science issues at the highest levels of government. The increased access should ease Holdren’s ability to coordinate science policy throughout the executive branch. Yet even with cabinet-level access, science’s role in the Obama White House will depend on three things.
First, Holdren must be savvy in understanding the unique power and processes of the White House in order to get his ideas moved forward and his advice heard. He will need to take a strong stance to advocate for science and be able to pull from his relationships in academia and the private sector as well as his relationships with those closest to the President to pull in the political support for his ideas.
Second, coordinating policy among all of the myriad science agencies in the Executive branch will be no easy task. He must quickly get the lay of the land, and balance OSTP’s leadership on interagency initiatives with regard for agency autonomy and pet projects.
Third, how Holdren structures OSTP will determine its success. Marburger, Holdren’s predecessor, greatly reduced the scope and staff of the office. Multiple science policy experts have called for the re-expansion of the office to four associate directors that sit in close proximity with other White House officials. In the Fall issue of Issues in Science and Technology Policy, one Clinton-era OSTP Assistant Director, Gerald Hane, called for an even bolder move in creating a position of deputy assistant to the president for science, technology, and global affairs.
Holdren’s success will give a strong voice for science in the White House, but he will have his work cut out for him defending governmental research and development funding and U.S. leadership in innovation. After the promising early nomination of Holdren for science adviser, the science community is waiting for further bold action on science, such as lifting the federal ban on embryonic stem cell research. The elevation of OSTP director to a cabinet level would go a long way toward realizing Obama’s inaugural declaration to “restore science to its rightful place.”
Amy Hoang-Wrona is a Senior Policy Analyst at Strategic Analysis, Inc.
Comments on this article
“The last time the director of OSTP was a cabinet-level official was in the Clinton White House.”
What’s the evidence for this? Other arguments I’ve read advocating cabinet-level status have not mentioned this, and the usual arguments about having the Assistant to the President title don’t mention that Clinton had a cabinet-level OSTP Director.
In other words, I think this nugget would have seen a lot more mention than it has of late.
February 12th, 2009 at 12:55 pmBoth of President Bill Clinton’s science advisors, Dr. Jack Gibbons and Dr. Neal Lane, had the title of Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and both served as the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President but they were not Cabinet-rank — although they were both invited to and regularly attended Cabinet meetings.
February 12th, 2009 at 4:29 pmReporting in USA Today on January 19 of this year, Dan Vergano wrote:
“The adviser heads the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy and has a role in every scientific matter — in today’s world that is to say, practically everything — the federal government touches.
Marburger wasn’t named until five months into the Bush administration, and held a lower rank. Past presidential advisers, such as Clinton science adviser Neal Lane, now at Rice University, suggest this made him a less powerful figure. Lane was not the head of a federal agency but enjoyed Cabinet status.”
February 12th, 2009 at 7:12 pmWell,Dan Vergano, the USA Today reporter, is simply wrong and misreported the facts — all you need to do is to ask Dr. Gibbons and Dr Lane and they’ll tell you straightforwardly they did not have nor did they “enjoy” Cabinet status.
February 12th, 2009 at 8:14 pmI respectfully suggest Vergano got it wrong, or perhaps confused attending Cabinet meetings with having Cabinet rank.
Those who have argued for restoring status to the OSTP Director/Presidential Science Adviser have focused primarily on the Assistant to the President title. If they were arguing for Cabinet status, and this would actually be a restoration, I would think they’d have mentioned it.
The most recent National Academies report on presidential appointments in science and technology recommends Cabinet-level status, but doesn’t mention any science adviser ever having it. The letters sent to candidates Obama and McCain by several scientific societies advocating for Cabinet-level status failed to mention any previous advisers with that status.
And the piece that ran here by Dr. Lane not only failed to mention his Cabinet status, but doesn’t appear to share the interest in elevating the position.
February 12th, 2009 at 8:54 pmDavid’s right — ’nuff said.
February 13th, 2009 at 7:34 amDavid and Jeff both make good points. Here is Dr. Lane talking to Science Magazine about the issue in November (relevant excerpt, full article):
“Some want Obama to go further and make the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (historically a second job for the science adviser) part of his Cabinet. Neal Lane, who held both posts during President Bill Clinton’s second term, doesn’t think that’s necessary. But he agrees that regular access to the president and his Cabinet secretaries is essential. ‘The Cabinet table is pretty full already,’ says Lane, who emphasizes that Obama hasn’t solicited his advice. ‘As long as you’re invited to all the meetings, that’s all the status you need.’”
The crux of the point is that many in the science community would like to see the position be one of significant influence under the Obama administration. That is one of the most-discussed issues related to OSTP and the science adviser, but that of course is hardly the end of the discussion, as David has said on several occasions. The titles may be important for policymaking purposes, but they are clearly a way for the administration to send a signal that it will treat science in the public square differently than the Bush White House did.
February 13th, 2009 at 12:21 pmI spoke with Dan Vergano about his story, which is accurate–he did not get the details wrong. The line quoted above from his piece, “Lane was not the head of a federal agency but enjoyed Cabinet status,” was carefully constructed to convey to in a single sentence that Dr. Lane was not a department secretary (most Cabinet members the public sees are) and was not elevated by President Clinton to a Cabinet seat, but did enjoy access to meetings, discussions, information and other elements of Cabinet status. The operative word, “enjoy” was agreed upon by members of the USAToday team based on information from Dr. Lane.
I was remiss in my earlier corrections to ignore Vergano’s careful nuance.
February 20th, 2009 at 3:15 pm