LUIS SEVILLANO El Pais Photos/Newscom

On 3 March 1863, President Abraham Lincoln signed the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) into existence. Since then the NAS, an independent science-advisory group in Washington DC, has churned out more than 10,000 reports at the request of US government agencies — 3,805 of them between 1996 and 2012. But a Comment in this week’s Nature suggests that the academy needs to become more nimble if it is to survive. NAS president Ralph Cicerone spoke to Nature about how the academy will sustain itself in the future.

How has the mission of the NAS evolved over the past 150 years?

We still have the main mission that we were given: to respond to questions and requests for knowledge from the federal government. Pretty much anything in science and technology. At the time, it was called the mechanical arts.

The academy is taking on new roles — including heading a research programme funded by reparations money from the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill. What do you think the mission of the NAS will be 10 years from now?

I would say that we are getting more into education and international affairs. And we will probably always continue to evaluate scientific programmes for the government.

How does the NAS distinguish itself from other organizations, such as think tanks, that might present themselves as resources for expert advice?

We try to avoid people and interests who are identified with one side of an issue only. And we use a very rigorous peer-review process.

How do you stay current, given that it typically takes 1–2 years to conduct an NAS study?

We try to keep that lag time or gestation period as short as possible. Compared with the pace at which other things are happening, it’s a hard battle to keep winning.

Report recommendations can often seem unsurprising. Does the NAS risk becoming obsolete?

It is hard to know how much influence any one of our reports has. We try to watch what the individual people in Congress do with these reports. Do they introduce legislation? How widely do they help to disseminate the findings? What is the news coverage like? What kind of invitations do people get to speak on the subject? Sometimes our reports will have impact years later.

How often is the requesting agency surprised by NAS conclusions?

I couldn’t give you a fraction, but it happens. Let’s say an agency or department has a course of action mapped out but they want to test it. One example, maybe 10 years ago, was on the repair of the Hubble Space Telescope. NASA had made an internal decision: they were not going to repair Hubble. But there was enough disagreement among political and civic leaders that they turned to us for an analysis. And our committee somewhat surprisingly came up with the view that the technology was available that repairs could be made. NASA switched course and did it. That may not have been the most serious issue of the day confronting society, but it was an example.

Last year, the NAS was given US$2 million to draw lessons from the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan. Other studies have been funded for $250,000. What is the typical price range?

That pretty much includes the range.

What costs does this cover?

Staff time is probably the biggest single cost. We have to pay them to do some of the background research, to manage this whole review process, to deal with members of Congress and agencies. Occasionally we will do a lot of data analysis.

Does the academy have any incentive to keep the study costs down?

The incentive for us is that people in the sponsoring agencies have a limited budget — and that is just about everybody.

How has the number of NAS studies per year been affected by the US economic slowdown in the past few years?

We’re seeing a small downturn now. It’s not drastic or dramatic. Some of it might have been masked by the stimulus funding in the federal government. Of course, nobody knows where it’s going to head.

With more budget cuts coming, do you expect that government agencies will be less interested in NAS reports in the future?

You are not going to believe this, but it’s unpredictable. Federal agencies have to cut back their expenditures, but some of them are really going to need advice on priorities. They are just as likely to need hard advice as if they had bigger budgets.

The academy also has an honorary function, in selecting scientists as members. Is there a risk of becoming cliquish?

There is always a danger of that. Right now, one of our concerns is that we don’t have enough members from the middle parts of the United States.

Last year, the academy elected 84 new members, and 26 were women — a record high of more than 30%. In 2011, only nine women were elected. How are you shaping NAS membership?

We don’t have any quotas. What we have done in the past couple of years, which I think has really helped the election of women, is to try to focus on younger people.

What about issues of ethnic and racial diversity?

If you look at US science and technology today, Asian Americans are just really excelling but our membership among Asian Americans and South Asians is not as big as you’d guess. We are hoping that is about to change in an explosive way because of the young people moving up through the system.

What is the representation of African Americans and Hispanic people?

It is pretty low. Hispanics, I’m not so sure, but in African Americans it is pretty low. There really are not that many African American members.

What is the role of NAS members in society?

We have developed a reputation for a very selective membership process. If you go to individual university campuses, you will find that NAS members are asked to do a great deal: to maintain quality, to help to make priority choices. So I know that this sounds fuzzy, but NAS membership validates the idea that there is a level of excellence that is exceptional. And that those people — not all of them but some of them — have the ability to use their own high standards on behalf of an institution. I have become convinced that some of our societal problems really do require institutions. I mean, individuals are important, but some of the things we’re struggling with require institutions.