News & Views item - July  2004

 

 

US Union of Concerned Scientists Confront Bush with New Cases of Scientific Abuse. (July 10, 2004)

    In February this year the Union of Concerned Scientists published a statement by over 60 scientists including Nobel Laureates, National Medal of Science recipients, and other leading US researchers calling for end to scientific abuses by the administration of President George W. Bush. In what appeared to be a knee-jerk reaction John Marburger, the science advisor to the President promised Congress, according to Science, a point-by-point response, and another senior official predicted it would "shred" every UCS allegation made in its 49 page statement. After seven weeks Marburger presented his reply, and arroding to Science The 20-page rebuttal--released on 2 April--fell "short of that high standard, although it [did] expose errors and incomplete explanations in the UCS report." And with regard to the Administration's controversial appointments to advisory panels dealing with lead exposure and ergonomics issues, they were dismissed as "rare events."1, 2, 3

 

Now the UCS has released a followup to its original condemnation of the Bush administrations abuse of US science. "Since the release of the UCS report in February, the administration has continued to undermine the integrity of science in policy making seemingly unchecked. Many scientists have spoken out about their frustration with an administration that has undermined the quality of the science that informs policy making by suppressing, distorting, or manipulating the work done by scientists at federal agencies and on scientific advisory panels."
 

According to the UCS those many scientists have swelled the original 62 signatories to over 4000 which now include 48 Nobel Laureates.

 

Among the new allegations brought against the Administration are testimonials from scientists alleging they were asked about their political views when they were being considered as candidates for White House and National Institutes of Health (NIH) advisory councils. Today the AAAS ScienceNow reports:

Gerald Keusch, who resigned in December after 5 years as director of the Fogarty International Center at NIH, asserts that there was an "absolute change" in appointing members of his center's advisory panel starting with the Bush Administration. He says that 19 of his 26 proposed appointments over a 3-year period were rejected--including Nobel laureate Torsten Wiesel. Political appointees at HHS suggested other names that Keusch found almost wholly inappropriate for the task. The UCS study also maintains that the Administration distorted scientific findings on topics ranging from West Virginia strip mining to a new over-the-counter contraceptive pill and endangered salmon in the Pacific Northwest.

But in reply John Marburger brushed aside the new charges as, "a patchwork of disjointed facts and accusations that reach conclusions that are wrong and misleading." However, Marburger's office declined to respond to specific allegations.

 

The UCS concludes its 34 page report by "raising the issue of what reforms should be adopted to "restore scientific integrity to the formation and implementation of federal public policy." It states that it has consulted with scientists who have served in government and experienced congressional staff among others and it puts forward several preliminary suggestions: protecting government scientists by creating "a corps of scientific ombudsmen, providing better scientific advice to Congress by establishing a centre for scientific and technical assessment within the General Accounting Office, strengthening the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), i.e. the OSTP director (currently John Marburger III), as the most senior scientific advisor in the U.S. government, should once again have the stature of assistant to the president for science and technology, and should report directly to the president, and finally, the Independence of Scientific Advisory Committees should be ensured. "The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) stipulates that members of such committees are to be appointed as Special Government Employees (SGEs), with full disclosure of any conflicts of interest, when they are to serve in the role of experts, or as 'representatives' when they are to represent various stakeholders."

 

Nay saying views supported by 48 Nobelists would seem a remarkable degree of chutzpah by Dr Marburger but then again he is working for an administration very much of the opinion that might makes right.