Specifically, the staff office’s policies and procedures do not provide for   determining at the time a panel is being developed and convened what financial conflict-of-interest requirements, if any, the panel is subject to; routinely ensuring that potential panelists’ financial disclosure forms contain sufficient information to evaluate potential conflicts of interest;   systematically requesting other information pertinent to assessing independence and overall balance of the panel, such as previous public positions that panelists have taken on the matter being reviewed, before the panel members are appointed; and   adequately training prospective panel members on the financial conflict- of-interest requirements and other issues that could raise questions about their impartiality. This information is not systematically requested until the panelists have been selected and are participating in the first meeting of the peer review panel—the public disclosure session. Limited Information Is Available to the Public on the Board’s Panelists

The staff office’s policies and procedures for providing the public with information on the backgrounds of its peer review panelists are not sufficient to ensure that the public is adequately informed about the points of view represented on the panels. The policies and procedures used by the staff office to date have limitations. In our view, this question highlights the importance of ensuring that the peer review panels are properly balanced in terms of points of view and expertise represented.
Why GAO Did This Study

This report reviews whether the policies and procedures of the Environmental Protection Agency's Science Advisory Board ensure that (1) its peer review panelists are independent and the panels are properly balanced and (2) the public is sufficiently informed about the points of view represented on the panels.

What GAO Found

GAO found that the policies and procedures used by the staff office to ensure the independence of the Board's peer reviewers and the balancing of viewpoints have limitations that reduce their effectiveness. The staff office has not systematically requested information that is needed to assess the independence and overall balance of viewpoints represented on the panel--such as previous public positions the panelists have taken on the matter being reviewed--until the first meeting, when the panelists have already been chosen. Furthermore, conflicts of interest may not be identified and mitigated in a timely manner. GAO also found that the staff office's policies and procedures for providing the public with information on the backgrounds of the Board's peer review panelists do not adequately inform the public about the points of view represented on the panels.