The Bush administration is determined to give new meaning to the term
political science.
While jabbering about "sound science," President Bush has packed
advisory panels with ideological appointments, censored reports, and
gagged government scientists.
Now, an obscure administrative power grab, camouflaged as a scientific
gold standard, will likely result in giving politics even more control
over science.
The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is tarnishing
"peer review," a respected process routinely used by academic journals
and government agencies. In peer review, knowledgeable scientists
evaluate the soundness of one another's research.
OMB, created in 1970 to advise the president on the federal budget,
wants to micromanage who reviews studies emanating from all over
government, from the Occupational Health and Safety Administration to
the Environmental Protection Agency to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
These numbers crunchers, who have no scientific expertise, have
offered scant rationale for wresting oversight from career scientists.
Perhaps worst of all, they have written bizarrre new
conflict-of-interest rules for peer review that would disqualify some
of the nation's best minds (because they got government research
grants), while allowing industry-funded scientists to pack peer review
panels. The pretext is scientific rigor, but the subtext is ideology.
These new procedures could indefinitely bog down important rule-making
that protects the health and safety of Americans.
And perhaps that's the point.
Industry has long denounced the nation's regulatory system,
particularly when a study found a product unsafe or a chemical
polluting. OMB's new policy would make it easier for the
administration to quietly short-circuit rules by questioning the
underlying science (already one of its favorite games).
If that seems far-fetched, just look at who's lining up for and
against the proposal. Proponents read like a who's-who of industry
lobbyists (many of them Bush campaign contributors): the Edison
Electric Institute, the American Petroleum Institute, Ford Motor Co.,
National Cattlemen's Association, the Industrial Minerals Association
of North America.
The opposing side is a roll call of the nation's most esteemed
scientists: the National Academies of Science, the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, the Federation of American
Scientists, the Association of American Medical Colleges, plus
environmental, consumer and public-interest groups.
In numerous public comments on the proposed change, scientists
complain that OMB hasn't offered a single reason for reinventing a
peer review system that wasn't broken.
It is true that agency peer review policies are uneven. The EPA and
Food and Drug Administration, for example, have detailed, multilayered
procedures. The Department of Agriculture and Army Corps of Engineers,
on the other hand, have no policies at all. But OMB could fix any
problems without imposing this harmful "one-size-fits-all" directive.
Foremost, agencies need flexibility. Not all scientific information
requires the same level of time-consuming, expensive peer review. In
some cases, simple internal review is, in fact, sufficient.
Regardless of the level of review, the budget crunchers at OMB aren't
the only watchdogs on the case.
If questions are raised after a study comes out, agencies already have
inspectors general to investigate. Congress can call in its detective,
the General Accounting Office. Citizens and industry have recourse to
sue.
The American Public Health Association's biggest fear is this policy's
"potential negative impact on public health and environmental
regulation" - with good reason.
Hidden in the policy is a subtle shift in emergency powers to OMB. In
an "imminent health hazard," the administrator of OMB - not generally
a public health expert - would determine when and whether to release
information to the public.
The White House tried this before, downplaying the air quality hazards
in New York City after the collapse of the World Trade Center on Sept.
11, 2001. And the OMB has been criticized for stopping the EPA from
declaring a public health emergency over asbestos contamination in
Montana.
Decisions on potential crises - whether air quality, mad cow disease,
SARS, anthrax or a nuclear plant accident - belong to experts focused
on public health, far removed from the politics of the next election.
The Bush administration is at it again. This policy isn't "sound
science." It just sounds like science.
--
Larry C. Lyons
========================================================
Life is Complex. It has both real and imaginary parts.
========================================================
Chaos, Panic and Disorder. My work here is done.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
