United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

November 1998 FEDERAL RESEARCH

The National Academy

of Sciences and the

Federal Advisory

Committee Act

GAO/RCED-99-17

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Resources, Community, and

Economic Development Division

B-279928 

November 13, 1998

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.

Chairman

The Honorable George E. Brown, Jr.

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Science

House of Representatives

The National Academy of Sciences, a private nonprofit institution,

provides scientific, engineering, and medical advice to federal, state, and

local governments; private industry; and nonprofit organizations. In fiscal

year 1997, the federal government provided approximately $145 million (or

85 percent) of the Academy’s funding.1

 These funds, provided through

federal agency contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements, sponsored

approximately 300 of the Academy’s committee projects. The results of

these projects are often used to increase federal agencies’ knowledge in a

particular subject area and can become the impetus for change in federal

policies, regulations, or programs.

Committees that provide advice to the federal government are generally

subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972.2

 The Congress

passed the act because of concerns that such committees were

proliferating without adequate review, oversight, or accountability. Under

the act and regulations issued by the General Services Administration

(GSA), agency heads have a number of responsibilities, including

appointing a designated federal officer for each advisory committee and

submitting a proposed charter to GSA for its review. In addition, the act

requires that most meetings must be open to the public and must be

attended by a federal official.3

 Prior to 1997, the Academy did not believe

that the act applied to its committees. However, in early 1997, the Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia held that an Academy committee

doing work for the Department of Health and Human Services was an

advisory committee under the act and, therefore, the Academy’s

committees were required to comply with the act.4

1

1997 was the most current year for which actual funding data were available.

2

P.L. 92-463, Oct. 6, 1972.

3

The provision for open meetings is subject to certain exclusions, such as discussions of national

security issues, as provided under 5 U.S.C. § 552b(c).

4

Animal Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. Shalala, 104 F.3d 424 (D.C. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___ ,

118 S.Ct. 367 (1997).

Page 1 GAO/RCED-99-17 Federal Research
B-279928 

The court’s decision prompted Academy officials to seek legislative relief

from the act. The result was the enactment of the Federal Advisory

Committee Act Amendments of 1997.5

 The amendments exclude

committees created by the Academy from the definition of “advisory

committee” and add a new section 15 dealing with Academy advisory

committees. That section precludes an agency from using the Academy’s

advice or recommendations unless, among other things, certain

information is made available to the public—notice of committee

appointments, advance notice of open meetings, written materials

presented to the committee, minutes of closed meetings, copies of final

committee reports, and the names of external reviewers of draft reports.

Information may be withheld if subject to exclusion under the Freedom of

Information Act.

This report responds to your April 10, 1998, request that we study the

committee process at the National Academy of Sciences. Specifically, as

agreed with your offices, we (1) identify reasons the Academy sought

relief from the act, (2) describe the Academy’s committee procedures for

providing advice to the federal government, and (3) discuss the Academy’s

implementation of the new requirements for providing information to the

public. Your request also included three legal questions on (1) the

applicability of the Federal Advisory Committee Act to the subgroups of

the Academy, (2) the applicability of the Freedom of Information Act to

Academy advisory committees, and (3) statutory and contractual barriers

to the release of data gathered by the Academy. These issues are being

addressed under separate cover by our Office of General Counsel.

Results in Brief According to Academy officials, the Academy sought relief from the

Federal Advisory Committee Act for a number of reasons. Central to its

concerns was the Academy’s ability to maintain sole authority in

appointing committee members and to conduct its work independently

from sponsoring agencies’ influence. In addition, the Academy opposed

opening deliberative meetings on the grounds that such an action could

stifle open debate and could impact the Academy’s ability to recruit

committee members. Finally, the Academy was concerned about the

amount of time and expense to perform the administrative requirements of

the act, which could render the Academy unresponsive to the government.

5

P.L. 105-153, Dec. 17, 1997. The amendments applied to the National Academy of Sciences and the

National Academy of Public Administration.

Page 2 GAO/RCED-99-17 Federal Research
B-279928 

Prior to the enactment of the amendments, the Academy developed a

number of procedures governing its committees’ activities, including

project formulation, committee selection, committee work, report review,

and the release and dissemination of reports. According to Academy

officials, these procedures are intended to help ensure the integrity of

advice provided to the federal government. For example, committee

selection includes procedures for identifying conflicts of interest and

potential bias of committee members. The committee work phase provides

an opportunity for some public participation, and committee reports are

reviewed by an Academy review committee before they are released to the

sponsoring agency and the public.

In response to section 15, the Academy developed a web site to increase

public access to current project information. The web site includes

committee members’ names and biographies, notices of open meetings,

and summary minutes of closed meetings. In addition, copies of most final

reports are available through the National Academy Press web site.6

However, we found that some descriptive information on current projects

was not always posted in a timely manner and was not always complete.

During this audit, the Academy addressed these problems and developed

additional written guidelines regarding the posting of committee

information as well as additional quality assurance procedures.

Background Founded in 1863 by congressional charter, the National Academy of

Sciences has a long history of serving as a scientific adviser. The Academy,

which has a total membership of 4,800, also serves as an honorary

institution to recognize distinguished members of the scientific

community. Among other activities, the Academy also organizes

symposiums, manages scientific databases, and serves as a clearinghouse

for research.

Throughout this report we use “Academy” to refer to the constituent

members of the Academy complex: the National Academy of Sciences, the

National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, and the

National Research Council. In 1916, the Academy formed the National

Research Council to broaden its committee membership to include

non-Academy members and to oversee the Academy’s advisory activities.

In a 1998 report, the Academy reported that committee membership

consists of 55 percent from academia, 24 percent from industry, 9 percent

6

Reports that are too long to be posted on the web site are available from the Academy’s public

reading rooms in Washington, D.C.

Page 3 GAO/RCED-99-17 Federal Research
B-279928 

from nonprofit institutions, and 12 percent from different levels of

government.7

 The National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of

Medicine were established in 1964 and 1970, respectively, to recognize

distinguished members in these fields and to provide more specialized

advice in these areas. The Academy is organized by study units, which

produce reports in the following topic areas: transportation, health and

safety, science, commerce, natural resources, defense, space, education,

and international affairs. (See table 1.)

Table 1: Number of National Academy

of Sciences’ Reports by Topic Area,

From January 1993 Through June 1997 Report topic area Number of reports issued

Percentage of total

reports issued

International affairs 45 3.4

Education 52 3.9

Defense and space 79 5.9

Natural

resources/environment 116 8.7

Industry, commerce,

technology 127 9.5

Scientific enterprise 154 11.6

Health and safety 234 17.6

Transportation 524 39.4

Total 1,331 100.0

Source: Developed by GAO using the Academy’s data.

The Academy issued 1,331 committee reports from January 1993 to

June 1997 and had an average annual budget of about $150 million. During

those 5 years, most of its work was performed for the federal government,

which provided the Academy with 87 percent of its revenue. (See fig. 1.)

The Departments of Transportation, Energy, Health and Human Services,

and the Army; the National Science Foundation; and the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration have been its largest federal

sponsors—amounting to 75 percent of the total revenues for 1993 to 1997.

The Academy also advises state governments, private industry, and

nonprofit institutions, but that work is limited by internal Academy

guidelines. In addition, the Academy may use its endowment to fund

self-initiated studies deemed critical by the Academy leadership.

7

A Unique National Resource, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, the

Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council (1998).

Page 4 GAO/RCED-99-17 Federal Research
B-279928 

Figure 1: National Academy of

Sciences’ Revenue by Source

1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97

0

50

100

150

200

Years

Dollars in millions

Federal revenue Nonfederal revenue Contributions

Source: Developed by GAO using the Academy’s data.

The Federal Advisory Committee Act Amendments of 1997 addressed

concerns over the openness of the Academy’s procedures. Prior to the

amendments, the Academy’s committee procedures included some

openness. A 1975 policy document stated that committee meetings where

data would be gathered were to be open to the public with advance notice

given. Announcements of scheduled open meetings were published

monthly in a newsletter by the Academy’s Office of Information. However,

the study unit heads determined which projects would have scheduled and

announced open meetings. Executive meetings and working meetings,

referred to as deliberative sessions, would “not normally be open to the

public.” A 1995 proposed change to the Academy’s public access policy,

among other things, further defined the types of meetings that could be

closed and applied the policy uniformly across the Academy’s major study

units. This proposal was under consideration at the time the amendments

were enacted.

Page 5 GAO/RCED-99-17 Federal Research
B-279928 

Reasons the Academy

Sought Relief From

the Federal Advisory

Committee Act

According to Academy officials, the Academy had three main concerns

that caused it to seek relief from the Federal Advisory Committee Act:

(1) the erosion of independence if the Academy was under the influence of

sponsoring agencies, (2) the inability to recruit committee members if

committee deliberations were open to the public, and (3) the burden of

administrative requirements that would render the Academy unresponsive

to the government.

Paramount among these concerns was the Academy’s independence from

the influence of sponsoring agencies. Under the act, a federal government

officer or employee would have to chair or be present at every advisory

committee meeting. This individual would have the power to adjourn the

meeting “whenever he determines it to be in the public’s interest.”

According to Academy officials, the Academy could lose sole authority in

appointing committee members, and the Academy and committee

members could be under pressure from a sponsoring agency to change a

report during the drafting process.

Under the act and GSA regulations, advisory committee meetings, including

deliberative meetings, would be open to the public. However, the Academy

opposed opening its deliberative meetings to the public because it

believed that such an action could stifle open debate and criticism of ideas

in those meetings. The Academy was also concerned that the

independence of the committees’ deliberations and the Academy’s review

process would be jeopardized by attempts of sponsors and special interest

groups to bring political pressure to bear. Academy officials said that

closed committee deliberations are fundamental for ensuring the

independence of their studies and the scientific quality of their reports.

Moreover, they stated, if draft reports were available to the public, the first

draft would become the enduring impressions of a report, regardless of

any changes made later. In addition, the President of the Academy said

that it could be more difficult to recruit potential committee members in

the future if deliberations were open to the public.

We surveyed 12 current and former Academy committee members to

obtain their views on whether or not they would serve on Academy

committees if the deliberative meetings were open to the public. Two

members said that they would serve, six said that their decision to serve

would depend on the topic of study, and three said that they probably

would not serve on a committee whose deliberations were open to the

public. One member did not respond directly to the question but said that

Page 6 GAO/RCED-99-17 Federal Research
B-279928 

closed deliberative sessions encourage greater candor among the

members.

In addition, these members generally echoed the Academy officials’ views

regarding the need for closed deliberative sessions. The three members

who responded that they would probably not serve said that open

deliberations could seriously jeopardize the quality of the reports. Two

members said that Academy study committees might be difficult to staff if

deliberations were open to the public. Eleven out of 12 respondents

indicated that the Academy should retain the ability to close committee

deliberations.

Finally, the Academy was concerned that the amount of time and expense

associated with implementing the act would render the Academy

unresponsive to the government in general and to the Congress in

particular. Of particular concern was the requirement under the act that

each committee have a charter. Since the Academy is not a federal agency,

the federal agency sponsoring the Academy study would prepare the

charter and submit it for review by GSA. Academy officials estimated that

the process would take between 6 and 12 months, on average, a length of

time that an Academy official said would render the Academy

unresponsive to the government’s requests for information. In addition,

most of the Academy’s studies are funded by multiple agencies. Thus, the

Academy was not certain which agency would be responsible for fulfilling

the administrative requirements of the act. Academy officials also pointed

out that applying the act to the Academy would more than double the

number of committee charters that GSA would have to review each year.

Academy Committee

Procedures

Prior to the enactment of the amendments of 1997, the Academy

established a number of procedures for committee work that are intended

to help ensure the integrity and the openness of committee activities. The

procedures consist of the following phases: project formulation,

committee selection, committee work, report review, and report release

and dissemination. (See fig. 2.) According to Academy officials, the whole

process can take anywhere from 4 months to 2 years (usually from 6 to 18

months).

Page 7 GAO/RCED-99-17 Federal Research
B-279928 

Figure 2: National Academy of Sciences’ Committee Procedures

Project 

formulation

Committee 

selection

Committee work Report review Report 

dissemination

Slate of nominees 

provided by study unit, 

outside sources

Approved/"short-listed" 

by Academy President

Posted for public 

comment

Conflict of Interest/bias 

process undertaken

Plan

Fact find

Deliberate

Draft report

Non-committee reviewers 

selected by Academy, 

study unit, monitors, and 

coordinators 

Report reviewed by 

reviewers

Comments responded to 

by committee

Report signed off on by 

Report Review 

Committee chair

Study unit makes 

dissemination plan 

(sponsor may be involved)

Report sent to targeted 

groups/individuals

Made available via web 

site

Briefings arranged/report 

used in workshops or 

symposia

Internal idea/external 

idea

Prospectus provided by 

Academy study unit

Project submitted to 

Academy Governing 

Board Executive 

Committee for approval

Prospectus approved

Contract/grant signed

Source: Developed by GAO using the Academy’s information.

Project Formulation During the project formulation phase, the Academy assigns the project to a

study unit. According to Academy guidance, the study unit is responsible

for defining the scope of the project, leaving room for the committee to

further define the study, and for developing the initial cost estimates. After

the study unit approves the project, the Academy gives final approval for

the project. Then a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement (depending

on the sponsor) is drawn up and entered into with the agency. A

permanent Academy staff member, referred to as the responsible staff

officer, is assigned to organize and support the project. The staff officer is

responsible for ensuring that institutional procedures and practices are

followed throughout the study and that the study stays on schedule and

within budget.

Committee Selection According to the Academy’s documents, each project is conducted by a

committee of subject matter experts who serve without compensation.

Committee selection starts with suggestions from the sponsoring

organization, members of the Academy, outside professional colleagues,

and Academy staff. After review of the suggestions, the President of the

Academy selects committee candidates. The Academy’s procedures

require that each committee candidate fill out a form on his or her

potential conflicts of interest. The form consists of five questions asking

for the member’s relevant organizational affiliations, financial interests,

Page 8 GAO/RCED-99-17 Federal Research
B-279928 

research support, government service, and public statements and positions

concerning the committee’s topic. We reviewed a sample (about

10 percent) of the 331 current committees to determine whether the forms

had been filed and found that the Academy’s procedures were generally

being followed. Under Academy procedures, 5 of the 30 committees

selected were not required to file the conflict-of-interest forms because

they were not subject to section 15 for various reasons.8

 Of the remaining

25 committees, we found that almost all members (316 out of 341 or

93 percent) had forms on file.

At the first meeting of every committee, the Academy’s procedures require

a confidential discussion among committee members and project staff of

potential conflicts of interest. If a conflict of interest is identified, the

committee member may be asked to resign from the committee. If the

Academy determines that the conflict is unavoidable, the Academy will

make the conflict public and will retain the committee member. After this

meeting, the executive director of the relevant study unit makes a tentative

determination of whether the committee as constituted is composed of

individuals with the requisite expertise to address the task and whether

the points of view of individual members are adequately balanced such

that the committee as a whole can address its charge objectively. Final

approval of the committee membership, however, rests with the President

of the Academy.

Committee Work Committees meet in data-gathering sessions that are generally open to the

public and in deliberative sessions that are closed to the public.9

 The

Academy defines a data-gathering meeting as “any meeting of a committee

at which anyone other than committee members or officials, agents, or

employees of the institution is present, whether in person or by telephone

or audio or video teleconference.” Committees also meet in closed

sessions to discuss financial and personnel matters, to discuss

conclusions, and to draft the committee report. The Academy’s

responsible staff officer facilitates the meetings.

In order to identify the number of open versus closed meetings, we

reviewed the meetings held from December 1997 through June 1998 for

the 331 committees. Since we found that most meetings were a

8

The Academy explained that four committees did not issue recommendations to any agency, and one

project had only a principal investigator and no committee members.

9

Data-gathering meetings may be closed if the information being gathered would be exempt under the

Freedom of Information Act, which includes classified, proprietary, or personal/privacy information.

Page 9 GAO/RCED-99-17 Federal Research
B-279928 

combination of open and closed sessions, we identified the number of

open and closed hours during these meetings. Of the 331 committees, 129

either had no meetings or were not subject to section 15 for various

reasons.10 The remaining 202 committees held a total of 353 meetings. For

300 (or 85 percent) of those meetings, at least some portion of the meeting

was closed. For 139 of the 300 meetings where complete information

about open and closed sessions was available, we found that slightly less

than half (45 percent) of the time was spent in closed sessions. For 251

projects, we determined the reasons for the closed sessions: 61 meetings

included discussions of potential bias of committee members, 36 meetings

included discussions of the committee’s composition and balance, and 201

meetings involved drafting the committee report.11 We also found that

seven data-gathering meetings were closed under Freedom of Information

Act exemptions.

Every report is the collective product of the committee. According to the

Academy’s documents, a committee member may draft a chapter or

portion of a report, but the author of record is the entire committee. The

Academy’s responsible staff officer can help with many aspects of

developing the report, including researching, integrating portions of the

report written by committee members, and ensuring consistent style and

format, but the conclusions and recommendations are attributed to the

committee as a whole. Throughout its work, the committee is subject to

the oversight of the Academy’s supervisory boards and commissions.

Report Review The next step in the process is an independent review of the draft by

individuals whose review comments are provided anonymously to the

study committee. This process allows the Academy to exercise internal

oversight and provides an opportunity for the study committee to obtain

reactions from a diverse group of people with broad technical and policy

expertise in the areas addressed by the report. The anonymity of the

reviewers is intended to encourage individual reviewers to express their

views freely and to permit the study committee to evaluate each comment

on its merits without regard for the reviewer’s position or status.

The Academy Report Review Committee, composed of members of the

Academy, oversees the report review process and appoints either a

10The database consists of 331 committees. Ninety-three projects were excluded from the analysis

because they did not have any meetings within the December 17, 1997, through June 17, 1998, time

frame. Another 36 projects were classified as not being subject to section 15 because they did not

provide advice to the government.

11Some meetings had closed sessions for more than one reason.

Page 10 GAO/RCED-99-17 Federal Research
B-279928 

monitor and/or coordinator depending on the type of study. Liaisons are

appointed from the Academy’s membership to the major study unit for the

purpose of suggesting qualified reviewers. The monitor and/or coordinator

either participates in the selection of reviewers or checks the list of

reviewers for their relevant expertise or particular perspective. Typically

six to eight reviewers are appointed, although more are acceptable for a

major policy report.

According to the Academy’s report review guidelines, the review of a

manuscript takes about 10 weeks, on average, from when a report is sent

to the reviewers until final approval; however, the time ranges from a few

days to many months. The reviewers look at whether or not the

• report addressed the committee’s charge;

• findings are supported by the evidence given;

• exposition of the report is effective; and

• tone of the report is impartial.

All study committee members are given copies of the reviewers’ comments

(with the names of the reviewers removed from the comments) in time to

prepare or approve a response to the comments. After the comments have

been submitted, the monitor and/or coordinator may prepare a brief

summary of the key review issues for the study committee. The study

committee may provide a written explanation of how each comment was

handled, or it may address the key review issues. The monitor and/or

coordinator judges the adequacy of the committee’s responses and may

require a resubmission to the reviewers.

The Academy’s procedures state that no report is to be released to the

project sponsor or the public, and no findings or recommendations are to

be disclosed until this review process has been satisfactorily completed.

All committee members are contacted to ensure that they approve the

report before it is published or released. The Report Review Committee

chair provides the final approval of the reports.

Report Release and

Dissemination

The Academy is responsible for the report’s dissemination plan. The report

sponsor may also be involved in developing the plan. Targeted groups are

selected to ensure that the report reaches all appropriate audiences. The

report may also be made available via the National Academy Press web

site. Briefings are often arranged for interested groups, and reports may

become topics of future Academy workshops or symposia.

Page 11 GAO/RCED-99-17 Federal Research
B-279928 

While the Academy

Has Increased Public

Access to Current

Project Data, the Data

Are Not Always

Timely or Complete

The Academy developed a web site for current project information to

increase public access as a result of section 15, added by the Federal

Advisory Committee Act Amendments. However, we found that this

information is not always posted in a timely manner and is sometimes

incomplete.

Among other things, section 15 generally requires the Academy to

• make names and brief biographies of committee members public,

• post notice of open meetings,

• make available written materials presented to the committee,

• post summaries of meetings that are not data-gathering meetings,

• make copies of the final committee report available to the public, and

• make available the names of the principal non-Academy reviewers of the

draft report.12

The committee members’ names and biographies, notice of open meetings,

and summary minutes of closed meetings are available on the web site of

current projects. Copies of reports, which include the names of the

external reviewers of the reports, are available on the National Academy

Press web site. According to Academy officials, written materials

presented to the committees by individuals who are not agents, officials,

or employees of the Academy are available for inspection at the

Academy’s public reading rooms in Washington, D.C.

We reviewed a sample of the 331 current projects to determine whether

the database included the names of the committee members. Five of the 30

projects that we reviewed were not required by the act or by the Academy

to post committee membership for various reasons.13 We found that 24 of

the 25 projects had the names of the members available on the web site.

Five projects had only the names of the members and no biographical

statements. However, these five committees were not required to post

biographies because the committees were created prior to the act.

The Academy’s guidelines state that the summary minutes for closed

meetings should be posted to the web site, preferably within 10 business

days of the meeting. In order to determine whether this requirement was

met by the Academy, we reviewed data on the closed meetings for the 202

committees that held meetings from December 17, 1997, through June 17,

125 U.S.C. App. 2 § 15(b).

13Four committees did not issue recommendations to any agency, and one project was performed by

one person, not by a committee.

Page 12 GAO/RCED-99-17 Federal Research
B-279928 

1998. As previously stated, these committees held a total of 353 meetings,

with 300 of those meetings having some portion closed. We found that 270

(or 90 percent) had the minutes of the closed sessions on the web site.14

The minutes of these closed sessions had an average posting time of 13.5

calendar days, within the Academy’s guidelines of 10 business days.

However, the amount of time to post the minutes ranged from 0 to 124

calendar days, with 26 percent of the minutes posted 15 or more days after

the meeting.

At the time of our audit, spot checks of information posted on the web site

were conducted at least once a week for missing or improper information.

However, we found that for a total of 63 out of 331 current committees

(about 19 percent) there were chronological or typographical errors or

missing data in the information provided on one or more of the meetings.

For example, the listings of the meetings for three projects were out of

order. One meeting had two different dates listed on the project web site.

For 34 projects, the agenda or summary minutes were not posted. The

Academy has already taken action to correct this information or has

adequately explained these specific problems. In addition, since we

conducted our audit, the Academy created a records officer position

responsible for checking the timeliness and accuracy of data on a daily

basis.

Through the web site, the Academy also elicits public comments about

committee composition. The public is allowed 20 calendar days to

comment about the proposed committee members and/or suggest new

members. Since the web site’s inception in December 1997 through

June 1998, the Academy received a total of 120 comments.15 Only 13 of

those comments concerned committee composition—all concerning four

committees: those on smokeless and black powder, illegal drug policy,

repetitive motion and muscular disorders, and cancer research among

minorities. Of these comments, six included suggestions for additional

committee members, three provided general or positive comments about

committee membership, three included negative comments regarding

specific committee members (one of the three members later was

14One project had posted summary minutes prior to the meeting date. This meeting was not included in

our analysis.

15Non-Academy users had 83,185 visits (or “hits”) to the Academy web site. Academy users accounted

for an additional 32,649 hits.

Page 13 GAO/RCED-99-17 Federal Research
B-279928 

removed from consideration), and two comments discussed the length of

the public comment period.16

Observations Prior to the passage of the Federal Advisory Committee Act Amendments,

the Academy had efforts under way to increase public access to and

participation in the Academy’s committee work. After the amendments

were passed, the Academy’s web site of current projects increased public

access to project information. However, the Academy had to quickly

create and operationalize its web site of current projects in

December 1997 and additional enhancements are under consideration

pursuant to suggestions received from the public. Thus, it will be some

time before an assessment can be made of the extent to which the general

public uses the web site. Regarding the untimely posting of data and

incomplete data, the Academy’s new procedures should address our

concerns. However, the availability of timely information on current

projects depends on the effective implementation of the new procedures.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to the National Academy of Sciences

and GSA for their review and comment. In general, the Academy said that

the report was accurate and balanced. Regarding our finding that the

Academy’s data available on the web site are not always timely or

complete, the Academy believed that it was important to note that in no

case was there a violation of the requirements of section 15. We agree.

Since section 15 does not provide a time frame for posting summaries of

closed meetings, we noted instances in which data were untimely by the

Academy’s own guidelines and instances in which the information

provided had some errors. The full text of the Academy’s comments

appears in appendix I. GSA had no comments on the report.

Scope and

Methodology

To determine why the Academy sought relief from the act, we interviewed

Academy officials and reviewed their statements to the Congress. We also

talked with several committee members to obtain their views on the

act—the Academy selected the committee members, with input from us.

Each Academy study unit and the Presidents of the National Academy of

Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of

Medicine selected members to respond to our questions. The Academy

narrowed this sample, and each candidate was asked whether he or she

16One of the comments included both negative comments regarding specific committee members and

recommended additional committee members.

Page 14 GAO/RCED-99-17 Federal Research
B-279928 

would participate in the survey. The sample included past and current

committee members and chairs of committees from across the country

and from private industry, academia, and not-for-profit institutions.

To identify the Academy’s procedures for providing advice to the federal

government, we interviewed Academy officials. We also reviewed the

Academy’s internal documents outlining the procedures, the treasurer’s

reports, and annual reports.

To determine whether the Academy had implemented section 15, we

interviewed Academy officials and reviewed official documents. We also

reviewed the Academy’s web site information, including committee

meeting agendas for both open and closed portions of meetings and the

content of the closed meetings as described in summary minutes, for

Academy projects that were active as of June 17, 1998.

To make this determination, we calculated the hours of open and closed

meetings, calculated the time in which summary minutes were posted for

closed meetings, and categorized the reasons for closed meetings. Each

step was verified for accuracy and completeness. Only meetings that

occurred in the 6-month period from December 17, 1997, to June 17, 1998,

were analyzed. Of the 331 current Academy projects, 69 had no meetings

within the stated 6-month time frame, and 24 had no meetings whatsoever.

Thirty-six projects were standing committees that were not subject to

section 15 and were therefore excluded from our analyses. None of the

current project information from the web site was independently verified

against the Academy’s original records.

For the analysis of open versus closed hours, we considered only the 139

meetings with both open and closed hours. For the closed meetings, we

looked only at those meetings with summary minutes or with posted

agendas. Of the 300 possible meetings with some closed sessions, 294

were analyzed to determine the reasons for the closed sessions.

To measure the Academy’s compliance with the section 15 requirement to

make committee members’ names and biographies available for public

comment, we reviewed a random sample of 30 current projects’ potential

bias and conflict-of-interest forms to determine whether they were present

in the Academy’s files and signed by the committee members. We

compared the Academy’s files to the committee’s printed lists from the

Academy’s current projects web site. Projects that did not have meetings

Page 15 GAO/RCED-99-17 Federal Research
B-279928 

within the December 17, 1997, to June 17, 1998, time frame were not

sampled.

We conducted our work from May through November 1998 in accordance

with generally accepted government auditing standards.

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report for 10 days. At that

time, we will send copies of this report to the President of the National

Academy of Sciences and the Administrator of the General Services

Administration. We will also make copies available to others on request.

Please call me at (202) 512-3841 if you or your staff have any questions

concerning this report. Major contributors to this report were Diane B.

Raynes, Gregory M. Hanna, Lynn M. Musser, and Robin M. Nazzaro.

Susan D. Kladiva

Associate Director, Energy,

Resources, and Science Issues

Page 16 GAO/RCED-99-17 Federal Research
Page 17 GAO/RCED-99-17 Federal Research
Appendix I 

Comments From the National Academy of

Sciences

Page 18 GAO/RCED-99-17 Federal Research
Appendix I 

Comments From the National Academy of

Sciences

(141178) Page 19 GAO/RCED-99-17 Federal Research
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100