New Scientist
We're waiting, Mr President
* 15:10 03 December 2010 by _Peter Aldhous_
(http://www.newscientist.com/search?rbauthors=Peter+Aldhous)
A US government report on a pressing environmental issue is edited to
falsely imply that scientists had peer-reviewed and supported the central
policy recommendation. Almost 1 in 4 government scientists working on food
safety say they have been asked by their bosses to exclude or alter technical
information in scientific documents during the past year.
These incidents sound as if they come from the dark days of George W.
Bush's presidency, when complaints about political interference in government
science reached a crescendo. But in fact, both refer to the behaviour of the
current US administration, led by a president who famously promised to
"_restore science to its rightful place_
(http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16452-obama-to-restore-science-to-its-rightful-place.html)
" in his
inauguration speech of January 2009.
Two months later, a _presidential memo_
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Memorandum-for-the-Heads-of-Executive-Departments-and-Agencies-3-9-
09/) seemed to seal the deal: "The public must be able to trust the
science and scientific process informing public policy decisions," Obama
stated.
Scientific information used by the federal government in making policy
should be published, he added, and political officials should not suppress or
alter scientific findings. _John Holdren_
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/about/leadershipstaff/director)
, director of the White
House Office of Science and Technology Policy, was given 120 days to draft a
new policy on scientific integrity in government.
We're still waiting for that policy to see the light of day. The precise
reasons for the lengthy delay remain unclear – the watchdog group Public
Employees for Environmental Responsibility has even _sued the government_
(http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=1414) under the Freedom of
Information Act, in an attempt to obtain documents that may explain the
impasse.
But it seems likely that the sticking point has been resistance from
government officials who just don't like the accountability that the new
policy is
supposed to usher in.
The latest whispers indicate that the policy should appear this month.
When it does, scientists must scrutinise it carefully. One of the key things
to look out for is a stipulation that the science on which policy decisions
are based is made public. If any wriggle room on that point is allowed, it
will be impossible in future to prevent abuses like the infamous
interference of Julie MacDonald, a senior official in the Bush administration's
Fish
and Wildlife Service, who _routinely edited scientific documents_
(http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/political-interference-i
n.html) to influence decisions about listings under the Endangered
Species Act.
By comparison, last month's _revelation on Politico.com_
(http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44921.html) that Obama's White
House falsely
implied that its six-month moratorium on offshore oil drilling, introduced
during the Deepwater Horizon spill, had the backing of scientific peer review
seems like a relatively minor offence. Reading the _official report_
(http://www.politico.com/static/PPM152_101109_oig_report.html) into the
allegation, there is no smoking gun to disprove the administration's claim
that the
offending language was merely the result of sloppy editing, with no intent
to deceive.
But there is no room for complacency. _Francesca Grifo_
(http://www.ucsusa.org/news/experts/francesca-grifo.html) , who heads the
Scientific Integrity
Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), says that her phone is
no longer ringing off the hook like it did during the worst excesses of
the Bush administration. But government scientists who are worried about
political interference in their work still call Grifo for advice – and the
_latest survey_
(http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/driving-fox-from-henhouse-food-safety-report.pdf)
from the UCS makes
disturbing reading.
In March, the UCS sent a questionnaire to scientists involved in food
safety at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the US Department of
Agriculture. Of those who replied, 23 per cent said that they had been asked to
"inappropriately exclude or alter technical information" from agency
scientific documents within the previous year.
The survey offers little evidence that things have improved much under
Obama. At the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Nutrition, they may even have
got worse. In 2006, during Bush's second term, a similar UCS survey found
that 10 per cent of its scientists they had been asked to inappropriately
exclude or alter information in the previous year; the 2010 figure was 16 per
cent.
Government scientists also remain nervous about speaking out in public, or
to the media, for fear of annoying their superiors. Open discourse is
central to scientific progress – which is why clear guidance to government
scientists freeing them to express their opinions on scientific matters should
be another cornerstone of the delayed policy on scientific integrity.
Helpfully, the UCS had drafted a _model media policy_
(http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/Model-Media-Policy-1.pdf)
for
government agencies. It stresses both that scientists have a fundamental right
to express their personal views, provided it is made clear that they are
not representing an agency position, and also that they have the right to
review and approve any publication that significantly relies on their
research.
While some other constituencies are deserting him, Obama largely still has
the support of the scientific community. He is seen as a friend of
science, who with his allies in Congress ensured that a generous dollop of
_stimulus spending_
(http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126984.000-obama-goes-all-in-for-science.html)
was devoted to research.
But scientists mustn't allow their fondness for this President to
constrain their criticism of his administration, if it is justified. The long
delay
in the scientific integrity policy is worrying, and when it finally
appears it must be scrutinised in detail, and criticised loudly if it fails to
deliver the goods.
Obama may be a friend of science, but many of the functionaries in his
administration are rather less friendly. And if he fails to institute a sea
change on the crucial issue of scientific integrity in government, there will
be little to prevent a future President who sees little value in science
from taking us back to the bad old days
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
