How Sound Is Bush's 'Sound Science'?
Leading scientists say the White House distorts research data to meet its policy goals

By JEFFREY BRAINARD
© Chronicle of Higher Education, March 5, 2004

Washington

Since President Bush was elected, in 2000, he has insisted that policy decisions based on scientific research be made on the basis of "sound science."

But many scientists assert that his stance, while laudable on its face, is a pretext for delaying or junking scientific findings that do not support his policy priorities.

More than 60 of the nation's top researchers, including 20 Nobel laureates, signed a report in late February charging that the Bush administration has misrepresented scientific findings -- including those by academic researchers -- to support its policies. The report, published by the Union of Concerned Scientists, also recounted unusual steps by the administration to block appointments of qualified scientists to advisory panels because the candidates opposed the president's policies.

In examining the charges made in the report of the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group best known for its work promoting nuclear disarmament, The Chronicle interviewed several academic researchers and looked at Bush-administration decisions on obesity and on workplace injury that were not covered in the report.

On those issues and others, including global climate change, both the UCS and other scientists interviewed by The Chronicle assert that the Bush administration has repeatedly stated that the existing research is uncertain or inadequate in order to justify not taking action to correct problems. They see the president's insistence on more research before making some decisions related to science as motivated primarily by his desire to protect business and industry from the costs and changes suggested by scientific findings.

Scientists are particularly worried by proposed federal guidelines under which peer-review panels would evaluate the scientific findings that support regulatory actions by federal agencies. The guidelines would encourage agencies to think twice before appointing scientists who had received research grants from those agencies. Critics say the plan could exclude top scientists who have supported regulations opposed by industry.

The Bush administration "has the right to make whatever policy they want, and we're not criticizing that," says David Michaels, a research professor of environmental occupational health at George Washington University, who signed the report. "But time and time again, the administration pretends the science supports their position."

The president's science adviser, John H. Marburger III, describes the report as "wrong" and "full of sweeping generalizations" that do not add up to a pattern of political interference with science. Mr. Marburger, a physicist and a former president of the State University of New York at Stony Brook, says the administration has been proactive in challenging the work of scientists that appeared flawed, in keeping with its interest in sound management and accountability.

While scientists have tangled with previous presidents over specific policies, several analysts of federal science policy say the Bush administration's actions appear unprecedented in scope.

"For me, [the report] paints a pretty convincing portrait of an administration that, whether through direction or neglect or a strong preference for ideologically compatible information, has set a tone in which policy is not remarkably responsive to the considered analysis of professionals in the relevant fields," says David H. Guston, an associate professor of public policy at Rutgers University at New Brunswick.

A Series of Complaints

Academic scientists have been murmuring doubts about the Bush administration's handling of science policy since the president took office, in 2001. But those concerns have crystallized in the past year with the publication of two reports -- the one from the Union of Concerned Scientists, and one that raised similar issues in August, from Rep. Henry A. Waxman, a California Democrat who is the ranking member of the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Government Reform.

The White House curtly dismissed Mr. Waxman's report as nothing more than a partisan attack. Mr. Marburger, in an interview last week, said the Union of Concerned Scientists' report, too, was politically motivated, although he also voiced respect for the list of marquee names among the scientists who endorsed the report, almost all of whom are at universities. Nine of the signatories served in the Clinton administration, including Mr. Michaels and Neal F. Lane, President Clinton's science adviser, who is now a professor of physics and astronomy at Rice University.

Mr. Marburger said he was still gathering information about the group's report so that he could respond to inquiries raised by members of Congress. Based on what he has learned so far, he said, the report's examples all have reasonable explanations that do not involve political interference. "I think there's a lot of reading motives into these things that is pernicious," he said. "Only a conspiracy theorist could tie these things together the way the UCS report did."

Mr. Lane, though, says the report is meant not as a partisan attack on the president, but to offer suggestions for improving how scientists inform public policy independent of partisan politics. And while the report does speak of "a wide-ranging effort to manipulate the government's scientific advisory system," he said, "we haven't alleged that someone in the agencies has consciously made a decision to mislead the public." Even so, he adds, agency officials may feel pressure to shape scientific advice to match policy directions established by their superiors.

The report raised many more complaints of political interference in science than are discussed here. Some relate to actions by federal agencies that do not directly involve academic research, including the suppression of studies on mercury emissions from power plants and airborne bacteria from farm waste. The policies that most directly involve academic scientists deal with climate change, peer review of agency regulations, and appointments to scientific advisory committees.

A major point of contention between the Bush administration and many scientists is climate change. In a series of reports, about 1,000 scientists worldwide, working through the International Panel on Climate Change, have concluded that the earth's climate is warming at a significant rate, and that smokestacks and automobiles are a significant cause. In a 2001 report, a panel of the National Academy of Sciences endorsed that view, although it acknowledged uncertainties in scientific knowledge.

In response, the president agreed that global warming was occurring but said immediate, mandatory controls on industry would wreak havoc on the U.S. economy. He called for further research into the issue.

Mr. Marburger notes that a follow-up report by National Academy of Sciences in February praised the administration for having consulted widely with scientists about its plan for that further research, which was released last year. The report also said the research agenda, which proposes to fill gaps in existing knowledge, is ambitious and could guide scientists for decades.

What Mr. Marburger did not say was that the National Academy report did not give the administration's research plan a clean bill of health. It said the necessary studies of climate change would require a major, although unspecified, increase in federal spending, beyond the existing budget, to accommodate the expanded research called for by the president.

The administration has instead suggested that the expanded research efforts could be paid for through reallocations of existing funds. In February Mr. Bush proposed a decrease of 2 percent, to $1.958-billion, in spending for research on climate change in the 2005 fiscal year.

The existing research money "is going to good things now, and you can't redirect the pie if we're going to make progress on poorly understood scientific issues," says William H. Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. He helped write the report from the National Academy of Sciences and signed the Union of Concerned Scientists' report.

The science academy's report also predicted that the climate-research program would have to cope with continuing perceptions that administration officials could influence its priorities or results on the basis of political considerations. The authors called for an independent scientific review of the overall program.

The Union of Concerned Scientists' report suggested that the administration's calls for additional research to clarify uncertainties about climate change served mainly to excuse not issuing mandatory regulations to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. And the group expressed doubt that the administration welcomed independent advice. It noted, for instance, that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency removed a section on global change from one of its reports after administration officials suggested changes to emphasize the scientific uncertainties, changes that agency scientists resisted.

Mr. Marburger says the president's views on climate change have been "persistently and seriously misrepresented." The EPA agreed to remove the report section, he says, because Mr. Bush was planning to release his climate-change research plan a few weeks later, in a document that involved a much more extensive discussion of the state of the science.

Peer Review of Agency Regulations

Another controversial proposal by the Bush administration is a plan to expand peer review of scientific studies that support "significant" proposed federal regulations.

The proposal was made in August by the White House Office of Management and Budget. Some but not all federal agencies already subject proposed regulations to scientific peer review. The new rule would create a common standard requiring peer reviews of all regulations that are related to an "administration priority policy" or that would cost more than $100-million annually to carry out. It would not require oversight of federal agencies' peer-reviewed research grants that did not involve regulation.

John D. Graham, director of regulatory affairs at the OMB, has said that the rule would improve the quality and credibility of regulatory science. But the idea has drawn criticism from academic researchers, who say it will encourage political interference in science to protect corporate interests affected by federal regulations.

Academic scientists are particularly worried about one aspect of the proposal that encourages agencies to consider whether to exclude from the peer-review panels scientists who have received funds from the agency involved. The plan suggests that the researchers might well be reluctant to take sides against those that finance their research. The guidelines also encourage scrutiny of scientists' financial interests, without spelling out whether the panels may include scientists financed by industry.

Mr. Marburger describes the proposal as simply encouraging disclosure of all reviewers' potential biases. But others see it as creating a way to exclude some scientists whose research supports policies opposed by businesses.

In a joint written comment to Mr. Graham's office, two large academic research groups, the Association of American Medical Colleges and the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, said, "We cannot accept that receiving grants from a federal agency is per se cause to bar researchers from reviewing a proposed regulatory action, provided those researchers (or their close associates) have not contributed directly to the scientific underpinnings of the action under review."

Researchers are also concerned that peer review could delay the issuance of new regulations.

The OMB is now evaluating more than 180 formal comments on the plan. Many are critical and come from individual scientists and other scientific organizations. Some supportive comments come from industry, including Syngenta, a pesticide company that has challenged academic research suggesting that one of its products may have caused declines in frog populations (The Chronicle, October 31).

Guidance on Obesity and Diet

Another bone of contention in federal science policy concerns international guidelines by the World Health Organization on obesity. Last year a panel of 30 scientists published a set of recommendations to curtail an epidemic of obesity worldwide. Recognized as a serious public health problem in the United States, the condition is also worsening in developing countries. The panel's report estimated that 300 million people worldwide are obese.

The recommendations drew detailed criticism from the Bush administration, which called them scientifically unfounded. But some supporters of the panel argue that the administration is motivated less by science than by political considerations: protecting American sugar and processed-food companies, which export their products abroad and are significant political-campaign contributors. Those industries have objected strenuously to the recommendations. Food-processing businesses gave Mr. Bush a total of $188,340 for his 2000 campaign, outpacing the $23,250 they gave to Democratic candidate Al Gore, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

One area of dispute centers on a proposal that no more than 10 percent of the daily calorie intake for a national population come from sugar that is added to foods during processing. That is about the amount in the U.S. government's own guidelines on diet for individuals.

The administration quoted a 2002 report by the Institute of Medicine, an affiliate of the National Academy of Sciences, as reporting that an intake of up to 25 percent in added sugar was acceptable. However, the institute's president, Harvey V. Feinberg, wrote to the administration last year to correct that interpretation. The report's discussion of the 25-percent level refers to the boundary below which sugar intake does not interfere with vitamin and mineral intake.

The report from the World Health Organization also recommends that nations consider regulations to limit advertising that markets fattening foods to children.

"Most of the major policy initiatives we have are based on a combination of scientific evidence and other kinds of evidence and reasoning," says Shiriki K. Kumanyiki, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, who is vice chairman of the panel that wrote the report. Recent studies do establish a connection between advertising and obesity in children, although a rigorous, controlled study would be impractical to conduct, she says.

"What I dislike [about the administration's critique] is that it is not framed in a constructive way to suggest other evidence that we did not consider," she says.

At the administration's request, the WHO has agreed to extend the deadline for comments on its report. The organization's governing body is scheduled to vote on the recommendations in May.

Research on Workplace Injuries

Another dust-up between the administration and aresearchers, in January, concerned studies of ergonomics and the connection between working conditions and injuries.

A group of 11 scientists who study ergonomics boycotted a research symposium sponsored by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The meeting's purpose was to review new findings relevant to reducing the incidence of "musculoskeletal disorders" -- which include such conditions as carpel-tunnel syndrome and lower-back strain -- in the workplace.

In a letter to the agency, the dissenting scientists, from six universities, suggested that the symposium would not be examining any new issues, but would only revisit settled science. Several national reports have already linked the disorders to workplace conditions that include vibrations and lifting heavy loads. Two of the reports came from the National Academy of Sciences, including one released in early 2001. It concluded that prevention programs in the workplace could decrease injuries.

An estimated 38 million Americans, or 15 percent of the population, suffered from one of more musculoskeletal disorders in 1990, although reseachers have not concluded how many of those injuries were caused by workplace conditions. Costs totaled up to $54-billion annually, according to the science academy's 2001 study.

Near the end of his term, President Bill Clinton established regulations to require employers to take steps to minimize such injuries. But the Bush administration suspended the rules as soon as it took office, and Congress later voted to kill them. Several business groups contend that the link between the injuries and workplace conditions remains unproven, and that putting any new regulations into effect would be costly.

So, as with other some other scientific issues, the president has called for more research

That rankles scientists like Robert C. Radwin, a professor of biomedical engineering at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, who was one of the boycotters and helped write the 2001 study. "Industry is considering the practicality of implementation" and the costs of changes in the workplace, he says. "But to say, 'We don't like the scientific evidence because it implies certain policies are warranted, and we don't like the policies' -- you can't do that. Science should be outside the consideration of public policy."

Manipulation of Advisory Committees?

The Union of Concerned Scientists also criticized a number of cases in which administration officials turned down nominees to federal scientific advisory bodies because they disagreed with White House policies.

In 2002 Tommy G. Thompson, secretary of health and human services, rejected three nominees recommended by his department to serve on a committee reviewing grant applications for research on occupational safety and health. One of them was Laura Punnett, a professor of occupational ergonomics and epidemiology at the University of Massachusetts at Lowell, who was on record in support of the Clinton administration's rule on ergonomic standards in the workplace.

Ms. Punnett said she was never given an official reason for the rejection but was assured by department officials that they had been satisfied with her scientific credentials.

Observers say it is unprecedented for the secretary of health and human services to block appointments to panels that consider grant applications rather than broader policy issues.

Bill Pierce, a spokesman for the department, says that the secretary's office has direct oversight of that review panel, unlike the more autonomous peer-review panels of the National Institutes of Health. Appointees are chosen for a variety of reasons besides their scientific credentials, including geographic and ethnic diversity.

"We have more qualified people than we have slots to fill," he says.

Mr. Marburger, the president's science adviser, insists that these assorted complaints do not prove that the Bush administration's handling of scientific issues is broken and needs fixing. Hundreds of scientific endeavors are functioning without political controversy, he says. And the president, he continues, respects and encourages the contributions of science to national life.

What the criticisms do suggest is that the administration needs to communicate better with scientists, he says.

In turn, Mr. Lane, the science adviser to Mr. Clinton, hopes that the Union of Concerned Scientists has sent a constructive message to administration officials.

"I hope that by raising the profile of this issue, agencies will look twice at scientific information and why it's especially need of careful handling and protection," he says. "Otherwise, you don't have a chance of making sound policy down the road."

SCIENTISTS WHO SIGNED CRITIQUE OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION

Following is the list of prominent scientists and educators who signed a statement saying that the Bush administration has deliberately manipulated or ignored research findings that have been at odds with White House goals.

Philip W. Anderson, Princeton U.*
David Baltimore, California Institute of Technology*
Paul Berg, Stanford U. School of Medicine*
Rosina Bierbaum, U. of Michigan
Nicolaas Bloembergen, U. of Arizona*
Lewis M. Branscomb, Harvard U.
Eric Chivian, Harvard Medical School*
Joel E. Cohen, Rockefeller U.
James Cronin, U. of Chicago*
Margaret Davis, U. of Minnesota
Paul M. Doty, Harvard U.
Paul Ehrlich, Stanford U.
Thomas Eisner, Cornell U.
Christopher Field, Carnegie Institution of Washington
Gerald D. Fischbach, Columbia U.
Val L. Fitch, Princeton U.*
Jerry Franklin, U. of Washington
Jerome I. Friedman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology*
Richard L. Garwin, International Business Machines
John H. Gibbons, former science adviser to President Clinton
Marvin L. Goldberger, former president, California Institute of Technology
Lynn R. Goldman, John Hopkins U.
Kurt Gottfried, Cornell U.
David Grimes, U. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Roger Guillemin, Salk Institute for Biological Studies*
John P. Holdren, Harvard U.
Anne Kapuscinski, U. of Minnesota
Eric R. Kandel, Columbia U.*
Walter Kohn, U. of California at Santa Barbara*
Lawrence Krauss, Case Western Reserve U.
Neal F. Lane, Rice U.
Leon M. Lederman, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory*
William N. Lipscomb, Harvard U.*
Jane Lubchenco, Oregon State U.
Michael C. MacCracken, former executive director, Office of the U.S. Global Change Research Program
James J. McCarthy, Harvard U.
Jerry M. Melillo, co-director, the Ecosystems Center, Marine Biological Laboratory
Matthew S. Meselson, Harvard U.
David Michaels, George Washington U.
Mario J. Molina, Massachusetts Institute of Technology*
Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton U.
Gordon Orians, U. of Washington
W.K.H. Panofsky, Stanford U.
Stuart Pimm, Duke U.
Ron Pulliam, U. of Georgia
Norman F. Ramsey, Harvard U.*
Anthony Robbins, Tufts U.
Allan Rosenfield, Columbia U.
F. Sherwood Rowland, U. of California at Irvine*
Edwin E. Salpeter, Cornell U.
William Schlesinger, Duke U.
J. Robert Schrieffer, Florida State U.*
Richard E. Smalley, Rice U.*
Felicia Stewart, U. of California at San Francisco
Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Harold E. Varmus, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center*
Steven Weinberg, U. of Texas at Austin*
E.O. Wilson, Harvard U.
Edward Witten, Institute for Advanced Study
George M. Woodwell, Woods Hole Research Center
Donald Wuebbles, U. of Illinois
Herbert F. York, first director, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

*Nobel laureate

SOURCE: Union of Concerned Scientists

Media Contact: Tim Lucas at 919-613-8084 or tdlucas@duke.edu