[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Science v. Politics
This was sent to me and I thought I would pass it along. I guess this would
confirm my belief that good science does not influence legislation, politics
does.
-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
3050 Traymore Lane
Bowie, MD 20715-2024
E-mail: jenday1@email.msn.com (H)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Coronado, Lisa (NIH/OD/ORS)
> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 4:57 PM
> Subject: Science Magazine: Advice Without Dissent
>
Source: Science Magazine
URL: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/298/5594/703
Date published: October 25th 2002
David Michaels, Eula Bingham, Les Boden, et al.
Advice Without Dissent
The Bush administration has made some unwise recent moves that undermine the
process by which scientists provide advice to the U.S. government. The
applicable current law (the Federal Advisory Committee Act), which requires
these advisory bodies to ". . . be fairly balanced in terms of the points of
view represented and . . . not be inappropriately influenced by the
appointing authority or by any special interest," is more than empty
boilerplate. Those of us who have served on these committees, or who have
been the recipients of their advice, know that a variety of perspectives is
key to a successful advisory panel. The national system of advisory
committees plays a vital role in developing and guiding the federal
government's science policy. It is the primary mechanism for government
agencies to harness the wisdom and expertise of the scientific community in
shaping the national agenda for both research and regulation. For many
federal agencies, particularly those focusing on medicine and health,
advisory committees are chartered to address the most challenging and
contentious scientific issues. They are challenging because of the
inevitable uncertainty in applying the results of many different types of
laboratory and epidemiological studies involving human beings to clinical
medicine and public health decisions and regulations. And they are
contentious because of the conflicts in values, both moral and economic,
that arise in setting federal health and science policy.
According to the Washington Post, a Department of Health and Human Services
(DHHS) spokesperson asserted Secretary Tommy Thompson's prerogative to hear
preferentially from experts who share the president's philosophical
sensibilities. Here is what the secretary has done:
1) To avoid getting advice that is discordant with the administration's
political agenda, the secretary disbanded the National Human Research
Protections Advisory Committee and DHHS's Advisory Committee on Genetic
Testing, both of which were attempting to craft solutions to the complex
problems accompanying genetic testing and research; solutions that
apparently conflicted with the religious views of certain political
constituencies.
2) To ensure that the department would get no unwanted advice from its
environmental health advisory committees, the secretary has stacked them
with scientists long affiliated with polluting industries. Fifteen of the 18
members of the Advisory Committee to the Director of the National Center for
Environmental Health (NCEH) have been replaced, many with scientists that
have long been associated with the chemical or petroleum industries, often
in leadership positions of organizations opposing public health and
environmental regulation. Similarly, the secretary has appointed
industry-supported scientists to DHHS's Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead
Poisoning Prevention, threatening a planned review by the committee of
whether the Centers for Disease Control's definition of "elevated blood lead
levels" in children is sufficiently protective.
Sadly, the secretary has it wrong. Scientific advisory committees do not
exist to tell the secretary what he wants to hear but to help the secretary,
and the nation, address complex issues. Every administration advances its
agenda by making political appointments of scientists and managers to direct
its agencies. But disbanding and stacking these public committees out of
fear that they may offer advice that conflicts with administration policies
devalues the entire federal advisory committee structure and the work of
dedicated scientists who are willing to participate in these efforts.
Previous administrations have recognized this and have generally worked hard
to ensure balance. To cite one example, scientists employed by Exxon,
Monsanto, DuPont, General Motors, and the Chemical Industry Institute of
Technology have long served on the Environmental Protection Agency's Science
Advisory Board, along with others from the World Wildlife Fund and the
American Lung Association. Although deliberations of environmental health
advisory committees have not always reached consensus, the differences
expressed make important contributions to the agencies' work.
Instead of grappling with scientific ambiguity and shaping public policy
using the best available evidence (the fundamental principle underlying
public health and environmental regulation), we can now expect these
committees to emphasize the uncertainties of health and environmental risks,
supporting the administration's antiregulatory views. And in those areas
where there are deeply held conflicts in values, we can expect only silence.
Regulatory paralysis appears to be the goal here, rather than the
application of honest balanced science.
The authors are affiliated with George Washington University, Boston
University, the University of Cincinnati, Johns Hopkins University, Tufts
University, and the Tellus Institute. Full institutional affiliations are
available online at www.tellus.org/advicewithoutdissentauthors.html
http://www.tellus.org/advicewithoutdissentauthors.html>.
The full editorial can be found at
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/298/5594/703
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/