Scientists Worry That Any Politics Will Compromise Their Credibility
By Guy Gugliotta and Rick Weiss Washington Post Staff Writers Thursday, February 19, 2004; Page A02
In two independent reports released yesterday, groups of prestigious scientists raised concerns about the role of politics in the formulation of Bush administration science policy and urged greater oversight by independent organizations.
A National Research Council report praised the administration for its revised climate-change research plan, but it questioned whether new initiatives would receive adequate funding and warned that participation of political appointees in the program could cause it "to be influenced by political considerations."
"Having high-level administration officials in management is a double-edged sword," Anthony C. Janetos, an NRC committee member and senior fellow at the Washington-based H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment, said in a telephone news conference. "It's positive because scientists are talking to people that make decisions and create funding, but it creates a challenge in maintaining scientific independence and credibility."
That was precisely the concern raised by 60 leading scientists and former federal agency heads who released a statement yesterday accusing the Bush administration of systematically suppressing and distorting scientific information to further its political goals. The statement's signers -- and an accompanying report compiled by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a Washington-based advocacy group -- claim that politicization of science by the administration has seriously undermined the integrity of the nation's research enterprise and has misled the public about the implications of recent policy decisions.
"Across a broad range of issues, the administration has undermined the quality of the scientific advisory system and the morale of the government's outstanding scientific personnel," said UCS Chairman Kurt Gottfried, an emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University. "Whether the issue is lead paint, clean air or climate change, this behavior has serious consequences for all Americans," Gottfried said.
The statement -- whose signatories include 12 Nobel laureates, 11 winners of the National Medal of Science, three recipients of the prestigious Crafoord Prize, the heads of some of the country's leading universities and biomedical research institutes, and two former presidential science advisers -- calls for congressional hearings to look into the issue and a renewed administration commitment to public access to objective scientific information.
In a hastily called telephone news conference yesterday afternoon, John H. Marburger III, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, addressed the claims of politicization made by the scientists and sought to minimize the document as being more political than scientific.
That so many prestigious scientists seem to feel that politics is trumping science in this administration, he said, is not evidence that the claim is true, but is "evidence that we are not communicating with them as well as we should on these issues."
He referred to the Union of Concerned Scientists report's 37 pages of examples -- including incidents in which administration officials changed Web sites, revised or eliminated wording in reports, or altered the makeup of advisory committees in ways that appeared to bolster political priorities -- as "a collection of more or less disconnected cases."
Asked whether he would raise the issue with the president at their next meeting, Marburger said he did not expect to.
The two reports refocused attention on the administration's science policy, frequently criticized by environmentalists and other advocacy groups for being overly beholden to its political supporters:
"Across the board there is an attempt to muzzle and silence scientists who disagree with either the administration's ideological agenda or the agenda of its corporate constituents," said Philip E. Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust.
But the National Research Council, a branch of the independent National Academies of Science, acknowledged in the introductory pages of its report, "Implementing Climate and Global Change Research," that the final strategic plan for the administration's 10-year U.S. Climate Change Science Program has "set a high standard" that could "effectively guide research on climate and associated global changes over the next decades."
The report praised program directors for including new agenda items, such as the effects of climate change on ecosystems and humans, but expressed concern that these endeavors would lack funding.
"If you have a program that is adding substantial new components and not eliminating some other components, it either requires a higher level of funding or [a change in] prioritization," said Yale University industrial ecologist Thomas E. Graedel, chairman of the NRC study committee, during the news conference.
Assistant Commerce Secretary James R. Mahoney, director of the program, agreed that the newer programs needed more money, and suggested officials could achieve this by reallocating existing funds: "We need to keep alert to those areas where the goals have been achieved and where we should be refocusing money," Mahoney said.
Mahoney said he "may well accept the suggestion" that the program install an outside review board to mitigate political influence. He noted, however, that "we are already committed to having the National Academies of Science do things for us on a repeated basis."
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
