Restoring Scientific
Integrity in Policymaking
by The Union of Concerned Scientists*, February
18, 2004
Executive Summary
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, 1990
The U.S. government
runs on information—vast
amounts of it. 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. Equally
important is the analysis of fact-based data in the government’s
policy-making process. When compelling evidence suggests a threat
to human health from a contaminant in the water supply, the federal
government may move to tighten drinking water standards. When
data indicate structural problems in aging bridges that are part
of the interstate highway system, the federal government may
allocate emergency
repair funds. When populations of an animal species are found
to be declining rapidly, offi cials may opt to seek protection
for those animals under the federal Endangered Species Act.
Given
the myriad pressing problems involving complex scientific
information—from the AIDS pandemic to the threat of nuclear
proliferation—the American public expects government experts
and researchers to provide more data and analysis than ever before,
and to do so in an impartial and accurate way.
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 current 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
nongovernmental 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).
Findings of The Investigation
- There
is a well-established pattern of suppression and distortion
of scientific findings by high-ranking Bush administration
political appointees across numerous federal agencies.
These actions have consequences for human health, public
safety, and community well-being. Incidents
involve air pollutants, heat-trapping emissions, reproductive
health, drug resistant bacteria, endangered species,
forest health, and military intelligence.
- There
is strong documentation of a wideranging effort to manipulate
the government’s scientific advisory system to
prevent the appearance of advice that might run counter
to the administration’s political agenda. These
actions include: appointing underqualifi ed individuals
to important advisory roles including childhood lead
poisoning prevention and reproductive health; applying
political litmus tests that have no bearing on a nominee’s
expertise or advisory role; appointing a non-scientist
to a senior position in the president’s scientific
advisory staff; and dismissing highly
qualified scientific advisors.
- There is evidence
that the administration often imposes restrictions on what
government scientists can say or write about “sensitive” topics. In
this context, “sensitive” applies
to issues that might provoke opposition from the administration’s
political and ideological supporters.
- There
is signifi cant evidence that the scope and scale of
the manipulation, suppression, and misrepresentation
of science by the Bush administration is unprecedented.
unprecedented.
Restoring Scientific Integrety To Federal
Policymaking
This report calls on
the president, Congress, scientists, and the public to take
immediate steps to restore
the integrity of science in the federal policymaking process.
The president should
immediately request his 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 scientific
information from federal agencies, and put an end to practices
that undermine the integrity of scientific advisory panels.
Congress should
ensure that this administration should ensure that this administration
and future administrations reverse this
dangerous trend. To this end, Congress should: hold oversight
hearings to investigate and assess the allegations raised in
this report; ensure that the laws and rules that govern scientific
advisory appointments require that all appointees meet high
professional standards, and protect against the domination
of such panel by individuals tied to entities
that have a vested interest at stake; guarantee public access
to government scientific studies and the fi ndings of scientific
advisory panels; and re-establish an organization able to independently
assess and provide guidance to Congress
on technical questions that have a bearing on public policy,
similar to the former Office of Technology Assessment.
Scientists must encourage their professional
societies and colleagues to become engaged in this issue, discuss
their concerns directly
with elected representatives, and communicate the importance
of this issue to the public, both directly and through the
media.
And the public must also voice its concern about this issue
to its elected representatives, letting them know that censorship
and distortion of scientific knowledge are unacceptable in
the
federal government and must
be halted.
*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.
Excerpt on nuclear issues from
the full report
Dismissal of Nuclear Weapons And Arms
Control Panels
National Nuclear
Security Administration Panel The National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) is the agency within the DOE responsible
for maintaining the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile,
and the ability to design and test new nuclear warheads
should the president decide to acquire them. When Congress
established the NNSA in 2000, it also created an independent,
external technical advisory committee. This committee,
formed in 2001, had a membership that included a number
of distinguished physicists and technical experts with
extensive knowledge of nuclear weapons, as well as former
government offi cials and retired senior military offi
cers. The committee was summarily abolished in June 2003.
Some of the physicists
on the committee had published articles explaining that
nuclear weapons have only a limited capability to destroy
deeply buried targets and, furthermore, that such attacks
would inevitably produce a great deal of radioactive
fallout. This is not a controversial opinion; experts
at the national nuclear weapons laboratories agree that
it is a relatively simple and well-understood consequence
of basic physics.
Nevertheless, a
senior NNSA offi cial expressed displeasure about the
articles to the authors, presumably because the administration’s
2001 Nuclear Posture Review called for development of
such weapons and President Bush’s FY04 budget included
funds for research on these so-called nuclear“ bunker
busters.” The NNSA administrator has justified
the abolition of the committee because there is “no
shortage of advice” and “there are a lot
of physicists who work” at the weapons labs. That,
of course, has always been true, and yet Cold War presidents
from Eisenhower to Nixon understood that such a serious
and dangerous subject requires the advice of outstanding
experts
independent of the government.
Arms Control Panel
After the Bush administration came
into office, the scientific committee that advised the
State Department on technical matters related to arms
control was dismissed. The committee had been chaired
by physicist Richard Garwin, who has served on the Presidential
Scientific Advisory Committee and the Defense Science
Board under administrations of both parties, and has
for decades been a consultant to the national nuclear
weapons laboratories and intelligence agencies. The committee
also had members with expertise on biological and chemical
weapons. After the committee
was dismissed, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control
and International Security John R. Bolton told Dr. Garwin
that a new committee would be
formed, but that has not happened.
 click
here to read the full report
|
|
