Bush Political Interference Offends American Scientists

By J.R. Pegg

WASHINGTON, DC, July 9, 2004 (ENS) - Citing new evidence of abuse, thousands of top American scientists now say the Bush administration suppresses and distorts scientific knowledge and undermines federal scientific advisory panels. In February, 60 leading scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, urged President George W. Bush to stop manipulating scientific knowledge for political purposes. That plea has had little effect, they say.

"The White House has been dismissive of the scientific community's concerns and new cases of unacceptable political interference have come to light," said Dr. Kurt Gottfried, emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University and chairman of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). "As a result, the number of scientists willing to speak out has grown exponentially."

More than 4,000 U.S. scientists have now signed onto a UCS statement criticizing the administration's use of science, including 48 Nobel laureates, 62 National Medal of Science recipients and 127 members of the National Academy of Sciences.

The statement notes that while scientific input to the government is rarely the only factor in public policy decisions, this input should be weighed from an objective and impartial perspective.

But these critics say the administration of President George W. Bush has disregarded this principle.

"Science is being distored and set aside in a cavalier way," Gottfried said.

President George W. Bush is under fire from scientists who say science is being trumped by politics in his administration. (Photo by Eric Draper courtesy White House)

In a February response to the UCS statement, White House Science Advisor John Marburger said the "sweeping conclusions of the UCS statement go far beyond reasonable interpretations of the rules it recites."

Marburger noted that the Bush administration raised the science budget request for fiscal year 2005 by some 40 percent compared to 2001, to a record $132 billion.

Gottfried says that focus on spending misses the issue.

"If you look through everything we have written, the wording funding does not appear," he told reporters. "It is just not the topic. This is a deeper topic that transcends funding - it is whether that investment is going to be properly used."

In a new report released Thursday, the UCS details new incidents of suppression and distortion of scientific knowledge on issues ranging from endangered species to strip mining to stem cell research. The report details political interference with independent scientific advisory panels, most notably at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under the Department of Health and Human Services.

Union of Concerned Scientists cofounder Dr. Kurt Gottfried is a former chair of the Division of Particles and Fields of the American Physical Society. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the Council on Foreign Relations. (Photo courtesy UCS)

It cites examples of how political appointees have distorted scientific assessments of the critically endangered Florida panther in order to facilitate proposed development in Florida, suppressed the economic benefits of protecting and restoring bull trout in the Pacific Northwest, and misrepresented scientific evidence in order to avoid federal protection for trumpeter swans in the Rocky Mountain states.

Dr. Robert Paine, an ecologist at University of Washington and past president of the Ecological Society of America, told reporters of his experience as chair of an advisory panel on endangered salmon.

The panel said there was ample science to support the federal government's past position that hatchery fish should not be included in population counts used to determine the status of wild salmon and steelhead stocks.

But this conflicted with the intent of the Bush administration, and political appointees at NOAA Fisheries disputed the panel's findings on the differences between hatchery and wild fish.

"We were told to strip out specific scientific recommendations or see our report end up in a drawer," Paine said.

Paine and his fellow committee members took the unprecedented step in March of publishing its concerns in the journal "Science." In May, the administration finalized the new policy that salmon raised in concrete hatchery tanks will be considered when determining whether wild salmon should be protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

"Policy in this case trumped science," said Paine, who added that the decision makes a "mockery" of the Endangered Species Act.

Another case cited in the report involves how the Bush administration revised regulations for a controversial mining practice called mountaintop coal mining.

Aerial view of a mountaintop coal mining operation in West Virginia. (Photo by Vivian Stockman courtesy Ohio Valley Environmental Coaltion)

The waste rock is dumped wherever it is convenient, often into rivers and streams. The waste from this practice has fouled more than a thousand miles of Appalachian waterways and thousands of acres of forests.

Nevertheless, during the formation of an environmental impact statement on mountaintop mining senior political appointees at the Interior Department intentionally disregarded extensive scientific studies of these destructive environmental effects.

The Bush proposal offered no alternatives to mitigate the worst environmental consequences of the practice.

Dr. Gerald Keusch, the former director of the Fogarty International Center at the National Institutes of Health, told reporters of his struggle to appoint top level scientists to the center's advisory council, a body that does not make policy recommendations or decisions.

Dr. Gerald Keusch is the assistant provost for global health at Boston University Medical Center. (Photo courtesy Boston University)

"Because all these individuals were highly distinguished, NIH was quick to approve them," he explained. "Nonetheless, all but seven - including a Nobel laureate - were rejected by the administration. I was told the Nobel laureate had signed too many full page letters in 'The New York Times' critical of President Bush."

The administration forwarded Keusch resumes of individuals with experience that was either "scientifically inappropriate or weak," he said.

"I was never told to take any of them but the hint was clear," Keusch told reporters.

Gottfried added that the administration is now interfering with the participation of government scientists at World Health Organization (WHO) conferences. In years past, the WHO has invited federal scientists to conferences and to serve on committees without first clearing the names with the government.

But in April the administration reversed that position.

The administration "has ordered all such invitations approved by senior political appointees," Gottfried said.

The UCS report outlines several measures it believes will rectify the situation for this and future administrations, including:

• stronger "whistleblower" protection for government scientists
• greater independent oversight by Congress
• stricter enforcement of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
• increased transparency for selection and activities of advisory committees
• full access to government scientific analysis that is not legitimately classified for national security reasons

"We are not just criticizing," Gottfried said, "we want to put forth ideas and proposals for fixing this."