Bush Administration Accused of Misusing Science

Despite efforts by the Bush administration to dismiss as biased a Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) report and a statement by 62 prominent scientists charging widespread manipulation and misuse of science in the federal government, the controversy has refused to fade away. In the weeks following the 18 February release of the report Scientific Integrity in Policymaking and the scientists' statement (see http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi), Office of Science and Technology Policy Director John Marburger said the report was wrong and told a Senate committee that he would "respond in some detail" to the allegations. He later said he was "preparing a very detailed analysis of the document to show the truth."

The UCS report, which cites scores of incidents, charges that "there is a well-established pattern of suppression and distortion of scientific findings by high-ranking Bush administration political appointees across numerous federal agencies." It adds that there is "strong documentation of a wide-ranging 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." The report says the "scale of the manipulation, suppression and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration is unprecedented."

Perhaps carrying more weight than the report itself was the accompanying statement signed by 20 Nobel laureates, several former federal science officials, and many other scientists. The statement charges the administration with manipulating and misrepresenting science for political gains. Like the report, it describes specific incidents. On the issue of global warming, for example, the statement says, "In support of the president's decision to avoid regulating emissions that cause climate change, the administration has consistently misrepresented the findings of the National Academy of Sciences, government scientists, and the expert community at large."

In comments made when the statement was released, one signatory, Neal Lane, President Bill Clinton's science adviser and a former NSF director, said, "We are not simply raising warning flags about an academic subject of interest only to scientists and doctors. In case after case, scientific input to policymaking is being censored and distorted. This will have serious consequences for public health."

Marburger said during a broadcast discussion with Lane that he was "alarmed and concerned by the statement" because the many claimed incidents of misuse of science "do not reflect the behavior of this administration." The administration has a "performance-based" management style, he said, and the claim that officials "censor or suppress or do not seek outside advice is simply wrong." Marburger said he had talked to many of the officials involved in cases described in both the report and the scientists' statement, and the charges were not only wrong but "wrong in detail."

Lane said he was "surprised" by Marburger's characterization because both the report and statement contain "fairly carefully selected incidents." The report notes that "highly qualified scientists have been dropped from advisory committees dealing with childhood lead poisoning, environmental and reproductive health, and drug abuse." The report also says that when scientific findings are in conflict with the administration's policies or with the views of its political supporters, censorship and "political oversight" have occurred at the Environmental Protection Agency and at the departments of Health and Human Services, Agriculture, and the Interior.

The report specifically calls into question the appointment process for Richard Russell, associate director at the Office of Science and Technology Policy, who is responsible for the technology portfolio. Russell has an undergraduate degree in biology, but no graduate or professional training in science, nor any experience in a technology-related industry. "It's a strange and remarkable decision to appoint a person with no education or experience with technology to such a senior position," said Kurt Gottfried, chairman of the UCS board of directors.

Although the report was commissioned in June 2003, the decision to issue a statement came about at a closed UCS meeting in Washington, DC, in the fall. A group of about 20 scientists, some of whom had held government positions, discussed a series of cases in which the integrity and impartiality of the scientific process seemed threatened. Scientists were aware of misuse by the administration, said Gottfried, "but they certainly didn't know just how comprehensive the situation was . . . so we decided that we should do something beyond just talking."

Over the next few months, the statement was circulated to prominent scientists throughout the US. "Not one disagreed with what it said," said Gottfried. "Many of them added quite strong statements about how alarmed they were, and how they were relieved that this [initiative] was happening and they could express their views in what might be an effective way." Some declined to sign because they didn't like the blunt language in the statement, he said. Others felt they were already engaged in trying to fix the problem and thought that signing the statement would jeopardize their effectiveness, he added.

Asked about the UCS charges at a forum on science journalism in early March, Kyle McSlarrow, a deputy secretary at the Department of Energy, dismissed them. "The effort put into this attack [by UCS scientists] is not the same as they would have done in their own work. We should take it with a grain of salt. Science doesn't have a right to trump public policy," he said.

Gottfried countered that the report is "not a research document, it's not a scientific paper; it's a warning that there's a lot that is not being done properly and it should be investigated." He added that the UCS campaign is not targeted at Marburger. "It was not intended that way, and we don't know really whether he's had any opportunity to control the situation or not."

In fact, he said, "it's not just written necessarily for this administration . . . . One shouldn't assume that if Bush doesn't get reelected that the problem will go away. The report highlights an erosion of standards that could have a long-lasting effect on the impartiality of scientific advice to the government."