The Bush administration has distorted facts and
suppressed the truth to serve its ideological agenda on issues ranging from climate science to military
intelligence. UCS has responded with a campaign to
restore scientific integrity to policy making.
by Alden Meyer
Science, like any field of endeavor, relies on
freedom of inquiry; and one of the hallmarks of that
freedom is objectivity. Now, more than ever, on issues
ranging from climate change to AIDS research to genetic
engineering to food additives, government relies on
the impartial perspective of science for guidance. - President George H.W. Bush, April 23, 1990
The first President Bush acknowledged that government policies on a wide range of issues have long been informed by the application of impartial and objective scientific research and analysis. Ever since his son took office in 2001, however, the scientific community has expressed growing concern over the politicization of science. Scientists, doctors, and other experts both inside and outside the government accuse officials within the George W. Bush administration of suppressing or distorting scientific and medical information when it conflicts with their policy objectives.
In addition, the president's political appointees have placed people with questionable credentials on federal scientific advisory committees, and have favored candidates put forward by industry over those recommended by professional agency staff. One such committee was even disbanded after some of its members pointed out the scientific shortcomings of a new nuclear weapons system proposed by the administration. Appointees of past Republican administrations and senior scientists who have advised administrations of both parties claim that the breadth and magnitude of the Bush administration's manipulation, suppression, and misrepresentation of science is unprecedented. Russell Train, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator under Presidents Nixon and Ford, recently observed, "How radically we have moved away from regulation based on independent findings and professional analysis of scientific, health and economic data by the responsible agency to regulation controlled by the White House and driven primarily by political considerations." Evidence of a Clear Pattern The administration's abuse of science reaches across a wide range of agencies and issues. For example, in a clear effort to forestall growing demands for mandatory limits on emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, the Bush administration has consistently sought to undermine the public's understanding of how the consumption of fossil fuels contributes to global warming—a view held by most climate scientists. Just last year, White House officials demanded so many unsupported changes to the climate change section of the EPA's draft report on the state of the environment that EPA scientists deleted the entire section rather than agreeing to publish unsound science.
A Conflict of Whose Interest?
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recently introduced a sweeping proposal to centralize control over the peer review of scientific information relied upon in federal policy making. Turning the notion of conflict of interest on its head, the OMB's proposal would restrict most scientists employed by or even partially funded by a federal agency from serving as peer reviewers, but would permit industry-funded scientists to serve unless they had a direct financial interest in the specific issue under review. Independent peer review is a vital part of the scientific process, but the OMB has failed to identify any inherent flaws in the peer review techniques now being used quite effectively at numerous federal agencies. Many of the scientists and scientific associations submitting comments on this proposal have expressed concerns that it would lead to increased costs and delays in developing health, safety, and environmental regulations. In light of this extensive criticism, the OMB is now considering whether to modify—or withdraw—the proposal. |
Or consider the issue of lead poisoning. In 2002, an expert advisory committee to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) appeared ready to recommend a more stringent federal lead standard on the basis of new public health data. But just before the advisory committee was to meet, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson took the extraordinary step of rejecting several qualified researchers nominated by the agency's scientific staff to serve on the committee. Two of his substitute choices were handpicked by the lead industry. Another example involves endangered species. After more than a decade of research, a team of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) scientists recommended changes in the flow of the Missouri River to protect several such species, changes opposed by agricultural interests and the barge industry. A senior political appointee at the Department of the Interior created what he called a "SWAT team" of other agency scientists to review the earlier opinion. A retired FWS biologist who had supervised the study for more than five years told the press, "It's hard not to think that because our findings don't match up with what they want to hear, they are putting a new team on the job that will give them what they want." The list goes on:
• A respected microbiologist recently left the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) claiming he had been prohibited from publishing his research on potential hazards posed by airborne bacteria emanating from farm wastes.
• The administration appointed a physician who recommends prayer as a treatment for premenstrual pain to a committee advising the Food and Drug Administration on reproductive health issues, and appointed to a key CDC advisory committee an outspoken opponent of condom use for preventing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
• Before the start of the Iraq war, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary of State Powell all claimed Iraq had sought to import aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment centrifuges, disregarding the contrary assessments of experts in several national Department of Energy laboratories and the International Atomic Energy Agency. This disturbing pattern of abuse has affected scientific research and analysis ranging from mercury emissions and forests to worker safety, missile defense, and nuclear weapons. As specific incidents have been publicized in news stories and editorials in Science, Nature, and other scientific journals, they have generated widespread and deepening alarm within the scientific community. Long-term Damage The suppression and distortion of science carries serious implications for the future of American research. One long-term effect of the Bush administration's behavior could be widespread demoralization of researchers at federal agencies, many of whom already feel their integrity is being compromised. It takes decades to build world-class scientific expertise at federal agencies and institutes, but these organizations can be rapidly and severely damaged by actions that cause top-flight scientists to seek posts elsewhere. Many disaffected and departed agency staff have expressed deep concern about the administration's distortion of facts and application of political litmus tests to nominees for key advisory posts. According to Dr. Margaret Scarlett, who worked at the CDC for 15 years, "The current administration has instituted an unheard-of level of micromanagement into the programmatic and scientific activities of CDC. We're seeing a clear substitution of ideology for science and it is causing many committed scientists to leave the agency." This behavior should concern the American public as well. The misrepresentation of objective scientific knowledge has real-world consequences, resulting in misguided and even dangerous policies on a range of critical issues. Bringing Science Back to the Beltway In February, more than 60 doctors and senior-level scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates and 19 recipients of the National Medal of Science, issued a statement drafted by UCS Chair Kurt Gottfried demanding: "The distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends must cease if the public is to be properly informed about issues central to its well-being, and the nation is to benefit fully from its heavy investment in scientific research and education." The statement was accompanied by a UCS report titled Scientific Integrity in Policymaking, which documents the Bush administration's politicization of science across numerous federal agencies and advisory panels. This was merely the opening salvo of our new Restoring Scientific Integrity (RSI) Campaign, which seeks to curtail the Bush administration's abuse of science in policy making and put forward legislative, administrative, and regulatory reforms to prevent such abuse by future administrations. UCS is working with other scientific, environmental, public health, and reproductive and women's rights organizations to share information and develop coordinated strategies as the campaign moves forward. We are now circulating the RSI statement widely within the scientific, engineering, and medical communities, with the aim of recruiting thousands of additional signers. These signers are being asked to reach out to their colleagues, encourage their professional societies to become involved, educate the public through local and regional media activities, and contact members of Congress and other decision makers. A Future Safe for Objective Science In addition to sounding the alarm, the scientific community has a responsibility to provide constructive guidance to policy makers on how to restore scientific integrity to the formation and implementation of public policies. In March, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) held a hearing before the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee that he chairs, at which Dr. Gottfried and other statement signers detailed the scientific community's concerns about the administration's behavior. While we don't anticipate significant action in this election year, we are discussing possible legislation with Senator McCain and other key congressional leaders. These measures would forbid the censorship of government scientific studies (except when national security must clearly take priority), require all scientists on scientific advisory panels to meet high professional standards, ensure that such panels are not dominated by members with ties to regulated industries or other vested interests, and guarantee public access to government scientific studies and the findings of scientific advisory panels. We are also working with Representative Rush Holt (D-NJ), a physicist and longtime UCS member, and others on a bill to reestablish an analytical unit within Congress that could provide independent guidance on the scientific and technical aspects of public policy (similar to the former Office of Technology Assessment). Few other issues in UCS's 35-year history have been as alarming or as urgently in need of a powerful response. As an organization dedicated to the application of sound science in public policy making, it is essential we do everything we can to stop the Bush administration's abuse of science and to secure sound environmental, public health, and nuclear weapons policies for generations to come. Alden Meyer is director of strategy and policy.
| 
