Here is something that futureworkers might find interesting
Bill Ward
******************************************************
HHS Seeks Science Advice to Match Bush Views
By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 17, 2002; Page A01
The Bush administration has begun a broad restructuring of the scientific
advisory committees that guide federal policy in areas such as patients'
rights and public health, eliminating some committees that were coming to
conclusions at odds with the president's views and in other cases
replacing
members with handpicked choices.
In the past few weeks, the Department of Health and Human Services has
retired two expert committees before their work was complete. One had
recommended that the Food and Drug Administration expand its regulation
of
the increasingly lucrative genetic testing industry, which has so far
been
free of such oversight. The other committee, which was rethinking federal
protections for human research subjects, had drawn the ire of
administration
supporters on the religious right, according to government sources.
A third committee, which had been assessing the effects of environmental
chemicals on human health, has been told that nearly all of its members
will
be replaced -- in several instances by people with links to the
industries
that make those chemicals. One new member is a California scientist who
helped defend Pacific Gas and Electric Co. against the real-life Erin
Brockovich.
The changes are among the first in a gradual restructuring of the system
that funnels expert advice to Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy
G.
Thompson.
<...SNIP...>
The committees typically toil in near anonymity, but they are important
because their interpretation of scientific data can sway an agency's
approach to health risk and regulation.
The overhaul is rattling some HHS employees, some of whom said they have
not
seen such a political makeover of the department since Ronald Reagan took
office in 1981.
<...SNIP...>
One example of the recent changes is the Secretary's Advisory Committee
on
Genetic Testing, created during the Clinton administration after a major
federal report concluded that the public was at risk of being harmed by
the
emerging gene-testing industry.
One of the first topics tackled by the committee was how to deal with the
proliferation of so-called home-brew genetic tests, which are offered by
a
growing number of companies and doctors.
The blood tests can detect DNA variations that may increase a person's
odds
of getting a disease or affect a patient's response to medicines.
The Food and Drug Administration has long asserted that it has the
authority
to regulate these tests, but it has opted not to do so -- in part because
of
a lack of resources. As a result, companies are free to market tests for
genes even if those genes have no proven role in disease susceptibility
or
any proven usefulness at all. A growing number of companies are doing
just
that -- at no small expense to consumers -- in some cases needlessly
alarming people with meaningless results and in other cases offering
false
reassurance.
<...SNIP...>
HERE'S WHERE THE PLOT THICKENS FOR MANY, THIS LIST!
Another example is the National Human Research Protections Advisory
Committee, created under President Bill Clinton after a series of
government
reports found serious deficiencies in the federal system for protecting
human subjects in research. The call from HHS to disband "came out of the
blue," said committee chair Mary Faith Marshall, a professor of medicine
and
bioethics at the University of Kansas in Kansas City.
Some sources suggested the committee had angered the pharmaceutical
industry
or other research enterprises because of its recommendations to tighten
up
conflict-of-interest rules and impose new restrictions on research
involving
the mentally ill.
"It's very frustrating," said Paul Gelsinger, who became a member of the
committee after his son, Jesse, died in a Pennsylvania gene therapy
experiment that was later found to have broken basic safety rules. "It's
always been my view that money is running the research show," he said.
"So
with this administration's ties to industry, I'm not surprised" to see
the
committee killed.
<...SNIP...>
YET, ANOTHER SERIOUS HACK ATTACK AND *BUSHWHACK*...
Yet another committee caught up in the recent upheaval is one that
advises
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for
Environmental Health on a range of public health issues from pollution to
bioterrorism.
Thomas Burke, the Johns Hopkins public health professor who has chaired
the
committee for almost five years, recently learned that 15 of its 18
members
are to be replaced. In the past, he said, HHS had asked him to recommend
new
members when there were openings. This time, he said, a list of names was
imposed. He was among those who were let go.
Burke said he was not offended that his own membership, which was
expiring,
was not renewed. "There's constant turnover on these boards," he said.
"What's of concern though is to see so much turnover at one time,
especially
at such a critical time for the CDC."
He mentioned another concern: One of the committee's major endeavors has
been to assess the health effects of low-level exposures to environmental
chemicals, yet as first reported by Science magazine last week, several
of
the new appointees are well known for their connections to the chemical
industry.
<...SNIP...>
HHS's Pierce said the committee remains balanced overall, and no
prospective
member of any advisory committee is subjected to political screenings.
"It's always a matter of qualifications first and foremost," Pierce said.
"There's no quotas on any of this stuff. There's no litmus test of any
kind."
At least one nationally renowned academic, who was recently called by an
administration official to talk about serving on an HHS advisory
committee,
disagreed with that assessment. To the candidate's surprise, the official
asked for the professor's views on embryo cell research, cloning and
physician-assisted suicide. After that, the candidate said, the
interviewer
told the candidate that the position would have to go to someone else
because the candidate's views did not match those of the administration.
Asked to reconcile that experience with his previous assurance, Pierce
said
of the interview questions: "Those are not litmus tests."
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
