Guest guest Posted March 12, 2004 Report Share Posted March 12, 2004 Restoring Scientific Integrity The United States has an impressive history of investing in the capabilities and respecting the independence of scientists. This legacy has brought us sustained economic progress, science-based public health policy, and unequaled scientific leadership within the global community. However, actions by the Bush administration threaten to undermine this legacy, and as a result, policy decisions are being made that have serious consequences for our health, safety, and environment. <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/signon.html> Scientists: sign this statement to voice your concern about the Bush administration's misuse of science. <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/signon.html> Across a broad range of issues—from childhood lead poisoning and mercury emissions to climate change, reproductive health, and nuclear weapons—the administration is distorting and censoring scientific findings that contradict its policies; manipulating the underlying science to align results with predetermined political decisions; and undermining the independence of science advisory panels by subjecting panel nominees to political litmus tests that have little or no bearing on their expertise; nominating non-experts or underqualified individuals from outside the scientific mainstream or with industry ties; as well as disbanding science advisory committees altogether. These activities are of grave concern to members of the scientific community as well as to those who rely on government information to inform policy decisions. But they should also concern the American public, which places its trust in the government as an honest broker of scientific information and one that will protect our health and safety. Join with the Union of Concerned Scientists as we call for legislative and regulatory action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. Learn More about this Campaign Read the Report—Scientific Integrity in Policymaking chronicles and corroborates numerous incidents where the Bush administration has misused science to support its political agenda. Scientists: Sign the Statement—Join with the country's leading scientists (including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors, and university chairs and presidents) to call for immediate action on this issue. Take Action—Citizens and scientists alike can get involved by calling on Congress to investigate and act on this issue. Spread the Word—Tell colleagues, family, and friends about our efforts to halt the Bush administration's dangerous practices and help restore the integrity of science in federal policymaking. Only the power of numbers will force the administration to change its behavior. Report Abuses—Do you work in a federal agency or have you participated on a scientific panel where you have seen science compromised? Use the anonymous form to report abuses. Support Our Efforts—Join the Union of Concerned Scientists to ensure we have the resources to make this campaign successful. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/index.html Union of Concerned Scientists February 2004 An Investigation into the Bush Administration’s Misuse of Science Scientific Integrity in Policymaking spffffff The Report Scientific Integrity in Policymaking Executive Summary (PDF) <javascript:openPDFWindow('http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/report.cfm? publicationID=729')> javascript:openPDFWindow('http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/report.cfm?publicat\ ionID=729') Full Report (PDF) <javascript:openPDFWindow('http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/report.cfm?publica\ tionID=730')> snip... A directive issued in February 2002 instructed USDA staff scientists to seek prior approval before publishing any research or speaking publicly on “sensitive issues.” snip... “We’ve seen a consistent pattern of putting people in who will ensure that the administration hears what it wants to hear.” Dr. David Michaels, George Washington University’s School of Public Health 18 Author interview with William Pierce, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Press Offi ce, November 2003. 19 Author interview with David Michaels, October 2003. 20 snip... UNDERQUALIFIED CANDIDATES IN HEALTH ADVISORY ROLES The FDA’s Reproductive Health Advisory Committee In several cases, the Bush administration’s candidates for advisory positions have so lacked qualifi cations or held such extreme views that they have caused a public outcry. One such case involves the appointment of Dr. W. David Hager to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) “I don’t know for sure why these respected scientists were kicked out, but it sure smelled foul.” snip... Army Science Board In another incident, William E. Howard III, an engineer from McLean, VA, reported in a letter to Science that he was told by a member of the Army Science Board (ASB) staff that his nomination to the ASB, a Defense Department advisory panel, was rejected because he had contributed to the presidential campaign of Senator John McCain 31 For example, see W.D. Hager, As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now, Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1998. 32 Tumulty, Time. 33 See “The Assault on Birth Control and Family Planning Programs,” Planned Parenthood, October 2003. Online at www.plannedparenthood.org/library/birthcontrol/ 031030_birthcontrol_report.pdf pdf. See also C. Connolly, “Texas Teaches Abstinence with Mixed Grades,” Washington Post, January 21, 2003. 34 CDC press release, “Secretary Thompson appoints nine to CDC Advisory Committee,” February 20, 2003. 35 Rather than focusing on Miller’s scientifi c qualifi cations, a White House liaison to the Department of Health and Human Services grilled Miller about his views on abortion, capital punishment, and many other topics. See E. Benson, “Political science: allegations of politicization are threatening the credibility of the federal government’s scientifi c advisory committees,” Monitor on Psychology: Journal of the American Psychological Association, March 2003. See also K. Silverstein, “Bush’s new political science,” Mother Jones, November-December 2002. Despite McIlhaney’s dearth of published, peer-reviewed scientifi c research . . . the Bush administration has selected him to serve in a new capacity during a four-year term on the Advisory Committee to the of CDC. snip... “Is the analysis flawed? That is a legitimate reason for not releasing [a science-based analysis]. But if you don’t like the outcome that might result from the analysis, that is not a legitimate reason.” William Ruckelshaus, EPA Administrator under President Nixon snip... IRREGULARITIES IN APPOINTMENTS TO SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANELS Donald Kennedy, editor of the journal Science, former president of Stanford University, and a former FDA commissioner, remarked in early 2003, “I don’t think any administration has penetrated so deeply into the advisory committee structure as this one, and I think it matters. If you start “Withholding of vital environmental information is getting to be a bad habit with the Bush administration.” Republicans for Environmental Protection snip... It should also concern the American public, which has every right to expect that its government formulates policy based on objective scientifi c knowledge in policies that affect the health, well-being and safety of its citizens. • In an apparent attempt to block a pending report that would recommend changes in the fl ow of the Missouri River to comply with the Endangered Species Act, the administration removed scientists from a study years in the making. • A microbiologist recently left the USDA claiming he had been prohibited from publishing his research on potential human health hazards posed by airborne bacteria emanating from farm wastes. • In a clear effort to forestall mandatory limits on emissions of carbon dioxide and other heattrapping gases, the Bush administration has consistently sought to undermine the public’s understanding of the scientifi c consensus that consumption of fossil fuels and other human activities are contributing to global warming. snip... RESTORING SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY TO FEDERAL POLICYMAKING The damaging practices of the Bush administration documented in this report range across a wide front and will only be redressed by an effort of comparable proportions and persistence. If the nation is to fully benefi t from its heavy investment in scientifi c research and education, and if the public is not to lose faith in the rationality of its government, immediate steps must be taken to restore the integrity of science in the federal policymaking process. To that end, the president, Congress, scientists, and the public at large must engage in these efforts. The president should immediately request his science advisor to prepare a set of recommendations for executive orders and other actions to prohibit further censorship and distortion of scientifi c information from federal agencies, and put an end to practices that undermine the integrity of scientifi c advisory panels. Congress must ensure that this administration and must ensure that this administration and future administrations reverse this dangerous trend, and should: World-renowned scientific institutions such as the CDC and the National Institutes of Health take decades to build a team of world-class scientific expertise and talent. But they can be severely damaged in short order by scientifically unethical behavior. snip... The public also has a crucial role to play because also has a crucial role to play because these issues have an enormous impact on our health and well-being and that of our children and grandchildren. The public must voice its concern about these issues to its elected representatives, letting them know that censorship and distortion of scientifi c knowledge by the federal government will not be tolerated, and reminding them that the public trust is diffi cult to regain once lost. snip... Scientific Integrity in Policymaking l 37 List of Sensitive Issues for ARS Manuscript Review and Approval by National Program Staff - February 2002 (Revised) 1. Creation of transgenic food or feed organisms by genetic engineering. 2. Studies of genetically engineered organisms in the fi eld. 3. Cloning of animals by somatic cell nuclear transfer. 4. Somatic cell fusion to recombine DNA in ways that cannot be achieved through sexual crossing. 5. Dioxin research. 6. Plant, microbial and animal patent policy. 7. Agricultural practices with negative health and environmental consequences, eg., global climate change; contamination of water by hazardous materials (nutrients, pesticides, and pathogens); animal feeding operations or crop production practices that negatively impact soil, water, or air quality. 8. Boll weevil eradication program. 9. International plant germplasm policies. 10. Research fi ndings and recommendations that are contrary to current dietary guidelines or may be used in food labeling. 11. Megadoses of nutrients that may be benefi cial to human health/nutrition. 12. Radiolytic products in food. 13. Harmful microorganisms and their products (e.g., afl atoxin, mycotoxin, fumonisin, Salmonella, E. Coli) in agricultural commodities. 14. Pesticides or animal drugs in foods above approved tolerance levels. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 15. All transmissible encephalopathy (TSE) research including BSE research. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 16. Herbicide-resistant crop plant research. 17. Animal well-being/animal use. The following is an internal USDA document issued in Feburary 2002 that accompanied a directive to USDA staff scientists to seek prior approval before publishing any research or speaking publicly on “sensitive issues.” The document was supplied by Dr. James Zahn, then on staff at USDA. 38 l Union of Concerned Scientists 18. Biological items that may affect trade and export negotiations, e.g., fi re blight in apples, TCK smut, karnal bunt, insect infestations in export products, etc. 19. Narcotic plant control. 20. Methyl bromide topics that relate to policy and/or regulatory actions. 21. Medfl y/Malathion replacements. 22. Antibiotic/Antimicrobial Resistance. 23. Bioterrorism/Attacks on Agriculture. 24. Glassy-winged sharshooter/Pierce=s disease. 25. Sudden Oak Death. 26. Citrus Stem Canker. 27. Anthrax. 28. Emerging diseases or pest research that relates to policy and/or regulatory actions. javascript:openPDFWindow('http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/report.cfm?publicat\ ionID=730') The U.S. government runs on vast amounts of information. Researchers at the National Weather Service gather and analyze meteorological data to know when to issue severe-weather advisories. Specialists at the Federal Reserve Board collect and analyze economic data to determine when to raise or lower interest rates. Experts at the Centers for Disease Control examine bacteria and viral samples to guard against a large-scale outbreak of disease. The American public relies on the accuracy of such governmental data and upon the integrity of the researchers who gather and analyze it. However, at a time when one might expect the federal government to increasingly rely on impartial researchers for the critical role they play in gathering and analyzing specialized data, there are numerous indications that the opposite is occurring. A growing number of scientists, policy makers, and technical specialists both inside and outside the government allege that the Bush administration has suppressed or distorted the scientific analyses of federal agencies to bring these results in line with administration policy. In addition, these experts contend that irregularities in the appointment of scientific advisors and advisory panels are threatening to upset the legally mandated balance of these bodies. The quantity and breadth of these charges warrant further examination, especially given the stature of many of the individuals lodging them. Toward this end, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) undertook an investigation of many of the allegations made in the mainstream media, in scientific journals, and in overview reports issued from within the federal government and by non-governmental organizations. To determine the validity of the allegations, UCS reviewed the public record, obtained internal government documents, and conducted interviews with many of the parties involved (including current and former government officials). Scientific Integrity in Policymaking: An Investigation into the Bush Administration's Misuse of Science presents the finding of this investigation and offers solutions to help restore scientific integrity to the federal policymaking process. Download the full report <javascript:openPDFWindow('http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/report.cfm?publica\ tionID=730')> or the executive summary <javascript:openPDFWindow('http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/report.cfm?publica\ tionID=729')>. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/report.html Scientists: sign this statement to voice your concern about the Bush administration's misuse of science. <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/signon.html> Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policymaking ------ ———— On February 18, 2004, over 60 leading scientists–Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors, and university chairs and presidents–voiced their concern over the misuse of science by the Bush administration. UCS is seeking the signatures of thousands of additional U.S. scientists in support of this effort. ———— 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 Successful application of science has played a large part in the policies that have made the United States of America the world’s most powerful nation and its citizens increasingly prosperous and healthy. Although scientific input to the government is rarely the only factor in public policy decisions, this input should always be weighed from an objective and impartial perspective to avoid perilous consequences. Indeed, this principle has long been adhered to by presidents and administrations of both parties in forming and implementing policies. The administration of George W. Bush has, however, disregarded this principle. <http://www.ucsusa.org/form/rsimembers.php> Sign the statement today— <http://www.ucsusa.org/form/rsimembers.php> When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions. This has been done by placing people who are professionally unqualified or who have clear conflicts of interest in official posts and on scientific advisory committees; by disbanding existing advisory committees; by censoring and suppressing reports by the government’s own scientists; and by simply not seeking independent scientific advice. Other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such practices, but not so systematically nor on so wide a front. Furthermore, in advocating policies that are not scientifically sound, the administration has sometimes misrepresented scientific knowledge and misled the public about the implications of its policies. For example, in support of the president’s decision to avoid regulating emissions that cause climate change, the administration has consistently misrepresented the findings of the National Academy of Sciences, government scientists, and the expert community at large. Thus in June 2003, the White House demanded extensive changes in the treatment of climate change in a major report by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). To avoid issuing a scientifically indefensible report, EPA officials eviscerated the discussion of climate change and its consequences. The administration also suppressed a study by the EPA that found that a bipartisan Senate clean air proposal would yield greater health benefits than the administration’s proposed Clear Skies Act, which the administration is portraying as an improvement of the existing Clean Air Act. “Clear Skies” would, however, be less effective in cleaning up the nation’s air and reducing mercury contamination of fish than proper enforcement of the existing Clean Air Act. Misrepresenting and suppressing scientific knowledge for political purposes can have serious consequences. Had Richard Nixon also based his decisions on such calculations he would not have supported the Clean Air Act of 1970, which in the following 20 years prevented more than 200,000 premature deaths and millions of cases of respiratory and cardiovascular disease. Similarly, George H.W. Bush would not have supported the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and additional benefits of comparable proportions would have been lost. The behavior of the White House on these issues is part of a pattern that has led Russell Train, the EPA administrator under Presidents Nixon and Ford, to observe, “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.” Across a broad range of policy areas, the administration has undermined the quality and independence of the scientific advisory system and the morale of the government’s outstanding scientific personnel: * Highly qualified scientists have been dropped from advisory committees dealing with childhood lead poisoning, environmental and reproductive health, and drug abuse, while individuals associated with or working for industries subject to regulation have been appointed to these bodies. * Censorship and political oversight of government scientists is not restricted to the EPA, but has also occurred at the Departments of Health and Human Services, Agriculture, and Interior, when scientific findings are in conflict with the administration’s policies or with the views of its political supporters. * The administration is supporting revisions to the Endangered Species Act that would greatly constrain scientific input into the process of identifying endangered species and critical habitats for their protection. * Existing scientific advisory committees to the Department of Energy on nuclear weapons, and to the State Department on arms control, have been disbanded. * In making the invalid claim that Iraq had sought to acquire aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment centrifuges, the administration disregarded the contrary assessment by experts at Livermore, Los Alamos and Oak Ridge National Laboratories. 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. To elevate the ethic that governs the relationship between science and government, Congress and the Executive should establish legislation and regulations that would: * Forbid censorship of scientific studies unless there is a reasonable national security concern; * Require all scientists on scientific advisory panels to meet high professional standards; and * Ensure public access to government studies and the findings of scientific advisory panels. To maintain public trust in the credibility of the scientific, engineering and medical professions, and to restore scientific integrity in the formation and implementation of public policy, we call on our colleagues to: * <http://www.ucsusa.org/form/rsimembers.php> Sign the statement today— <http://www.ucsusa.org/form/rsimembers.php> Bring the current situation to public attention; * Request that the government return to the ethic and code of conduct which once fostered independent and objective scientific input into policy formation; and * Advocate legislative, regulatory and administrative reforms that would ensure the acquisition and dissemination of independent and objective scientific analysis and advice. See a list of prominent signatories. <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/signatories.html> karl theis jr http://groups.msn.com/exposureofthetruth Search - Find what you’re looking for faster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.