Editorials on the Misuse of Science
Dozens of newspapers and magazines nationwide have editorialized against political interference in science. Excerpts from a sampling of these editorials can be found below. To get the full text of the editorial, find out if your local newspaper has covered this issue, or learn how to encourage them to do so, contact rsi@ucsusa.org. To read news coverage of political interference in science, click here.
Appleton Post Crescent, December 2006: "Unfortunately, Bush's administration insists on diminishing the role of fact and science in favor of belief and risks doing irreparable harm…This administration continues to put science on the back burner in the belief that catering to businesses that damage the environment is better for all in the long run. Perhaps it will be. But we're losing our faith in a presidency that insists everything will be fine even as the facts continually show otherwise." [1]
Arizona Daily Star, July 2007: "The testimony of Tucson trauma surgeon Richard Carmona...demonstrated the extent to which President Bush and his operatives manipulate science to serve their political agenda...The bottom line is this, as Carmona learned: In the Bush White House, if scientific facts do not serve the president's ideological or philosophical agenda, the facts are either ignored or manipulated to serve his political purpose. This is an example of mismanagement...White House policymakers should have been listening most closely to Carmona. Instead, they circled the wagons, silenced the messenger and jeopardized public health." [2]
Atlanta Journal-Constitution, March 2004: "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is entrusted with providing the public with timely information about the risks from pollution and crafting policies based on the best scientific research. But mounting evidence suggests America’s trust is badly misplaced." [3]
Austin Tribune, June 2005: "In what has become routine, a high-ranking official in the Bush administration has been spinning [climate change] data. [The] editing is a symbol of the larger issue, too—the administration's disdain for data that doesn't fit its political line....the White House prefers spin to the truth. That's a damning legacy for the president." [4]
Boston Globe, January 2006: "If the United States is ever going to get serious about climate change, it will be because scientists like NASA's James E. Hansen persuade the public that the Bush administration's policy of denial is a prescription for disaster. But the public won't get to hear the truth from Hansen if the administration has its way. Ever since Hansen said in December that unchecked greenhouse gas emissions could make the earth ''a different planet," NASA has tried to control the public appearances and interviews of its premier climate scientist. Instead of muzzling Hansen, President Bush should be listening very carefully." [5]
Boston Globe, February 2004: "Nixon's decision to accept the scientific evidence behind the Clean Air Act of 1970…prevented more than 200,000 premature deaths and millions of cases of respiratory and cardiovascular disease…policy makers, in Congress and the White House, will not be able to make sound decisions if they do not have access to the best information independent researchers can provide. Congress should accept the challenge from the scientists and investigate whether this administration truly is undermining the integrity of science." [6]
Charlotte Observer, February 2007: "With a subject as potentially threatening to the world as global warming, we want our government policymakers to have the best scientific knowledge available at the time. And scary as the prospect is of swamped coastal cities, it's even scarier to learn President Bush's administration tried to muzzle federal scientists whose findings didn't support Republicans who were pooh-poohing the existence of, or causes for, global warming." [7]
Chicago Tribune, November 2004: "There is, and always has been, a political role in setting priorities for what scientific research will be underwritten by government...But those decisions need to be based on sound and unbiased information. Scientists have to be allowed to do their best investigative work, even on volatile issues, so Congress and the White House can make informed decisions on matters of health and the environment." [8]
Concord Monitor, July 2007: "The absence of integrity is widespread. Political appointees, most of whom are not qualified to edit the work of senior scientists, have changed, altered or suppressed facts about climate change, the hazards of mercury and other environmental hazards, the status of endangered species, the value of logging to suppress forest fires and countless other matters." [9]
Detroit Free Press, October 2004: "So in the Bush White House, it seems that 'sound science' has become a buzzword for 'science that supports what we want to do.' Researchers who work for or get involved with the government fear that a report with the 'wrong' results will be buried. This does not encourage fearless scientific inquiry, which has always been a hallmark of human progress." [10]
Hartford Courant, February 2007: "At the same time Congress is gathering details about the Bush administration's five-year effort to run political interference against the science on global warming, the president is implementing a strategy that will make it harder for agencies to develop and enforce new regulations. The outlook for new federal rules to protect the environment and public safety appears bleak….Regulations should be fair and reasonable. They should also be driven by solid science. But this administration, which irresponsibly sought to cloud science on global warming with its own political agenda, is preparing to do the same with federal regulations." [11]
Hartford Courant, February 2006: "By letting politics cloud the message of one of its pre-eminent experts on global warming, the National Atmospheric and Space Administration is undermining the agency's own credibility. Good public policy requires good information as well as free and open debate. To that end, NASA owes Americans science without political spin." [12]
Houston Chronicle, July 2007: "Rather than catching one overzealous appointee at a time, the real answer lies in fixing the system of protecting and reviewing government scientists. As it stands, most of them lack the whistle-blowing protections of other government employees...Even more important, the public should know more about how that data is produced, who reviews it and who decides what to do with it...Permanent transparency will always be a better safeguard than fixing each transgression, frog by frog, only when it's found." [13]
Houston Chronicle, July 2005: "The heart of science isn't quiet. Challenges to data, methodology and interpretation churn throughout the scientific process. Harassment of scientists, however, deserves no role in scientific inquiry…[and] is the wrong way to find answers to environmental questions that affect us all." [14]
Houston Chronicle, July 2004: "The Bush administration must end its pervasive politicizing of established research methods...Regardless of political party, few Americans are willing to consign their health—perhaps their lives—to the scientists whose best credentials are their politics." [15]
Los Angeles Times, July 2005: "Efforts to undermine, ignore and edit scientific findings add up to something even more dismaying than the resulting poor public policy...it damages the scientific disciplines that have held the rational pursuit of truth above all else and, in that pursuit, have produced technical and medical marvels. This country already faces unprecedented challenges to its scientific supremacy...It's not going to help the nation's scientific prestige to downgrade the work U.S. experts do...These alterations of inconvenient fact have grown serious and pervasive enough that Congress should act to ensure that government research comes to public light...and that government scientists are protected in their efforts to speak out." [16]
Miami Herald, February 2007: "Fresh evidence emerged this week that the White House can't tell the difference between fashioning policy and spinning the facts to suit its own politics. Most administrations share this problem to a degree, but it's far worse when the White House decides to tighten its grip on federal regulators at the expense of those who write the laws….Congress can fight this dangerous tendency by giving closer scrutiny to White House appointees. They should reject those who are clearly unfit or have a conflict of interest -- such as former oil lobbyists making decisions about the quality of the air we breathe." [17]
Minneapolis Star Tribune, February 2007: "Good climate scientists have no political agenda. They seek to apply their skills within the long-established norms of scientific inquiry to understanding what is happening to global climates and what that portends. Their findings are critical to ensuring that the U.S. government embraces the wisest possible climate policies. Ensuring the integrity of federally funded climate science should thus be a high priority for the U.S. government, which does most U.S. climate research. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has turned that priority on its head…. Americans do not expect their government to put the needs of business ahead of the national interest or to interfere with legitimate scientific inquiry. The Bush administration has done both, to its shame." [18]
Newsday, February 2007: "When dealing with challenges of a technical sort - global warming for instance - science should guide our politics. Rigorous empiricism is the best way to marshal relevant facts and make sound policy decisions. Unfortunately the process has been turned on its head since President George W. Bush took up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave... Ignoring science when making policy is akin to ignoring windshield wipers when driving in a storm. Each makes it difficult to steer a rational course." [19]
Newsday, July 2004: "Not even science is safe from the all-politics-all-the-time style of the Bush administration. For the second time this year, a major scientific advocacy organization has blasted the administration for elevating ideology above science. That dangerous practice must come to a screeching halt." [20]
New York Times, July 2007: "From his first day about a year ago, [Interior Secretary Dirk] Kempthorne has stressed the importance of ethical behavior. He recently sent all employees a plan to transform his agency into what he called "a model of an ethical workplace" — including more ethics lawyers, stronger disciplinary procedures and new restrictions on meetings with lobbyists. This is good, but not enough. Almost no attention is paid to the most fundamental ethical failure of the [former Interior Secretary] Norton regime: the willingness to censor or tailor scientific findings to suit the ideological objectives of the White House and the wishes of industry and other special interests." [21]
New York Times, May 2007: "The most endangered species inside the Washington Beltway is the federal worker who dares to disclose waste and mismanagement by government superiors...Whistle-blowers have been systematically denied, demeaned and demoted by political appointees flouting laws designed to protect workers with the courage to come forward...Whistle-blowers honor government service. It is time to strike back at their tormentors." [22]
New York Times, February 2006: "The Bush administration long ago secured a special place in history for the audacity with which it manipulates science to suit its political ends….[This is] merely one piece of a larger pattern of deception and denial." [23]
New York Times, December 2006: "The Environmental Protection Agency disclosed last week that it had revised — stood on their head is more like it — procedures it has used for 25 years to set standards for air pollutants like soot and lead. The administration said the change will streamline decision making. Perhaps it will. It will also have the further effect of decreasing the role of science in policy making while increasing the influence of the agency's political appointees. This is disheartening, but not surprising. Whether the issue is birth control or global warming or clean air, this administration has already acquired a special place in regulatory history for the audacity with which it has manipulated or muzzled science (and in some cases individual scientists) that might discomfit its industrial allies or interfere with its political agenda." [24]
New York Times, February 2004: "No administration in recent memory has so shamelessly distorted scientific findings for policy reasons or suppressed them when they conflict with political goals. This is the nub of an indictment delivered last week by more than 60 prominent scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates…collected in one place, this material gives a portrait of governmentwide insensitivity to scientific standards that, unless corrected, will further undermine the administration's credibility and the morale of its scientists." [25]
The Oregonian, April 2006: "In February, David Baltimore, president of Cal Tech, warned the American Association for the Advancement of Science of the administration "asserting executive hegemony over science," and trying "to choose which science is supported and which is suppressed." Which is one thing if you're making out your high school schedule, but something else if you're investing billions of dollars. ..In an area that shapes the future, and the planet, there's a problem with an administration that considers science -- and everything else -- to be elective." [26]
Philadelphia Inquirer, February 2006: "Government agencies depend on more than 60,000 staff scientists to inform honestly the policy-making that protects public health and promotes economic prosperity. Without them, our country will falter. As long as government scientists are under siege, they'll be tempted by better-paying private-sector jobs or early retirement. The country is better served with unmuzzled [federal scientists], sharing knowledge freely." [27]
Philadelphia Inquirer, November 2004: "Scientists, engineers and health professionals who advise the government should be selected for their expertise and integrity, not their politics. Politicizing science poisons the workplace and drives away top experts. Without the best science from the best advisers, public health and environmental welfare will suffer." [28]
Pocono Record, December 2006: "But when single-mindedness begins to interfere with scientific research, a serious problem exists. Our government is a tripartite one. When the executive branch acts irrationally or contrary to the public interest, Congress appropriately exercises its power to curb executive authority. Congress thus bears the burden of restoring impartiality and objectivity to the use of science in federal decision-making. Without integrity, 'science' is meaningless." [29]
Sacramento Bee, March 2005: "The environmental scientists who labor in the Bush administration must truly be dedicated to public service. Otherwise, why would they continue to work for bosses who deep-six their studies, blacklist those who complain and often intervene on behalf of the coal industry and other polluters? For five years, this pattern of silencing federal scientists and letting industry regulate itself has been a hallmark of the White House...Agency scientists need to hang in there and fight the good fight." [30]
San Francisco Chronicle, March 2004: "The federal government's agencies are charged with providing expert, impartial scientific advice to Congress and the American people…When politics trumps science, no one wins: The Bush administration, already burdened by a growing credibility gap, squanders even greater public trust; scientists waste precious time fighting political battles; and we, the nation's citizens, lose expert advice on how to protect our health and that of the environment." [31]
Science, January 2003: "The present epidemic, in which advisory committees are shut down and reassembled with new members, and candidates are subjected to loyalty tests, seems old hat to some observers… well, it isn’t—or at least it wasn’t. What’s unusual about the current epidemic is not that the Bush administration examines candidates for compatibility with its ‘values.’ It’s how deep this practice cuts; in particular, the way it now invades areas once immune to this kind of manipulation." [32] Spokane Spokesman-Review, February 2005: "It's one thing for political leaders to ignore inconvenient data produced by their agencies, but it's quite another to alter conclusions and then pronounce that decisions were made on the basis of 'sound science'...That undermines the credibility of all government agencies and turns matters of science into public-relations wars. Ideologues and profit-seekers who manipulate the work behind [important policy] questions are putting the nation on a dangerous road." [33]
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 2007: "The Bush administration is warning government scientists to be careful what they say about the fate of the polar bear. It's fine, apparently, to study the bears, say the Bush arbiters of political correctness; just don't mention global warming. Fish and Wildlife Director H. Dale Hall denies that his agency is censoring scientists. 'We are not gagging scientists,' he said. Of course not. He's just stopping them from talking…In order to put in place rational, timely strategies to address global warming - be they emissions caps on power plants, better vehicle mileage standards or fast-track funding for alternative energy sources - lawmakers and the public must be able to get straight talk from scientists who know what they're talking about. That's true whether the Bush administration wants to hear it or not." [34]
Washington Post, February 2006: "In every administration there will be spokesmen and public affairs officers who try to spin the news to make the president look good. But this administration is trying to spin scientific data and muzzle scientists toward that end. NASA's Mr. Hansen was right when he told the Times that Mr. Deutsch was only a bit player. 'The problem is much broader and much deeper and it goes across agencies,' he said. We agree." [35]
US News and World Report, September 2005: "This is not to say that science should determine political priorities, but our best scientists must have a seat at the table when there are rising concerns about health, the environment, the safety of food additives and drugs, and air and water pollution…The bottom line is, the scientific community simply must educate the lay public and Congress on these issues." [36]
[1] "Science losing out in federal agencies' policies." Editorial. Appleton Post Crescent. December 21, 2006.
[2] "Finally, Carmona speaks out on his muzzling." Editorial. Arizona Daily Star. July 12, 2007.
[3] "'Just the facts' not EPA's credo." Editorial. Atlanta Journal-Constitution. March 18, 2004.
[4] "Spinning Science." Editorial. Austin American-Statesman. June 9, 2005.
[5] "No gags on science." Editorial. Boston Globe. January 31, 2006.
[6] "Political Science." Editorial. Boston Globe, February 20, 2004
[7] "Muzzling scientists: Political effort to distort climate facts is just plain scary." Editorial. Charlotte Observer. February 1, 2007.
[8] "Keep politics out of science." Editorial. Chicago Tribune. November 29, 2004.
[9] "Only the science that confirms their belief." Editorial. Concord Monitor. July 12, 2007.
[10] "Bush's Science; President bows to religious ideology by weakening environment, research policies." Editorial. Detroit Free Press. October 3, 2004.
[11] "Subjecting Science To Politics." Editorial. Hartford Courant. February 13, 2007
[12] "Don't Muzzle Science." Editorial. Hartford Courant. February 16, 2006.
[13] "Frog by Frog." Editorial. Houston Chronicle. July 25, 2007.
[14] "Truly Chilling." Editorial. Houston Chronicle. July 20, 2005
[15] "Meddling with science." Editorial. Houston Chronicle. July 14, 2004.
[16] "Science Fiction." Editorial. LA Times. July 5, 2005.
[17] "Hiding the facts about climate change: Politicizing science harms your right to know." Editorial. Miami Herald. February 1, 2007.
[18] "Bush's blatant abuse of climate scientists: Union of Concerned Scientists documents sordid practices." Editorial. Minneapolis Star Tribune. February 1, 2007.
[19] "Sacrificing science: White House puts political goals first, watchdog group surveys show." Editorial. Newsday. February 3, 2007
[20] "Blinded by ideology; Bush overlooks science at great peril." Editorial. Newsday. July 14, 2004.
[21] "Interior's Incomplete Ethics Policy." Editorial. New York Times. July 10, 2007.
[22] "Be kind to our Whistle-blower friends." Editorial. New York Times. May 24, 2007.
[23] "Muzzling Those Pesky Scientists." Editorial. New York Times. December 11, 2006
[24] "Censoring Truth." Editorial. New York Times. February 9, 2006
[25] "Uses and Abuses of Science." Editorial. New York Times. February 23, 2004.
[26] David Sarasohn."In the Bush administration, the spin doctors spit on science." Editorial. The Oregonian. April 23, 2006.
[27] "Stop muzzling experts." Editorial. Philadelphia Inquirer. February 5, 2006.
[28] "Weird science when politics rules." Editorial. Philadelphia Inquirer. November 29, 2004.
[29] "When science is not science, blame politics." Editorial. Pocono Record. December 17, 2006.
[30] "Squashed Science." Editorial. Sacramento Bee. March 23, 2005.
[31] "When politics trumps science." Editorial. San Francisco Chronicle. March 21, 2004.
[32] Donald Kennedy. "An epidemic of politics." Editorial. Science. January 31, 2003.
[33] "'Sound Science' sometimes isn't." Editorial. Seattle Spokesman-Review. February 22, 2005.
[34] "The bear facts." Editorial. St. Louis Post-Dispatch. March 14, 2007.
[35] "The Politics of Science." Washington Post. February 09, 2006.
[36] "Investing in Tomorrow." Editorial. US News and World Report. September 26, 2006.
