Scientists Say Bush Administration Misuses Science
Prominent scientists, policy makers, and technical specialists have accused the Bush administration of suppressing or distorting scientific analyses by federal agencies to bring their results into line with administration policy. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) lodged its accusations in a report issued last February and signed by twenty Nobel Laureates and nineteen National Medal of Science recipients in addition to other science researchers. The report says the extent to which the Bush administration has manipulated science is "unprecedented."
In April, John Marburger, III, the president's science adviser, released a point-by-point rebuttal of the report, calling its findings "wrong and misleading." Marburger is director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, part of the executive office of the president.
The scientists' report lists specific instances in which it says high-ranking Bush political appointees censored or misrepresented the research findings of federal agencies. The studies in question analyzed air pollutants, military intelligence, reproductive health, endangered species, and other topics. The report alleges, for example, that senior Bush officials "suppressed and sought to manipulate" information in a study by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that found that 8 percent of women of child-bearing age have mercury levels in their blood that could reduce the IQs and motor skills of their offspring. The report notes that this finding "provides strong evidence in direct contradiction to the administration's desired policy of reducing regulation on coal-fired power plants," the nation's largest source of mercury air emissions.
According to the report, the administration has also "repeatedly allowed political considerations to trump scientific qualifications" in the process used for appointing researchers to government advisory bodies. Thereport cites the appointment of W. David Hager, an obstetrician-gynecologist with "highly partisan political views," to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Reproductive Health Advisory Committee. The report says that Hager is best known for co-authoring a book that recommends particular scripture readings as a treatment for premenstrual syndrome.
In his rebuttal of the report, Marburger disputed the charge that the administration suppressed data about blood-mercury levels in the EPA study cited. Besides, he wrote, "this information was available well before the EPA report through the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]." He said the administration's review of the EPA study occurred independent of deliberations on mercury emissions from power plants.
To the charge that the administration appoints underqualified candidates, such as Hager, in health-advisory roles, Marburger responded that the two candidates cited in the report "are in fact well qualified. Their c.v.'s are widely available, and it is not necessary to repeat them."
"I can say from personal experience," Marburger wrote, "that the accusation of a litmus test that must be met before someone can serve on an advisory panel is preposterous. After all, President Bush sought me out to be his science adviser—the highest-ranking [science and technology] official in the federal government—and I am a lifelong Democrat."
Kurt Gottfried, chair of the UCS board and professor emeritus of physics at Cornell University, told the Washington Post that Marburger's response failed to persuade him. Many of the scientists who signed the UCS statement, he said, "have served in many administrations, so when we say this is a new situation, there's some credibility to that. We're not just getting out of grad school."
|