Bush's New Political Science

[Guest guest]

http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2002/45/ma_151_01.html

 

 

 

Bush's New Political Science

When it comes to public-health appointments, the administration has its own

litmus test.

 

By Ken Silverstein

November/December 2002 Issue

President Bush named Dr. Elias Zerhouni, left, to head the National Institutes

of Health last March -- but the search for a candidate whose views passed muster

with the White House took 14 months.

 

 

 

 

As the nation's premier research center, the National Institutes of Health is

supposed to be insulated from politics. The agency has long appointed respected

health professionals -- regardless of their political beliefs -- to advisory

councils that help direct the nation's medical research on everything from

genetic disorders to the common cold. " The NIH casts a broad net and

deliberately creates a diverse council that can give them input, " says Steven

Hayes, a University of Nevada professor who sits on the National Advisory

Council on Drug Abuse at the NIH.

 

 

 

 

 

E-mail article

Print article

 

· Prozac.org

· Donna's promise

 

 

· The National Institutes of Health

 

 

· E-mail the editor

 

 

 

 

But the Bush administration has been screening candidates about their political

views -- an unprecedented move intended to make sure that conservatives get

seats on NIH advisory councils. In some cases, Mother Jones has learned, a White

House liaison with the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees

the NIH, has called candidates and asked detailed questions about their

political leanings.

One candidate screened by the White House was William Miller, a widely respected

researcher and professor at the University of New Mexico who was nominated to

serve on the advisory council on drug abuse. Miller says he's never been

secretive about his politics. " If somebody started digging, they wouldn't have

to dig too far to find out I'm a lifelong liberal, " he says. " I've never been

arrested or joined the Communist Party -- I'm just what Garrison Keillor calls a

'museum quality' liberal Democrat. "

That apparently was enough to trigger alarm bells at the White House. Last

January 15, a liaison staffer interviewed Miller by phone. According to Miller,

the staffer told him that he needed to determine whether Miller held " any views

that might be embarrassing to the president. " He began by asking Miller's views

on drug legalization and needle exchange; when Miller responded that he was

opposed to the former and in favor of the latter, the staffer replied, " You're

one for two. " The staffer then asked a series of questions that had no apparent

relevance to Miller's qualifications to serve on the council: Did he favor

capital punishment for drug kingpins? (No.) Was he opposed to abortion? (No.)

Had he voted for Bush? When Miller replied that he had not, the staffer asked

him to explain why he " hadn't supported the president. "

Miller says he was " surprised and aghast " by the questions. After the interview

ended, the staffer told Miller that he would get back to him after checking to

see if his views were " acceptable. " Miller never received a second call.

Several prominent conservatives had no such difficulty, however. Among those

named to the drug-abuse advisory council was Robert Woodson, whose National

Center for Neighborhood Enterprise provides training to faith-based

organizations. The organization is heavily funded by the Bradley Foundation,

which also bankrolls the Clinton-bashing American Spectator. Another member of

the panel is Peggy Sapp, who sits on a drug-abuse advisory council in Florida

appointed by Governor Jeb Bush. Sapp, who directs a national network of

parenting organizations, is the only member of the 18-member council without an

advanced degree. Several conservatives, including a college friend of the

president, were also appointed to the NIH's National Mental Health Advisory

Council.

Bill Pierce, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services,

insists that it is accepted practice to select scientific panelists based on

their politics. " Every president does it, " he says. " It goes back to George

Washington. I can't say that past administrations have asked the same questions,

but the end result is the same -- you put people on boards that you want. "

But current NIH staffers and former top officials say the political screening

represents a marked departure from past practice. " That's absolutely unusual --

are you kidding? " says Steven Hyman, former director of the National Institute

of Mental Health and now provost of Harvard University. " Politics should be

irrelevant to science. "

Others familiar with the process agree. " No one around here has ever heard about

this type of questioning, " says an NIH official who asked not to be identified.

" I don't see how it's supposed to help further our scientific research. "

The NIH's advisory councils are designed to provide the government with

impartial, professional expertise on a wide range of medical research. Panel

members are often asked to make recommendations on policies and funding

involving controversial issues -- including aids treatment, medical marijuana,

and drug testing on human subjects. Some involved in the process say that

screening candidates threatens to place the president's views over scientific

evidence. Miller, for example, says the White House liaison told him that his

support for reducing the spread of HIV by providing clean syringes to drug

addicts was a strike against him because the president is " morally opposed to

needle exchange. "

Not every candidate was screened, and health professionals with liberal views

were appointed to NIH advisory councils. But even those who were not questioned

about their politics express concern about the practice. " It sounds intimidating

to the candidate -- and it's intimidating just to hear about it, " says David

Vlahov, who was nominated to the drug-abuse council under Clinton and approved

under Bush.

For their part, some NIH staffers say that the screening has made them reluctant

to consult the advisory councils. " You have to be worried about what their

politics are, " says one staff member. " You want to ask them their opinion, but

you need to keep them at arm's length because they might be pushing a particular

agenda. " What do you think?

 

 

 

 

 

Gettingwell- / Vitamins, Herbs, Aminos, etc.

 

To , e-mail to: Gettingwell-

Or, go to our group site: Gettingwell

 

 

 

 

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now