Bush's changes to advisory process draw scientists' ire
By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY
A bipartisan, all-star roster of Nobel Prize winners and former federal science officials accused the Bush administration Wednesday of politicizing science.
"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," charges a document signed by 60 scientists in an unprecedented joint effort by the leaders of the nation's science establishment.
They are calling for an independent congressional investigation of federal science-advisory policies.
Signers include 20 Nobel Prize winners and 19 recipients of the National Medal of Science, awarded by the president for outstanding contributions in the field. Nobel winners include former National Institutes of Health chief Harold Varmus to pioneering chemist Richard Smalley. Medal winners include H-bomb designer Richard Garwin and Harvard physicist Norman Ramsey, both advisers to Republican administrations.
"These are very distinguished scientists with years of public service," says science policy expert Al Teich of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
A separate, 46-page report from the Union of Concerned Scientists, a group that has been critical of administration defense policies, accompanied the statement. It details what the union says were politically influenced science findings in the areas of health, environment, agriculture and national security, among others.
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy chief John Marburger dismissed the criticism as a "conspiracy report" of "disconnected issues that rubbed somebody the wrong way." He said the administration must better explain its processes to scientists.
From the Manhattan Project that created the atomic bomb to today's top-secret Pentagon programs, scientists have a long tradition of advising the federal government. But science has increasingly become the focus of political debate over the last decade.
President Clinton's failure to support needle-sharing programs to stop HIV transmission among drug addicts ? despite recommendations from his science advisers that he do so ? generated much criticism. So did President Bush's change of heart about a campaign promise to limit carbon dioxide emissions, which have been linked to global warming.
Researchers have been especially angry about administration moves to "peer review" federal regulations, excluding academic scientists while encouraging participation by scientists representing the regulated industry.
The report lists the following as objectionable practices, echoing past complaints from former government researchers:
? The removal of highly qualified scientists from lead-poisoning, environment, health and drug-abuse panels and their replacement with industry representatives.
? Forbidding EPA, Health and Human Services, Agriculture, and Interior Department scientists from speaking publicly.
? Revisions to the Endangered Species Act that limit scientists from commenting on the protection of habitats.
? The disbanding of advisory panels on nuclear weapons and arms control.
? The dismissal of assessments by national lab experts on the likelihood that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Marburger declined to address the scientists' specific complaints. He said he does not plan to bring the report to Bush's attention but hopes to involve federal agencies in responding to it.
